Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Ms Harrington moved resolution 22:

That, in the opinion of this House, the time has come for a fundamental assessment of provincial policies and practices concerning violence against women, therefore the Office Responsible for Women's Issues should undertake a thorough review including: (1) the rights of people accused of assault to function in a manner that could be considered dangerous to members of society, (2) the causes of violence against women and how the legacy of violence can be stopped, (3) the effectiveness of education programs and how they can better serve victims of violence, and (4) the accessibility of shelters for battered women and the need for shelters in all communities.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Pursuant to standing order 94(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for her presentation. Following the completion of the remarks of the member who has moved the motion, the debate will proceed with members of the various parties speaking in rotation. Each recognized party in the House is allotted a period of 15 minutes to debate the item of business. Debate will proceed in clockwise rotation among the parties until the time allotted to the parties has expired.

The mover of the motion may speak a second time during this period in the time provided for her party. The mover of the motion has two minutes in which to reply. The time remaining for each party and for the member who moves the motion to speak initially to the motion or reply to the debate will be indicated on the Legislature timer display.

Ms Harrington: Mr Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to put forward this resolution to the House, which is both timely and far-reaching.

At the end of my presentation, I would ask the House for consent to omit clauses 1, 3 and 4 because, since this resolution was written last June, I have decided I want to deal basically with the big picture without focusing on specific parts of this.

This government was formed last October with a very strong mandate and a commitment for social change, equality and social justice. We have seen many examples of that over the past year. We have seen the rights and services for disabled people improved, self-determination for native people initiated, protection for tenants legislated and proposed labour reform has been started. I believe our agenda has moved ahead considerably. But even more than that, I believe that in one year there has been a significant change in attitude in Ontario and I really want that to continue.

If members remember back almost a year ago, in the throne speech we made a commitment as a government, and I will quote that exactly to you. It says the government will "deal resolutely with violence against women and children. It is time now for society to come face to face with this reality."

Now, one year later, I want to refocus that commitment. That is exactly why this resolution is here before us so that all of us, I hope on all sides of the House, can work together to make sure that goal is clearly accomplished. This past year has been a time of transition, and as we have said in this House, a time of coming to grips with very difficult economic realities. There are huge challenges and I would like to set this resolution in the context of what we face right now.

We as a government must evaluate and control the huge spending increases that have taken place in the last decade in health, education and social services. On top of that challenge, we have the massive restructuring of our manufacturing sector that is taking place around us whether we like it or not. The very heart of Ontario's economic machine is changing, and if that were not challenge enough we face a third challenge, Ontario's role in the new Constitution for Canada.

In these times of personal stress and economic strain everywhere in the province, we cannot leave out progress towards equality for women. Will it be seen as unimportant when the government's efforts must go to economic renewal? That is the question. Will women be seen as a drag on society or as a vital part of the economy in which they can help Ontario grow? I believe it is important, now more than ever, to bring women as full partners into the economic life of Ontario, so I would ask us all here to come to that face-to-face reality we talked about in the throne speech knowing that it is a very difficult, ugly and sensitive subject, that reality of violence against women.

I believe there are actually two realities, first of all, the reality of newspaper headlines which we all know about: 18-year-old Nina DeVilliers disappeared while jogging near her family's recreation club. The dismembered body of Burlington teenager Leslie Mahaffy was recovered encased in concrete from a lake. In January, 29-year-old Dr Carolyn Warrick was beaten to death virtually within view of security cameras in the basement of her Bay Street condominium building just one block from Queen's Park. I remember that night of January 27 because it is my son's birthday and I live in the building right next to Carolyn Warrick's. My family was visiting that night and we had ordered in Chinese food while she was being murdered.

There is another reality besides the headlines. The other reality is the one we do not hear about. Maude Barlow is a woman who speaks to many high school audiences about women's issues. One engaged teenaged girl said to her, "My father beats my mother, my uncle beats my aunt, my grandfather beats my grandmother; I didn't know there was any other way."

1010

On an August holiday weekend in 1990, I went to the local police station with a young woman I will call Ruth to help her deal with a complaint against two police officers. We had to take along her six children who were under the age of eight. Her husband beats her. She has been forced to flee to the local women's shelter before. Although ordered to pay support by the court, he refuses to pay. The support and custody enforcement office has such a backlog that Ruth's file has been on record for five years and has not yet been processed. She is trapped in the welfare system in Ontario Housing. She is a victim of frequent violent assaults. She has no feeling of security from police protection.

What happened in this case is very similar to many other cases, and I would like to add that where Ruth lives, what has happened to her has affected many of her neighbours as well. Women have become demoralized, discouraged and rendered powerless because they are poor. They live in public housing because they are women. When women are victimized and powerless, they rarely fight back. In this particular case, she declined to take any further action on her own behalf to follow up on the complaint. These women simply endure.

I would put to this House that this is a waste of human resources. Besides, as everyone in this province will tell you, it is a drain on our tax system. What is violence against women? Let's just state it clearly: it is a soul-destroying subordination, a loss of control of one's life, a loss of dignity, a feeling of entrapment, and the horror of living with constant violence. In the first reality of the newspaper headlines, people can say these are just isolated cases of psychotic killers, but with a second reality we cannot say that.

I would like to close this portion of my remarks by looking at the lesson of Montreal. On the evening of December 6, 1989, students were given their end-of-term papers in a quiet classroom in École polytechnique. A killer separated 14 young women from the men, called them feminists and shot them.

Anger and grief followed across Canada. Canadians struggled for the meaning of this act. Is it symbolic and symptomatic of our society that it fears or possibly hates women? Is there misogyny in our society?

Here is one analysis by the Canadian Auto Workers. What if a gunman walked into the middle of a bargaining session, asked management to leave, called the others a bunch of workers and executed them? The question of political versus personal would not arise. In Montreal it is not simply a personal act of madness. We must examine our collective conscience about the attitudes of society and we, as the leaders of this government in this province and on all sides, must be the first to do it.

Sexism is a deeply rooted refusal to acknowledge value and incorporate women's reality into the philosophy, practice and organization of society. When women's perspectives are undervalued, then it is easy to have violence, injustice, exploitation and the silencing of women, if condoned. Let's have the courage to speak out against overt and covert sexism, starting with the simple jokes and pinups in the workplace and going all the way to the laws of this land.

Ms Poole: I am very pleased to rise today to support this sensitive and thoughtful resolution by the member for Niagara Falls. There are two reasons why I am delighted to speak to this resolution. One goes to the fact that I am the newly appointed critic for women's issues for the official opposition, but perhaps more important is the passion I have for this particular issue and our attempts to find resolutions to it.

As a woman and as a Liberal, I am particularly proud of the steps our party took while we were in government to change the public's perceptions about violence towards women. Because of that commitment, more and more people have finally realized that wife assault and sexual assault indeed are crimes.

I am sure all members remember the powerful TV commercials on wife assault that our government produced. These ads made it very clear that wife assault is not a private family matter; it involves all of us. There is no excuse for it and it is a crime.

In addition to the massive public education campaigns, we took concrete, immediate steps to help victims of wife assault. The decision to give priority status to victims of wife assault who apply for public housing is just one example.

In January 1990, we began an ambitious program to address the issue of sexual assault. Almost $30 million was allocated over five years to expand services to victims of sexual assault, to improve the justice system's response to the crime and to encourage public education and prevention.

I am delighted to see that this government today has expanded upon this commitment and that today $14 million is being committed to these programs. However, if one looks at $14 million in the context of the $52 billion we spend annually with our provincial budget, perhaps that puts it in perspective. No matter how much we do, there is much more left to be done.

I believe the extent of violence against women truly is one of the most serious challenges facing our society today. Women do not always think about the threat of violence as they go about their daily lives, but the threat is always there. Action to stop wife assault and sexual assault is crucial if women are to move towards full equality. If you cannot even feel safe in your home and in your community, where can you? How can you reach your full potential as a person when operating under these circumstances?

Rarely a day goes by that we do not hear reports of sexual and physical assaults against women and girls. Unfortunately, those assaults that we hear about are only the tip of the iceberg. According to one study, almost 87% of sexual assault victims do not report the crime to the police, and a further 12% tell no one at all. The crimes that we hear about actually make up only a small fraction of what is going on.

Most studies of this problem come up with the same finding. One in four women is sexually assaulted at some point in her life. Half of these women are assaulted before the age of 17. I find those statistics absolutely frightening, and to those people, those naysayers who think these are gross exaggerations, I say study after study is showing they are indeed facts. Every 17 minutes there is a sexual assault committed in Canada; 90% of the victims are female and 99% of the perpetrators are male.

The number of men who have been sexually assaulted is lower. Estimates vary from roughly one in five to one in seven. However, these assaults largely occur to males under the age of 13, to children. Women, on the other hand, are sexually assaulted at any age. In approximately 95% of the cases of sexual assault of men, the offender is also male. But regardless of the different rates of risk, the effects of sexual assault on female and male adults and on children are extremely serious and can be equally damaging.

Every woman in our society can be at risk of assault. Contrary to what most people think, there is no one type of woman who is assaulted. The vast majority of women who are assaulted suffer at the hands of somebody they know. In fact, at least one woman in eight in Canada, it is estimated, is assaulted by her husband or partner. What is truly appalling is the finding that a woman is hit by her husband or partner an average of 30 times before she even calls the police.

As shocking as these statistics are, it is easy to believe they do not really apply to anybody we know. But I think if we look closer to home, we will find that may not be true. We have 28 women members of this House. Think of it. According to most statistics, that means seven of us have been or will be sexually assaulted at some point in our lives.

1020

Violence against women is widespread and systemic. It cannot be solved by simply checking the offenders into alcohol treatment programs or group therapy or by instructing women in the art of self-defence. They are valuable tools, of course, but they do not get at the underlying reasons for violence.

I really welcome the resolution the member for Niagara Falls has put forward. It is time that we assessed and reviewed the policies we have put in place to see if they are truly effective and to see if they are really working.

For instance, take a look at the vast array of ministries involved in programs relating to violence against women and sexual assault. There is a myriad of programs, in the ministries of the Solicitor General, Health, Community and Social Services, the Office of Francophone Affairs, Northern Development and Mines, the Ontario women's directorate, the ministries of Education, Colleges and Universities and Correctional Services.

On the one hand I think it is extremely positive that so many ministries in our government have been taking steps to sensitize them to the problem and to make sure their ministries respond to it, but on the other hand perhaps it is time we assessed whether the interministerial approach should be re-evaluated. For example, the Ministry of the Solicitor General is currently responsible for 21 existing rape crisis and sexual assault centres. I have always wondered why this was the purview of the Solicitor General's office as opposed to Comsoc, and perhaps that is something we should be looking into.

I believe that item 2 of the resolution by the member for Niagara Falls points to the crux of the issue: What are the causes of violence against women and how can this legacy of violence be stopped? Looking after the immediate needs of victims obviously has to be of the highest priority, whether it means providing shelter, emergency assistance, counselling, legal assistance or helping the victim make a new start. However, the only way we can ultimately put a stop to the legacy of violence is to attack the problem at its source.

When I was preparing my notes for today, I tried to list the various reasons why men commit acts of violence against women. I think part of it is the sociological implications: how boys are raised; their attitudes towards having to be tough and macho; their affinity for bodily contact in sports such as football, hockey, boxing and wrestling. There is another thing that I believe; that is, that it is the reinforcement of traditional sexual stereotypes. When people say to me, "As a woman member you are making a fine role model for your daughter," I say, "Equally important to me is I hope I am making a fine role model for my son." That is where the hope really lies, with our children.

Excuse me; I have been battling a cold all week. This issue was of such importance to me that even if my voice sounds like a cross between Elmer Fudd and Bugs Bunny at times, I did want to speak to this.

There is a well-known song by Harry Chapin which some members may have heard of. It is called Why Little Girls Grow Crooked, Why Little Boys Grow Strong. There are a couple of lines in there that talk about how girls are taught to reach the shelves, boys to reach the stars, and how girls are taught to take the messages while the boys take the calls. I am glad to say that much of that is changing, but there is still a lot of work to do in that area. It all goes back to what the member for Niagara Falls referred to about the gender power imbalance and control. It goes to cultural attitudes; it goes to the increasing pressures in our society and how we cope with them.

Violence against women is a difficult issue for all of us, whether we are male or female, but one concern I have is that by its very nature it tends to polarize men and women. Just think about it: the victims are women and 99% of the perpetrators are men. My heart and sympathy go out to any woman or child who has been a victim of violence. I can understand why the trauma of a violent experience might make a woman who has been brutalized by one man distrustful of all men, but maybe the rest of us do not have that same excuse. There are things we can do.

It has been quite disconcerting to me that a number of men have approached me in the past months -- these are men whom I consider to be allies for women in our fight for equality, very sensitive men who are the last to condone violence -- and they are saying they feel like criminals. With the barrage of figures on sexual assault and violence against women, men are feeling increasingly vulnerable because some members of their gender are committing these crimes.

I have three stories I would like to relate to the members which I think illustrate the point.

The first is at a conference in Banff, Alberta, and the members may remember reading about this in the newspaper. A leading feminist from the United States was visiting, and in her remarks she said the ultimate way to deal with violence against women is, "If necessary, we will take to the streets with guns ourselves and shoot them down." I cannot condone that. Violence against violence is not solving the problem.

The second relates to the tragic massacre at École polytechnique in Montreal almost two years ago. There was a lot of grieving in the period following those massacres. Maybe I should say, first, that I am a feminist and I am proud to be so, but to me there was some shame in my heart when at some of these vigils women denied men the right to grieve with us.

The final story I have to tell would, I guess, be funny and humorous if it were not so sad. It relates to the program "Wife Assault is a Crime." I think the members will remember the ads several years ago -- very effective, hard-hitting ads. Several of the ads were geared towards victims, and women as victims. At the end of the ad it would say: "Help is waiting for you. If you are a victim of sexual assault or wife assault, please call this 24-hour toll-free number and we will get help to you."

On the other hand, they had another set of ads that were geared to the perpetrators, the male offenders. The ad, in a very effective way, put across that wife assault is a crime. At the end of these ads, there was a statement, "If you are a male perpetrator and you need help, please write Queen's Park," and they gave the address. To me, it does not make any sense. You have an ad telling somebody that if they have done this they are a criminal, "but please write to us so that we can indict you with your own words."

My point, which I am not sure I am getting across, is that we have to look not only at the victims, which has to be a priority in dealing with this, but also at the perpetrators to make sure they get the counselling necessary so that these crimes do not recur. They cannot write Queen's Park. They need help as well.

My final point is that men and women must work together. It does not do for any of us, feminists or not, to blame all men as a sector. What we have to do is recognize the men -- and many of them are in this House today -- who have fought beside us, women, in our march towards equality. The important thing is to work together. When it all is said and done, the important thing is to solve the problem of violence against women.

Mrs Witmer: It is a pleasure to participate in the debate on the motion put forward by the member for Niagara Falls.

1030

It is absolutely essential that a thorough and complete review of this issue of violence against women be undertaken as soon as possible. I can assure members that this is a priority not only for myself but also for the PC caucus and for the members of the general public as well. Women and men -- and I think it is extremely important that we do include the men -- are more concerned than ever today about violence against women and they are more anxious than ever to stop this legacy of violence.

Indeed, in the recent Take Back the Night rally in Kitchener-Waterloo, approximately 500 women and children marched in the largest rally ever. They marched to express their outrage against sexual violence. The participants were as young as seven years old and as old as 72.

Why were there so many women and children at this rally? They indicated that they joined the march because the killings and the court decisions of this past summer left them feeling fed up. They indicated that they were there because they are angry. They can no longer walk on the streets of our cities and our towns without inordinate fear.

Yes, if you take a look at the polling, it shows that violence against women is uppermost in the minds of women. Violence and the fear of violence are depriving women of their ability to achieve equality in this country. It is a violation of a fundamental human right.

Although most violence against women has been invisible and unrecorded, the truth is slowly coming to light. The K-W sexual assault support centre received 221 crisis calls in the month of January this year.

However, the biggest problem still remains underreporting. Many women are afraid to go to the police because they feel the police response will be negative and that they will be further victimized by the courts. Fortunately these negative police attitudes are changing. However, more must continue to be done to increase the understanding of rape victims' needs and feelings.

Although the true numbers of women who are victims of violence may never be known, the estimates today paint a shocking picture in Canada. They indicate that over 90% of sexual assaults involve female victims. Did members know that 50% of women are afraid to go out after dark in their own neighbourhoods and at least one in four women will be sexually assaulted in her life?

Unfortunately it has consequences for the children, because children who witness the assault of their mothers have problems similar to children who are themselves physically abused, and sons of batterers are 10 times more likely to beat their wives than those who have not witnessed this behaviour. Unfortunately, violence breeds violence.

It is time, as the member has said, to examine the root causes of violence against women. There is presently very limited research on the underlying causes of violence against women. It is known that male abusers do grow up believing they are the ultimate authority in the household. They learn very early in life that to show any emotion whatsoever is a weakness. They are to be strong and aggressive.

As well, violence against women is linked to economic inequality between the sexes. The economic consequences of going out on their own have deterred many battered women from leaving an abusive partner. Women who leave an abusive situation often face the prospect of poverty. This must be eliminated.

This government must raise the profile of women's issues. It is of utmost importance to our caucus and we have tried on several occasions to introduce legislation that will assist victims of violence. It is unfortunate that our initiatives have been rejected.

This government must combat the attitudes and the stereotypes that encourage and excuse this senseless violence. They must ensure that the brutal people who commit these crimes are held accountable. They must provide help to the innocent victims.

Yes, I welcome this thorough review and this assessment of the provincial policies and the practices. Women cannot achieve equality in our society unless violence against women is eliminated, and I would encourage all men and women in this House and men and women throughout this province to join in that fight to truly, once and for all, eliminate violence against women.

Mr Mills: It is a pleasure for me to take part in this debate here this morning and perhaps offer a different perspective on it.

As some members may know, I spent over 20 years as a police officer in Canada and investigated and had the opportunity to look into many cases of violence against women. I remember the first time this unfortunate chore fell upon me was in the 1950s. In the 1950s we all had that chromium kitchen set. I remember going to this house, and I can see it in front of my eyes as I stand here today. This person had torn the legs off the chrome table and thrown them through the kitchen wall like darts. The lady had a huge lump on the side of her face.

In those days, we called those domestic disputes. The action for the police was, believe it or not, that we provided protective custody for the husband overnight, waiting for the victim to go in the morning before a justice of the peace to lay an information so that we could proceed in the courts with an assault case. But, as members know, the wives did not do that. They were frightened. They did not go forward because they knew that once they did that and the summons was issued, the man would be free to go home and beat the daylights out of his wife and she would leave and have nowhere to live.

Unfortunately that blight on society in the 1950s is also a blight on society in the 1990s. All forms of sexual assault against women, whether it be violence, whether it be sexual, whether it be degrading material or making women perform lewd acts, has got to stop. I think our government is really committed to doing that.

What bothers me most is that in these economic tough times, when we are looking at programs and where we can best spend our dollar, the government is committed to spending over $14 million in 1991-92 to educate people in what I consider is a basic obligation to treat other human beings in a respectful way. It is a sad measure of society when we have to spend all of this money to teach people to behave right. I think that is absolutely a sad measure of what goes on in Ontario today.

I could stand here and speak of the initiatives of the Solicitor General's office, and there are many. We have provided core funding for sexual assault centres. We have expanded 10 sexual assault centres. We have crisis counselling, diverse community outreach and regional sexual assault centres, and perhaps above all, we are trying to educate policemen in a way to respond to the needs of victims of violence, and particularly women. I know that the Ontario Police College at Aylmer now has a course specifically geared to educate police officers in this very delicate and sensitive issue.

I thank the member for Eglinton for her comments, particularly about the fact that she feels some of the things we do at the Solicitor General should be in Comsoc. I have some empathy with that decision, because it makes a great deal of sense to me. I would be pleased to take her concerns to the minister and maybe we can generate some discussion.

I could go on and on at length. I have a deep empathy with this situation through my experience, but in deference to my colleagues who also want to partake in this debate, I will leave it at that and thank the other members for their participation.

1040

The Acting Speaker: I believe the Liberal official opposition has used up all of its time. Further debate on behalf of the Progressive Conservative caucus?

Mr Jackson: Let me start my brief comments this morning by saying those who have watched the work I have done in this House for the last three sessions would be aware that this is the one issue which I have persistently and consistently been discussing before this House. I see the member for Cambridge is here. He is very much familiar with the four or five private member's resolutions I have tabled in this subject area.

What I am about to say may offend a few people, but I believe it with all my heart. If there were ever issues in this country and in this province that do not need studying, they are the issues contained in this resolution. Never before in the history of this province have we had a cabinet that had within its membership more people who understood at first hand this issue, and yet we are being told today that we need further study.

I could use up the next eight minutes just reading into Hansard the lists and the titles of all the studies that have been done on domestic violence, incestuous violence, violence against children, offences against women. Yet we are told today somehow that we need to study this. I can assure members that we do not need to study it on this side of the House, and I am at a complete loss today to understand why the cabinet of this Premier needs to study this issue.

I hope to lay out a couple of concerns with this resolution in terms of the kinds of things we are about to study, first, "the rights of people accused of assault to function in a manner that could be considered dangerous to members of society."

On the one hand, for example, we have heard a policy initiative from this government that Comsoc is considering opening up some of the regulations in the Young Offenders Act. Yet on the other hand, we know that we are putting back out on to the street violent criminals, even though the crime occurred at a juvenile stage, but they are now being released as adults. They get the right to reject any kind of therapy, any kind of support. We know that is a serious problem, and I raised the issue of the young lad who was released out into the community of Oakville and Burlington after murdering his entire family.

We are going to study "the causes of violence against women and how the legacy of violence can be stopped."

We had enough information on this whole subject. It has been the subject of two resolutions in this House in the last seven years that I have been here. I can tell members that when I was working with my colleague Richard Johnston, I put forward a resolution that in education we have to start reforming the program needs of children so that we do not develop inappropriate models for our children, because a lot of it is based on not only public through the media, but also through some of the educational programs that are in our schools.

We resolved two and a half years ago that the ministry had a 14th goal, that education develop an awareness of those stereotypes and assumptions that contribute to the unequal position of women in contemporary society, and I can tell members that when I have asked the subsequent Education ministers about the resolution I tabled, we have had no meaningful action on that agenda item.

Violence in our schools is a serious problem. Do we have a task force looking into that? We have received all the reports from the teachers' federations on this. It is occurring today in our schools.

We are going to look at "the effectiveness of educational programs." I appreciate the brutal honesty of the member for Eglinton to say how concerned she was that after spending some $2 million on advertising that hitting your wife is a crime in this province, you phone to get help, only to be put on hold. In this province, 10,000 women seeking help with shelters were denied access last year. Why do we need to advertise for them to pick up the phone? What we need is shelters, which is the fourth thing we are going to study, "the accessibility of shelters."

We have all the numbers. I can tell members that in my community the government told them to apply for a shelter. I have a letter on file, because I am going to use the M word. Theresa Greer, the executive director of Halton Women's Place, said this NDP government has misled them. There is a copy of the letter, and it is a matter of record that this government has been dancing around for over a year on a women's shelter for Burlington. In Burlington we are taking families from Peel, from Fergus, from Guelph and a few from Hamilton, and Burlington people and Oakville people cannot get inside their own shelter because of the backlog. We do not need to study this issue.

With regard to the area of court reforms, members are aware that I have been fighting to get Ontario to act. This is the last province in Canada to have a victims' bill of rights. All members of the House stood up and said they supported it in principle, but the NDP government decided, "No, we're not going to proceed with victims' rights."

A question on the Orders and Notices paper was just responded to by the Attorney General. It is unfortunate that the member for Rainy River is the Attorney General, because he tells us that at this time the ministry is not proposing to create a bill of rights for victims of crime in Ontario and he says there are limitations caused, in part, by insufficient resources. Is that not a crying shame? We cannot provide the badly needed support for these women and these children because we do not have the badly needed resources.

If it is not a priority, if violence against the person is not a priority for this government, it cannot be anybody's priority. We control the purse strings in this province. We are the only ones responsible for reforms, meaningful reforms, really changing things in this province, because we control the money. All the volunteer efforts in the world out there in the field are going nowhere unless we can provide those shelters.

That is why, as it has been stated earlier, it is our number one social policy concern. It has been for the last four years and it will continue to be, if you listen to those families or if you listen to a Franca Capretta. This woman had her husband grab her by the hair and take her out to her front lawn and beat her with a steel pipe. She spent more time in the intensive care unit of an Ottawa hospital than her husband spent behind bars. That is our criminal justice system in this province. Every province in this country and the national government have said the only way to change our criminal justice system is to set a victims' bill of rights into our Criminal Code, yet Ontario does not have the resources at this time.

The real tragedy is that we have one of the best cabinets to understand the needs of women we have ever seen in our history and yet we have second-class programs relative to the priority that is made in other provinces.

There are so many other things I wanted to mention. The victims' bill of rights is not going to be proceeded with during the term of this government. We will now be five years behind the last province that brought in victims' rights legislation. The Ontario Coalition of Rape Crisis Centres is concerned that this government has not seen fit to provide the stabilized core funding other provinces have given, because those centres should not live from hand to mouth for their funding every year.

Finally the member for Oakville South and I are here today to say simply that our communities are fed up with the idea of study. Our communities want reforms now. We have buried two young teenagers this year, Nina DeVilliers and Leslie Mahaffy, and our community has said enough is enough. All children are at risk, all women are at risk and we had better get on with the business of these reforms, not studying them.

Mr G. Wilson: I am certainly pleased to join this debate that has been initiated by my colleague and joined in by members from the other two parties. In particular, I want to mention the critic for women's issues, the member for Eglinton, for her very moving and factual account. She certainly raised a number of issues that lead to some insight into what we will need. The member for Waterloo North also raised some matters that will help us in our deliberations. The member for Burlington South certainly added an edge to the discussion at this point that I think is also needed and bears some looking at.

1050

I want to say first, from a personal perspective as a husband and the father of two young daughters, that I am certainly very aware of the concern about violence against women. It is a daily issue -- the question of locked doors, for instance, and the safety of going to school and the concern about after-dark hours. It is closer to home in another way, in that I live in the building where Dr Carolyn Warrick, mentioned by my colleague, was murdered. That was a very gripping and tragic event that certainly focused the attention of all of us on the need to deal with this issue.

I agree with the member for Burlington South that our government is well positioned to offer a lot of leadership in this role. My colleague who was the Minister without Portfolio responsible for women's issues and who recently resigned, the member for Scarborough West, certainly showed a lot of leadership on this issue, based on a lot of experience. I know her support is still there. Certainly the minister now responsible for women's issues, the member for London Centre, will still have that kind of leadership.

I want to say, though, that the issue of money has always been a concern and it cannot be left entirely to governments. It depends on the organizations we have in the community that deal with shelters and counselling services. Certainly they have done it in the past, and with our help they will do it in the future. We all have to recognize the participation and the contribution they have made up to this point and that it has to be supported.

I want to look at something very definite, also from my own experience, and that is the role of unions in highlighting the issues of all workers in general but certainly women in particular. Through organizing, women are able to try to boost their economic security. It is certainly something mentioned by, I think, all three of the opposition members. I look forward to their support in helping unions organize, because if that is the route we want to take, and in my experience it has been a very real benefit, then we will want to see more women organized in unions to push for greater economic equality. But unions provide more than economic equality. They also provide a voice.

Looking at the issue, it certainly is one that is very deep. The member for Burlington South seems to think that after a year we should have this thing put on the shelf as being solved. It is deeply rooted in our society and it is part of the socialization of both boys and girls in our society to accept the roles that have been traditionally allotted to them. This is the thing we have to work against. Again, unions are very important in this role in fighting for the economic equality of women and also giving them a voice in fighting for the things they find important for our society -- indeed that are important to both men and women -- things like child care, pay equity and safety in the workplace and in the home.

Another point that should be raised is that trying to create a safer society for women -- that is, the fight against violence against women that happens so often in the home and is disguised -- by bringing it out into the open, in a way that is effective and that depends on women coming forward, can be accomplished through organizations, which can be not only the voluntary organizations in our community that governments can support but also through unions. I think that is another point in their favour.

Finally, by removing the threat of male violence against women, it not only helps society in that it relieves that burden on women, but it also brings men into the 20th century. It is a crime. It has to be recognized as such. It also frees them from that kind of mentality. With those remarks, I would like to turn the debate over to the other members.

Mr Owens: I am not going to say it is with any kind of pleasure that I stand up to address this issue today, because this issue brings me, and I am sure all members of this House, absolutely no pleasure.

I find myself in a very strange position today in that I have to agree with the member for Burlington South. We have the evidence. We know what the problems are. We need to start action.

Our government has been probably the most proactive of any government in the history of this country in terms of assigning money and going out to take action on this subject, but still, as the member for Burlington South mentioned, we have had to bury a Nina DeVilliers and we have had to bury a Leslie Mahaffy. This issue is not getting any better.

We as a Legislature have to start by setting an example that we have zero tolerance for this issue. The statistics that have been recited here and many more that we could talk about are absolutely appalling. One in four women will be sexually assaulted before they reach adolescence. To me, this is absolutely and completely appalling.

The one issue I will disagree with the member for Burlington South on is the need to construct shelters. I understand we have an acute need for a place for people to go at this point but I can assure him that by constructing more shelters, by constructing more rape crisis centres and not dealing with the root cause of the problem, we are simply institutionalizing violence against women. To me, that is inappropriate.

We need to get to the root cause of the problem and we need to deal with it. We have talked about two particular people today who have recently died at the hands of men. I am sure that later on this fall, when members of this Legislature attend the Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses lobby, this group will bring to our attention many more whose names have not made the paper.

Again, the bottom line is that we need to start looking at changes in laws. We need to take a look at the position of women in the criminal justice system, at how women are treated, and at how children are treated. Do we make this system accessible to these people?

This government is currently undertaking a witness protection program for children to encourage the reporting of abuse. We are undertaking a protocol that is modelled on a project conducted in Duluth, Minnesota, where perpetrators of violence against women are automatically charged. What has been found is that by charging people the rate of recidivism drops immensely.

As a legislator, and I am sure other members in this House share the feeling, when the Supreme Court of Canada released a decision dropping the rape shield defence, I was saddened, because no doubt not having this protection in place will certainly have a chilling effect on the reporting of sexual assault and sexual abuse.

In my mind there is absolutely no relevance in a person's sexual history prior to an assault taking place. It does not matter what the person was involved in prior to the assault. The fact is an assault has taken place. That is a criminal activity and any other evidence should not be a factor. This has unfortunately been dropped.

I read recently that people from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association are now backpedalling on their position that this was a good thing, that all civil liberties should be intact. Unfortunately, between the time the federal government can introduce legislation and get it passed, the numbers of victims who will have to pass through this process cannot be estimated and the amount of damage that will be caused is inestimable. Again, I refer to the chilling effect this kind of decision has on the reporting of assaults.

As the member for Scarborough Centre, I and a committee are working hard to establish a women's legal clinic to deal with victims of sexual assault, domestic violence and incest survivors, but again, the bottom line is that we can establish clinics all over the province, we can establish shelters all over the province, we can establish shelters all over the province, but until we deal with the systemic issues, the power relationships between men and women, this problem is going to continue.

1100

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Niagara Falls has two minutes to summarize.

Ms Harrington: First of all, I must say that this is not a resolution which asks for a study. This resolution wants an assessment of the provincial policies and their effectiveness. The ministries' programs now have a three-pronged approach: first, services such as counselling and shelters; second, work within the justice system to stop violence against women; and third, education and prevention programs. We want to assess those programs and see if they are working and see if we can do better. Whenever there is an educational program, the demands for counselling and shelter services escalate so quickly that we cannot meet the need.

For me, I want to reiterate how I feel and what has been said, I think, by one other speaker; that is, that it is a vicious cycle. In true reality this is it, the vicious cycle: violence against women makes women unequal in society, and because women are unequal in society there is violence against women. It just perpetuates itself. Inequality is shame, fear, guilt, powerlessness. It is a cycle that affects the richness of our lives, it affects the economic health of this province and it is ultimately passed on to the next generation. We all know that children witnessing violence become most likely users of violence.

In Niagara Falls we have a shelter and it has a button that says, "You can't beat a woman." Does that not sound nice? But in Canada you can; you can beat a woman, too often with impunity. You can beat a woman, and the police, if they charge you at all, will charge you reluctantly, very often, and you can do it again and again. Women who seek shelter go there after 35 assaults, usually.

I would just like to end by saying this is an issue of power in our society and control in our society, and violence is, I think, parallel to slavery in our society. It was accepted for thousands of years and it was abolished, I believe, if history is correct, in a few decades. Inequality of women, violence against women, has been accepted in part of our society for thousands of years. Surely this can be the decade when we do something about it.

EMPLOYEE WAGE PROTECTION

Mr Kwinter moved resolution 19:

That, in the opinion of this House, given the horrendous negative effect the policies and proposals of the New Democratic Party government have already had on the investment and job creation climate in Ontario, and given the deliberately antibusiness proposal by the federal Conservative government to introduce a payroll tax to fund its wage protection program, thus making successful workers and employers pay the costs for their unsuccessful counterparts, the present government of Ontario should at no time introduce a payroll tax as a means of funding the employee wage protection program.

The Acting Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 94, the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation and will have two minutes to wrap up.

Mr Kwinter: Events have overtaken this resolution in some respect. When this resolution was introduced into the order list, it was felt that this was a serious problem. Now it is a very critical problem. What we have is a situation where the heartland of Canada, the industrial heartland, the economic heartland, is under severe siege.

Many of these events are not of any one individual's particular doing or any one government's particular doing; it is accumulation of various global effects, things that are happening. But the impact is being felt in Ontario far more severely than anywhere else in Canada, and there is a very good reason for that, the reason being that we in Ontario are the manufacturing, business and financial centre of Canada.

Some of our colleagues across the country are not happy when they hear that. They think that somehow or other Ontario is boasting. It is not a boast, it is a fact: 42% of the economic activity in this country takes place in Ontario, the bulk of the manufacturing is here, 75% of all the securities traded on the Canadian stock exchange in total are traded in Toronto, and it is the home of five of the six major banks in Canada. Whether one likes it or not, this is where a great part of the economic activity in this country takes place.

Now, that is good news and it is bad news. The good news, of course, is that it has given Ontario a standard of living that is the highest in Canada. It is no secret that the engine -- I do not mean this to be a pun -- that drives the economy of Canada is the automotive industry, and most of it is located in Ontario. The spinoffs of that industry filter through small-town Ontario, because there are small machine shops, there are small suppliers, people who supply the automotive industry. That is where the well-paying jobs are, that is where we get the bulk of our export activity, and it is critical to Ontario's economic wellbeing.

What has happened to change that? The thing that has happened, of course, is that we are now into a global economy. Where traditionally our competition came from our neighbours to the south in the United States or from western Europe -- the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy -- that has changed. We certainly still get a great deal of competition from those areas, but there are new players emerging virtually every day.

Many of the members, and I have said this before, are old enough to remember that if they ever gave somebody something made in Japan, they would be embarrassed if he turned it over and it said, "Made in Japan." That was synonymous with cheap and shoddy goods. Now, of course, the Japanese have come on to the scene. They started out in electronics. They moved into the automotive sector, so much so that for the first time in history the number one selling automobile in the United States is the Honda Accord.

We have pressures from Taiwan, Thailand, Singapore, Hong Kong, Mexico, coming on the scene; Brazil, some of the eastern European countries. All of these things are bringing pressure to bear on our competitiveness. When we ask if we are competitive -- unfortunately, there are those who think that is a buzzword. When we are trying to be productive or competitive, that is the buzzword for bashing labour. I want to suggest that has nothing to do with it at all. It is a fact of life.

You can rail to your heart's delight about the fact that you have to protect jobs, but you only have to protect jobs as long as those jobs are relevant, as long as they are producing things that can be sold. There is not much sense in producing something if it cannot be sold, and there is not much sense in producing something if it is overpriced so that in the global competition someone else is selling that product at equal quality but at better price, or at better quality and better price, which is also a possibility.

So my concern -- and I do not want to single out this government alone, because I have to admit that when we were in government we fell into some of the same things. There is always an incredible demand for more service and more money. The easiest thing to do, and this is what disturbs me particularly from the government side, is to fall into the trap of feeling that business does not pay its share and saying, "Let's add this on because they have a responsibility."

1110

When I sat on the committee that toured the province listening to people's comments on the budget, I was quite disturbed at the number of people who appeared and said: "We've got to get the corporate welfare bums. We have all these corporations that are not paying any taxes and we've got to do something about it."

The misinformation among those people is frightening, because there is an attitude that business is out there just having a free ride, and it is not. They may not be paying any profit taxes if they are not making any profits, but they are paying taxes. They are paying workers' compensation taxes. They are paying dividend taxes. They are paying sales taxes, in many respects. They are paying employee health taxes. They are paying corporate concentration taxes. They are paying a wide range of taxes that help create the kind of infrastructure, support the kind of municipalities that look to these businesses, because without them, the tax base for their citizens would just be too onerous.

At the end of the day, some of them may make a profit and they will pay a tax on their profit. Others do not make a profit and they do not pay any tax. It is no different from an individual. If you do not earn a certain income, you do not pay any tax. What we have done consecutively over the last few years is, we keep increasing the number of people who do not pay that tax.

When we talk about an employee wage protection plan, I do not think there is anybody who would not argue that a person who works and earns an income should be entitled to have that income; no question about that. And if a company fails, there is a feeling that there should be some kind of wage protection plan to pay for it. The problem I have with that is the same problem I have with several other plans that are similar to that. What the government is doing is saying to the successful company, "You have to pay for the unsuccessful company."

We have the same thing exactly in two other areas. When you deposit money in a bank, we have the Canada Deposit Insurance Corp, and we also have in Ontario, in the credit unions, OSDIC, the Ontario Share and Deposit Insurance Corp. If you put $60,000 into your bank account, it is insured. If you exceed it, you are at risk. What happens is that the ones who have to pay the insurance for that are the big banks that in theory will never go bust. The chances of the Royal Bank of Canada going bankrupt, I would say, are quite remote.

Notwithstanding that, they must pay an insurance premium on every dollar they take in to pay for that. But who are the beneficiaries? They are some of the weaker institutions, the ones that are poorly funded, poorly managed, that go out of business, and the big banks have to pay for it.

We have a situation with the pension protection act as well where, if you have a pension plan, you must pay a certain amount of money into it to protect those people who have pensions, and if the company goes broke, it cannot pay for them. The problem we have with that is that it absolutely discourages people from taking pension plans, and we have a situation where most people do not have a pension plan. The reason for that is that companies will not do it because the cost is too onerous.

It is exactly the same thing with a payroll tax that is used to fund an employee wage protection package. What you have is another deterrent. It is another reason why someone will say, "I'm going to go to another jurisdiction. I'm going to set up in New York or Quebec or British Columbia or wherever," and I say that because of what I think is a very precarious situation, we are in severe danger of losing our competitiveness.

Mrs Witmer: I am pleased to see that the honourable member who introduced the motion this morning has been radically transformed and recognizes that payroll taxes such as the employer health tax are not appropriate.

Ever since the government introduced Bill 70, I have been extremely concerned that this program would eventually be funded by a payroll tax. Indeed, I am very afraid that this payroll tax is going to be introduced in next April's budget because it is in April of next year, 1992, that the first 18 months of Bill 70 end, and at that time, of course, the government does have the opportunity to make whatever changes it wishes if the legislation passes as it is. Certainly in questioning that I have done to both the Minister of Labour and the Treasurer in asking them about the prospect of a future payroll tax, neither the Treasurer nor the Minister of Labour has given me any assurance whatsoever that there will not be another tax imposed on employers in this province.

I feel that it is important to remind this government that payroll taxes -- and this has certainly been well documented and well demonstrated in the past -- do reduce our competitiveness. They do severely impair job creation, they do hurt economic growth and they do put a squeeze on small business, and we have to remember it is the small business community that creates most of the jobs in this province. Not only does it put a squeeze on small business; it also has a very punitive impact on businesses in this province. I believe that the current recession has clearly demonstrated that this government must not introduce a single new measure that will in any way, shape or form impair Ontario's competitiveness.

I think we need to remember that businesses in this province already sustain a much higher total tax burden than similar businesses located in Quebec and and British Columbia, so, "Why would you stay in this province?" is the question that many business people are asking today.

I am concerned that the cost of this fund is going to escalate because the average claim has escalated. In April they told us the average claim was $3,254, and in July we learned that the average claim was $4,200. Thus, in the future, businesses in this province may well be levied for an enhanced fund, because Bill 70 is going to give the minister the power to change the maximum amount of compensation and also the terms of the package without the need to bring the legislation back to the House for full public consultation and scrutiny.

I would like to share with members the concerns of some of the members of my community. This past week I had an opportunity to meet with the members of the Waterloo economic development strategy committee. We have many businesses in Waterloo and Kitchener that are failing and that are concerned about their future. There was one small business person there who employed 35 employees. They have enjoyed prosperity in this province. They are a high-tech industry that is continuing to grow. They now export 80% of their products abroad and are managing to compete globally.

However, because of the increase in taxation, this individual has indicated that any further expansion will be south of the border. I have to tell members this is a message that I am hearing from employers throughout this province. They are downsizing and they are not creating employment opportunities because they are very fearful of the economic climate and the increased possibility of taxation on the employer.

During the public hearings this past summer we heard some very grim testimony from many groups about the impact of Bill 70 and particularly the introduction of this payroll tax as a means of funding. I would like to share some of their concerns with members. Before I do that, I would like to add that I think it is extremely unfortunate that the NDP government, as a result of the public hearings, did not introduce a single substantive amendment.

1120

The Canadian Manufacturers' Association indicated to us that no employer tax or payroll tax be established to fund the program in the future. To do so would be detrimental to the economy of Ontario by making it even less competitive, resulting in fewer jobs for Ontario workers. Almost all jurisdictions with which we compete offer a far more competitive tax environment.

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

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

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

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

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

These are the types of comments that we heard this summer, and there is one from the Information Technology Association of Canada: "A payroll tax will drop with a thud on the scales when weighing in against the investment case for Ontario. You should recognize that it is not only the cost of doing business in a given environment that investors will measure."

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

As the Premier rightly noted when he was Leader of the Opposition and criticizing the then government's decision to impose the employer health tax on the province's employers in lieu of OHIP premiums, "Payroll taxes are a tax on small business and a tax on jobs." It is obvious that the Premier no longer considers that to be the case, but he did indicate that payroll taxes are a tax on small business and a tax on jobs, and we would certainly concur with that statement.

In conclusion, I would urge this government to reject the introduction of the payroll tax. I would remind them that we no longer have a healthy tax advantage here in the province of Ontario. I would remind them of the 32 tax increases that were introduced by the Liberals, including the EHT.

At a time when there is economic insecurity, at a time when we have many people throughout this province suffering great hardship because of lost jobs and at a time when the neighbours to the south of us are actively recruiting businesses and encouraging them to move, I would encourage the members of this government to do everything they possibly can to stem this tide. I would urge them to focus their efforts on the creation of jobs and doing everything possible to do so. I do not see this happening.

I can assure them that another payroll tax is going to create more hardship. It is going to contribute to more job losses for workers. Unfortunately it is going to be the final nail in the coffin for the businesses that are presently struggling to survive in the very uncertain economic climate that has been created in this province.

Ms S. Murdock: What was interesting so far in what I have been hearing is that it seems as if this payroll tax is already in place and a fait accompli, which it is not. I would like that clearly on the record. There is no doubt that the funding of the employee wage protection program seems to be a topic of great concern. It was during the hearings this summer and it obviously still is this morning and again this afternoon, when we debate Bill 70.

Throughout the public hearings and in the written submissions that the committee received, groups expressed their views as to who should pay, and the options presented by all groups that appeared before us were basically only three. One, of course, was that we leave the situation as it exists now, presently, in a status quo and workers who have earned wages and benefits, not social benefits but actual wage benefits and other benefits that they have earned, do not get paid. For us that was not an option. We are not willing to do nothing.

The second option that was presented to us by most of the groups was basically that we do what the federal government is doing. Anything that the Conservatives in Ottawa are doing is not something that we would generally follow anyway, but certainly taxing the employer or taxing solvent businesses to pay for their unsuccessful counterparts was not the way that we thought we should go at a time of recession. It is true that businesses, as has been so eloquently stated by the members opposite, are overburdened at this time. Our general feeling and our sense of responsibility is that we cannot go with in that option, certainly while the province of Ontario is in such hard times.

The third option we had presented, and this was in the employee wage protection program, was the consolidated revenue fund paying for it. In that instance, the arguments that we got in committee this summer were basically why should the taxpayer pay for employers who have gone out of business or who have left the province willingly and it is not fair that the taxpayers should pay that.

If we listen to all of those arguments then it ends up that we are back where we started again. No one is paying. The employer who has gone bankrupt or who has left is not paying the worker whose wages have been earned. If we do not take it from the consolidated revenue fund and we do not do a payroll tax, then the worker is the one who is penalized. Interestingly many felt, from all sides, and that is both management and labour, that taxpayers should not be responsible for the debts incurred by a few, and yet all agree that the workers should not be penalized. There was no one who said that people who earned money and worked for it should not be paid what they were owed. Generally the feeling was that successful employers should not be penalized either.

Right now the plan is that the program will be funded by general revenues, and the member for Waterloo North certainly has said that as of April 1992 that 18-month funding program is going to be completed and a decision will have to be made. There are no plans to impose a payroll tax. I should make that very clear; there are no plans. That is not to say it is not going to happen, but this resolution today is, I think, very presumptuous, because in no way could I agree to make such a decision as suggested in this resolution in the bottom line, that the "government of Ontario should at no time introduce a payroll tax as a means of funding the employee wage protection program."

Personally, I think it would hamstring any future decisions made by the Treasurer, even though the amount of the payroll tax for the employee wage protection program would in all likelihood, at least by our estimation, be almost infinitesimal and be impractical as to standing by itself. The method of payment to workers is either by the fund or a tax and either one of those is not a decision for me alone to make, nor should we have to do this in terms of a future basis.

My personal recommendation -- I said this in committee so I am not speaking out of turn -- is not to go by way of increased taxes. I have no difficulty in stating that, but as we have learned only too well in the past year, you never say never. That is what this resolution is asking me to do. I would not presume to do that.

I thank members for allowing me to make that statement.

1130

Mr Phillips: I am pleased to join the debate and support my colleague's resolution. I was struck earlier this week when the Premier, I think in the very first piece of business when the House came back, said, "Renewing our economy must be the central focus of our work as a province." I very much agree with that. I think all of us have to work towards that.

The problem I think people in the business community have as they watch us proceed with this is that our actions often speak louder than our words. The very first thing that happened was the Treasurer saying that our spending is essentially out of control. "Out of control" may be strong words, but essentially out of control. Not our revenue. The stuff that the business community out there is generating seems to be coming in on track, but it is our spending that is out of control.

The business community that is struggling mightily -- believe me, it is tough out there, as we all know -- says, "My gosh, as we are trying to cut our expenditures, keep ourselves alive, somehow or other the government's spending is out of control." We will hear more about that next week, but that is one thing they worry about.

The second thing they worry about is just taxes. Here we have, with the wage protection fund, the threat -- the previous member from the government said, "We are not planning it at this time." That worries business. "At this time" worries them. As they are looking ahead at where they are going to invest, how much confidence they are going to have, that is another cloud on the horizon, "not at this time."

Certainly, as they look at that threat, they look at hydro rates going up 12% this year, and the announcement from Ontario Hydro is it will be 12% the following year and then another 12%. That is like a 40% increase in hydro rates. To a business person trying to survive in this economy, my gosh, that is frightening.

It is not just this that they worry about; it is the collection of it. The Treasurer has said in his budget, "We are going to have to raise taxes substantially." As a matter of fact, he says, "We are going to have to raise taxes at the rate of about $5 billion, new taxes, in order just to keep our deficit at about the $8-billion level." For the business community that is unbelievable: $5 billion of new taxes.

I know the government members often say, "We'll just tax the corporations, these rich, fat corporations." Let me tell members two things. One is that if we look at the federal government's Fiscal Monitor, here is what it says: "In the first quarter of 1991, corporate profits were 65% below their pre-recession peak and nearly 50% below the same quarter in 1990. As a result, corporate tax collections declined 24.9% in the first quarter of this year."

The second thing I would say about corporate taxes is that we think there is a lot of money there. What per cent of the provincial revenues do members think comes from corporate taxes right now? It is about $3 billion of about $45 billion. It is a relatively small part. There is not a huge windfall available in increasing corporate taxes. I know it sounds neat, but there is not a huge windfall to be found in increasing corporate taxes.

That is the first point I wanted to make. The business community, looking ahead at how it is going to invest, create jobs, create the kind of economic activity we are looking at, is extremely frightened. They partially welcomed the Premier's opening remarks this week about focusing on the economy. Then they look and see what we are doing -- spending out of control; $5 billion of new taxes coming on the horizon; the fact that corporate taxes are already falling on them substantially; a hydro rate increase of at least 12% this year and 12% for the foreseeable future -- and they are worried.

My colleague, in his resolution, pointed out the economic morass we are in right now, and we all know that, but I was looking just the other day at the plant closures, not plant closures that have taken place in the past but the plant closures that are planned. As members all know, the Ministry of Labour produces these statistics. Here we have two pages of what are called complete closures. These are not downsizing, these are not partial closures, but complete closures coming. Why are they coming? Because businesses in this province are having difficulty competing in the new global economy.

If members want to deny that we are going to have to compete globally, they are living in the past. We are now in the real world. As a province and as a country, we are going to have to compete globally. This is testimony that our industry is having trouble competing globally, and a payroll tax would simply add to that.

The third thing I would say is that the unemployment rate continues to be unacceptable. We have heard from the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology that he is creating new jobs, yet we see these layoffs occurring. We see the unemployment for the month of August. We have in this province right now 525,000 people unemployed. That is up dramatically, as I think all of us know, from a year ago. A year ago, Ontario had the lowest unemployment rate in the country. Now every single province in the west has a lower unemployment rate than Ontario does. What is happening? We are not having the economic renewal in this province that we require.

I very much support the resolution my colleague has put forward. I think all of us must recognize that the economy is in serious difficulty. There are the things the province is doing right now: spending out of control, the threat of substantial new taxes coming in the future, the lack of an economic program. As a matter of fact, in the first year of this government, the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology did not announce one single proposal that would increase employment in the province. I waited patiently for the minister to get up in his place and say, "Today we have reached some sort of an agreement between the union and the company" to do this and to do that. Not one announcement of new jobs and new job creation in the province.

We are at, I think, a crisis. That may not be too strong a word. We have a government that has no economic plan, and as my colleague said, the thought of adding another tax to an already very burdened business community would just drive another nail in the coffin.

I appreciate the opportunity to bring my thoughts to the debate.

Mr Carr: I am pleased to participate in the debate. I am going to start off by apologizing to my friend who moved the motion, because I am going to be fairly critical of both him and the government he was a part of.

I think the member mentioned earlier in his comments that they fell into the same trap. I say to him that the previous government, which he was a part of, did not fall into the trap; it jumped in with both feet when it comes to taxes. From being a province that was taken from medium in terms of taxes, they made us the most heavily-taxed province in Canada, the most heavily-taxed jurisdiction in all of North America.

I say to my friend again, because he may have been speaking at the cabinet table, that the cabinet decisions that came out, where he sat, were a big part of the reason we are in this predicament right now. They introduced 33 new taxes during their period of time. They taxed people who were in business. They taxed individuals. They taxed everybody. Anything that moved in this province over the last five years, they taxed, and as if that was not bad enough, even though they taxed them, if they did not tax them to death, they regulated them to death.

1140

The member sat at the cabinet table. I suspect if the truth were known, he was probably fighting for business and industry, but the fact is that in the results that came out of a government he was a part of, they were the worst offenders of all the provinces in Canada.

In my own area, 500 jobs were lost at Tridon. My colleague the member for Burlington South and myself met with the Canadian Auto Workers. We sat down with them. They said: "We had a good relationship with the company. We tried to help to control costs." The company said, "We had a great relationship with the workers." The thing that they said cost those jobs, the final straw, was the employer health tax. Five hundred jobs were lost in Burlington and Oakville as a direct result of a tax levied by the Liberal government of the day. The member who introduced this motion was part of the cabinet, around the cabinet table, and part of the decision that cost well over 500 people jobs in my riding.

When the debate started, all the things came out and they said it was the free trade agreement, and it was this and that. Both sides, both the union and the president of the company, said it was the employer health tax that was the final straw. I sat down with them and said: "Why don't you come out and say it to this new government of the day? Why don't you come out and say that it was the employer health tax?" He looked at me and he said: "Gary, I would do that. Even though we're selling back into this marketplace and corporate relations are very important, I would do that if you honestly and truly believed this government would listen to me." I sat there and I could not tell him he could.

As a result, with all the reasons about why the company left that are out there, all the misconceptions, the employer health tax which the Liberals introduced had a direct result in the loss of 500 jobs in my riding.

That is why I am a little bit sensitive about what is happening when this government then introduces a resolution and talks about employer payroll tax funding. That is why there is cynicism out there in the public, because people who sit around the cabinet table have direct authority. Then when they are out of government, they tell you what you should be doing. What we need are people who are a little more consistent in their application. Again, I do not want to be too critical of the member, because I think if the truth were known he was probably fighting very hard but, unfortunately, if you are a cabinet minister you have to live by the results that come out of those discussions. I am very critical of that.

I was reading through some of the material last night from the Ontario Chamber of Commerce. It has put together resolutions, about 111 pages, very easy to read. They talk about everything, including the environment. As members know, the chamber has about 65,000 members, 165 boards, and has been around since 1911. One of the statements it makes on page 65 is that it does not believe any of the funding for the wage protection fund should come from another payroll tax. I would encourage those members who are going around the province saying, "We're listening to business, we're listening," to read page 65 of the report. That might be very helpful in other matters as well, because it is very important material of what business is saying about some of these taxes.

What we need to do is address the problem of the job losses, not have the short-term fixes of trying to find money to assist workers. What we need to do is have long-term plans that will probably be implemented down the road and will keep the jobs for the people of the province. That is what the people wanted. I support it, but I think it is a very cynical motion by a party that is very cynical.

Mr Johnson: I, too, unfortunately am plagued with a cold that many of the members have, and I hope my voice does not fail me.

I have to say right at the beginning that I cannot support this resolution because I do not think we would want to make it an absolute that the Treasurer could not at some point in time -- although we know that at this time it is not necessary -- levy a tax that may or may not be understood to be a payroll tax. Because of that, I just cannot agree with this resolution.

The member made some interesting comments at the beginning of his remarks. It is true that in the world, a global economy is taking effect and having a disastrous effect on the province of Ontario. It is true, maybe because of its geographic location, maybe because of its population, that Ontario is a dominant factor in the economy of Canada.

As the global economy grows, I think we have to look at what kind of effects this is going to have on Ontario. A global economy in theory is probably not a bad thing, except that many things are not constant. For example, in other areas of the world, they do not have environmental laws and environmental protection like we have here in Canada or in Ontario. They do not have the health or safety factors taken into consideration for their employees. We know these things are costly to some degree. We also know that wages in other areas of the world are considerably lower than they are in this province. Ontario is a great place to live. We have many social benefits. I think we have, if not the highest, one of the highest standards of living in the world.

The member for Wilson Heights also mentioned a theory -- I am not sure it is entirely his -- that jobs should exist if they are relevant, and if they are not relevant they should not be here. Of course, that brings to my mind a concern for the farmers in Ontario, because he mentioned that if you worked for a reason that was viable, that was a good purpose for employment and that would make the job relevant. Well, certainly in the global scheme of things, we see that the farmers in Ontario are suffering because of the global economy, because prices are down, because in other areas of the world they can produce their produce much less expensively or at much less cost than we do here in Ontario. Although in theory I understand what the member was getting at, I think that if practised completely we would have no farmers in Ontario. We would be importing all our food, and I think it is really important that we supply our own people with our own produce. I guess there is a cost involved in that.

The "horrendous negative effect the policies and proposals of the New Democratic Party government have" -- I find that a little offensive. I find it offensive because at this time, a year after we have been in government, as a result of many things, not the fact that we have been in government for a year -- I cannot help but speak about the free trade agreement and other things this government had no effect on. If businesses are leaving Ontario to go to the United States, which seems to be a comment heard often in this House, I think it has a lot to do with the global economy and the free trade agreement.

The suggestion that the free trade agreement was going to make a more level playing field for business, I do not think has been true. In fact, as a result of the global economy and the free trade agreement, we see many businesses leaving to areas of the world, in particular the United States, where they think they are going to have advantages and may in fact have advantages, so they are leaving. But that is not the fault of the government.

Certainly the net result is these moves have created some problems the government has to deal with, that is, the job losses we have and the fact that business is leaving. We have to look at these problems very seriously and try to do some things that will help the people who are unemployed, help the business. We have to deal with business, most certainly. We have to talk with business and we have to do things that will encourage them to stay.

I want to say again that the global economy and the global marketplace, which we are becoming involved in, are unfortunately having very negative effects on Ontario. Therein lies the problem, not the fact that we are the government. These things started some time last year, and there has been a snowball effect. It has just carried on and we have seen more and more businesses leave.

I also want to say that in the actual statement of the resolution, I find some things there offensive.

I want to conclude by saying, as another member said, that as it would be a kind of tie to the Treasurer, never being able to introduce a tax that either would be perceived as a payroll tax or would be a payroll tax, I certainly cannot agree with this resolution.

1150

Mr Mahoney: I am delighted to rise in support of my colleague the former Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology on this very well-thought-out resolution and to suggest that it is not premature at all, as has been suggested, because the reality is that we believe, frankly, that the decision has already been made.

The honourable members opposite might find it somewhat of a surprise to be sitting on the back benches and not being told by the Treasurer or the Premier or the cabinet what their long-range plans are, but the first year in government would seem to indicate, to me at least and I think to the public, that all of the decisions in relation to the future decisions of this government are made out of the corner office by one person, who then simply dictates what should happen.

I want to take a moment to congratulate the member for Wilson Heights. I know, as his former parliamentary assistant and as the advocate for small business in this province while I was with his office, that he did indeed fight, as one of the members said, at the cabinet table and in caucus and everywhere in this province on behalf of business. I think business had a sense, as long as the member for Wilson Heights was in that job, that it had a champion who understood its problems and who was prepared to go to bat for it. Unfortunately, that cannot be said of the current government.

We had a minister who was asleep at the switch for an entire year. He has now been replaced by another minister, and I hear that the travel agents who book all the flights out of MITT got extremely excited when they heard the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale was now going to be booking all the trips for MITT, because we all know that the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale certainly is a citizen of the world. I think the travel agents recognize that their business and their fortunes shot up dramatically with the Premier's announcement.

I want to say why this motion is so important. The decision has already been made to fund this program with some form of employer health tax. There is absolutely no question, so members should not be shocked when the Treasurer walks into their caucus room in the not-too-distant future and says: "I've got a can for you to carry. I've got a message for you to take back to your constituents, and it is that we're going to fund Bill 70" -- in all its ramifications and its 107 new employees at an annual cost of some $5 million to implement NDP policy -- "on the backs of the business community through an employer health tax." There is absolutely no question that is going to happen to the members.

But the real problem they have to face and understand is that an atmosphere of fear and mistrust has been created out there. Regardless of what the honourable member from the third party would like to say about the record, he should take a look in the mirror and take a look at nationalization of things like Suncor, Minaki Lodge and many other things before he throws stones. I, for one, do not think the public in this province wants to go back to the days of the pink Tories, who thought they could solve all problems by taking taxpayers' money and buying corporations.

But I will say this: There is real fear out there. Those members, those men and women, can shout at me all they want, but the reality is that businesses are going down the highway and leaving this province in record numbers. If the members want to tax them, they had better tell the Treasurer to hurry up, because there will not be any left to tax. There will not be any left. They are leaving because of fear and mistrust of this government.

The real issue here is, how do you protect jobs? That is really what we are talking about.

Interjection.

Mr Mahoney: The member's opinion of how to protect jobs is to pass legislation that says, "Your job shall be protected." That is the mentality --

Mr Sutherland: No.

Mr Mahoney: It is, I say to the member for Oxford, it is the mentality of socialism in his party.

His Premier gets up and says, "We've got to deal with business." I just heard the honourable member say, "We want to support business." They do not believe the government, and everything it has done up to date, I say to the honourable member for Cambridge, would indicate that they have no reason to believe it.

The government can talk in those terms. The Premier can get up and open his arms wide. He can go and speak to the chambers of commerce and pretend he understands their difficulties, but they know different. What he understands is that he has all the government members snapping at his heels, saying: "We want more for this and more for that. We want you to spend here and spend there. We don't want you to build roads for logging, or do we?" I am getting mixed messages all over the place. "We don't want you to put in an employer tax, a payroll tax for this," yet we think that is going to happen.

I understand. It must be a riot to be in the government's caucus room on Tuesday mornings, because I am sure the battles are very fascinating. I do not know if the Premier still sits through all of that. I would think he is probably too busy. As he does not even come into the Legislature any more, I doubt he spends a whole lot of time in caucus.

The Premier has government members buffaloed. He has them thinking that life is good in a Bob Rae Ontario. He has them thinking that everything is going to work itself out.

Let me give government members some numbers. In Bob Rae's Ontario we have had 31,787 permanent and indefinite layoffs just in 1990 alone. In 1991 the figure already is 15,320. What do we see happening? They do not understand. If you want to support the worker, then you have to ensure that the company can survive. If the company goes out of business, where is the worker going to get a paycheque?

Mr Sutherland: No kidding.

Mr Mahoney: The member does not understand that. The New Democrats think that the way is to give more power to the unions, to give more authority to the unions to take over. That might be true in Kapuskasing where the business is gone. I do not know what they are going to do with Algoma where the business is gone. Believe me, the real secret here is to allow a company to open its doors on Monday morning and make a profit on Friday afternoon, but I know the word "profit" is not in their vocabulary.

I beg government members at caucus to fight the Premier and the Treasurer. They have already made the decision to bring in a payroll tax. Government members should fight it. It is the only hope for this province.

Mr Klopp: To the honourable member for Wilson Heights, I apologize for not being here for his whole debate. There were other pressing issues I had to deal with, being on the government side now and trying to correct a lot of things that have slipped over the years.

In fact, one of the problems I had with this whole motion today was that it seemed so hypothetical, assuming there is a decision already made and talking about the future. It has been stated by the minister that this payroll tax, if there ever is a payroll tax, is not going to be put in place for the first year or so, or whether it even will be done at all.

But with all the problems, as my honourable colleague mentioned, with the farm situation, to have to come here today to speak on this issue, I think there are better kettles of fish to fry. However, it is the opposition's day and it wants to bring this up. That is their job.

Hearing some of the comments this morning that we are scaring away jobs, that we are hostile to business, if business people read this today from the opposition, and I am sure it will get passed around, they are going to say, "Oh golly, this government must be doing that," and the first thing they are going to do is go back to the notes they had, those who showed up at our committee meetings, where it was said very clearly that no decision has been made on that and there will be consulting if any changes are made to it.

1200

I heard some comments from other members that we do not get listened to in caucus, that the decision is already made. I guess they are basing that on how they ran their government. All I can say is, if that is how they ran their government, that is the way they did it. I feel sorry for them.

Mr Lessard: That's why they're on that side of the room.

Mr Klopp: Maybe that is why they are on that side of the room. Maybe they will learn from it. We have learned every day since we have been here. We are also big enough to consult and even to change our position on things, which we have done. But to hear the comments that the decision has already been made and that is why we have to hurry up with this motion just does not hold water.

I do not think the people out in Ontario appreciate this kind of debate, because there are more important things to talk about, like farm issues, like the fact that the wage protection bill should be passed. One of the arguments is that it creates a problem for business. I do not think it does. I think, in fact, business, especially when it gets so high up in some areas, does not look at a lot of factors. One of the factors is that if workers are laid off and they do not get their money, then they do not go to the bank and pay their bills, or that money does not get flowed into the system, which creates more problems.

I support the wage protection bill. I cannot support this motion at this time because it is unnecessary.

Mr Kwinter: I want to thank all the members of all parties who participated in this debate. I want to clarify a situation that I detect from the comments that were made by the government side. Thursday mornings are private members' business. Private members can bring in any bill they want to, and they debate it. It is not an opposition day per se. It is private members. The members can agree or disagree with what I have to say, but they are not debating with us as the government and them as the opposition, or vice versa. I think it is important.

But I also think it is important to know that this is a very serious matter. The heckling that comes from the other side, and I noticed it in conversations we have had in the hearings, is that they always pick out one person who is supporting them, and that is their model, whether it be a James Frank or a Siemens. They say, "What about them?" But the point is, what about all the others?

We have an article in the paper today talking about, "Ford Boss Slams NDP Labour Policies: 'Potential Disaster.'" That is another signal going out, not by some political hack but by the president of a major automobile corporation, who is saying there are problems. All that is happening is that when the member for Sudbury stands up and says, "Well, we certainly can't tax the people for it, we certainly can't tax the workers," that really means the decision has been made. The decision has been made that, when it comes down, we are going to have to tax those businesses that are still in business. That is what I object to and that is what I feel is going to create a situation where we are going to lose more and more business in Ontario and also impact on our competitiveness.

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Ms Harrington: I would ask the House at this time for unanimous consent to amend the resolution, as I explained in my introduction, by deleting sections 1, 3 and 4. What I explained was that since last June, when this resolution was originally written, I have decided to deal not with specifics but with the whole question of violence against women.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Niagara Falls has requested that her resolution be amended by deleting sections 1, 3 and 4. The member will be aware that standing order 94(j), under the heading "Private Members' Public Business," states, "No amendment may be made to a motion under this standing order." I will therefore determine if we have the unanimous consent of this House to allow these deletions or these amendments. Do we have unanimous consent?

Agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

1210

EMPLOYEE WAGE PROTECTION

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

Ayes -- 25

Beer, Bradley, Brown, Callahan, Caplan, Carr, Cousens, Cunningham, Curling, Harnick, Jordan, Kwinter, Mahoney, Marland, McLean, Murdoch, B., Offer, O'Neill, Y., Phillips, G., Poole, Sterling, Tilson, Turnbull, Wilson, J., Witmer.

Nays -- 27

Carter, Christopherson, Cooper, Drainville, Farnan, Frankford, Harrington, Hope, Huget, Johnson, Klopp, Lessard, Malkowski, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, Murdock, S., O'Connor, Owens, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wilson, G., Winninger, Wiseman, Wood.

The House recessed at 1216.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ARMENIAN INDEPENDENCE

Mrs Caplan: The 20,000 members of the Armenian community in Metropolitan Toronto, many of whom live in my riding of Oriole, have been closely watching the political events in their homeland. Last Saturday, September 21, 1991, they witnessed an historic achievement when citizens of the Soviet Republic of Armenia voted overwhelmingly in favour of independence from the Soviet Union. This is the first time in its 71-year history that a referendum on the question of independence was held.

On Monday of this week, as a result of the referendum, the Parliament of Armenia declared independence. Armenian leaders will now be negotiating a new arrangement on defence, foreign policy and monetary matters with the Council of Presidents of other independent countries.

Armenian Canadians are jubilant and justifiably proud of this first step towards self-determination. They are anxious to learn even more. Mr Aris Babikian, from the riding of Oriole, will soon be travelling to Armenia to see at first hand what independence will mean. He will be reporting back to the Armenian community in Metropolitan Toronto.

I know I speak for all the residents of the riding of Oriole and probably on behalf of all of the constituents in Ontario and members of this House when I say that we extend our best wishes to the people of Armenia for a prosperous and peaceful future.

WELLESLEY FESTIVAL

Mrs Witmer: I would like to take this opportunity to inform the members of this House of a very important event that is happening in my community this weekend, and that is the Wellesley Apple Butter and Cheese Festival. This is an annual event in celebration of the excellent apple and cheese products that are produced in the Wellesley area.

The day-long festival includes such events as a pancake and sausage breakfast, a farmers' market where apple butter, apples, cheese and baked goods can be purchased, apple butter and cider mill tours, craft demonstrations, a horseshoe tournament, a model boat regatta, antique car and tractor displays as well as a quilt auction. There are also many activities for the children. This festival has always been a highlight for our family and especially my own daughter, who has grown very fond of the apple fritters one can purchase there.

I would like to take this opportunity to extend a very warm welcome and an invitation to all members in this House to come to Wellesley this Saturday to join us in the festivities and to take home with them some of the exceptional cheese and apple products.

MEALS ON WHEELS

Mr Mills: As members may know, this week is being recognized across Ontario as Meals on Wheels Week. It gives us all a chance to pay tribute to the thousands of volunteers across Ontario who give up some of their free time each week to help their neighbours. In my riding of Durham East, the town of Newcastle is this week paying tribute to its volunteers. There are 11 Meals on Wheels routes running through Newcastle, Newtonville, Mitchell Corners and the hamlet of Orono, where I make my home.

People on these routes depend on 150 volunteers to bring them hot, nutritious lunches three times a week. Meals on Wheels gives us a chance to recognize the contribution being made by those unsung heroes, who for 52 weeks of every year quietly make a real difference in the lives of people around them.

I stand in the Legislature today to thank publicly all those volunteers in the Newcastle area and across the province who participate in this program, and I ask all members to join with me in extending a warm "Well done."

COMMERCIAL FISHING

Mr Brown: I rise in the House today not to point blame or take sides, but rather to call for co-operation and communication. Not everyone thinks of the north channel of Lake Huron as a commercial fishing location, but let me assure the members that it is. One commercial fisherman, Mr Brian Nyman, had his nets lifted by members of the Sagamok first nation. The nets were returned later. He is obviously concerned about the implications of these actions and is not satisfied with the answers he has received from the Ministry of Natural Resources staff.

He has attempted to communicate with the minister responsible for native affairs, the Minister of Natural Resources and his member of this Legislature, the member for Algoma, without success. We confirmed this morning that he has made approximately one dozen calls to the member for Algoma and his concerns have yet to be dealt with. One member of his staff accepted a call from Mr Nyman over a week ago, but has yet to respond.

The minister and this House must realize that a potentially unpleasant situation is developing along the north channel. This situation can be defused by the minister communicating with the parties involved. The minister must do whatever he can do to foster a better understanding and greater co-operation before this situation gets out of hand.

MEALS ON WHEELS

Mr Turnbull: As my colleague from across the floor has already pointed out, September 22 to 28 has been proclaimed Meals on Wheels Week across Ontario. During this special week we are reminded of the thousands of elderly, convalescent and handicapped people who rely on hot and nutritious meals delivered daily to their homes by many dedicated volunteers. Without this service, many of the recipients would not be able to stay in their homes alone but would need to move into institutions. This would place an extra demand on our already overcrowded care facilities.

Meals on Wheels has been operating in this province for almost 30 years. Based on current statistics, in one year in Ontario 43,000 volunteers delivered over two million meals to 66,000 recipients. We are all aware that the numbers of seniors in our communities will continue to grow in the years ahead and the provision of adequate and appropriate home support service such as Meals on Wheels will become increasingly vital to our society.

Meals on Wheels Week is a time to acknowledge the contribution of many volunteers who make this regular commitment to helping others less fortunate than themselves. Without the time, energy and caring of these thousands of volunteers, it would be impossible to provide Meals on Wheels and many other equivalent important programs. They deserve our appreciation and thanks. Yesterday I rode with those people and helped deliver to houses, and it is indeed a wonderful service that seniors can do to help other seniors.

PURCHASE OF HYDRO PLANT

Mr Wood: It gives me great pleasure and a sense of satisfaction to know that the workers at Spruce Falls ratified on September 7, 1991, the new employee Tembec 60-40 ownership plan by a vote of 87%. The Premier and the Minister of Northern Development and Mines and I spent many hours and days consulting with the former owners of the business, Ontario Hydro, labour and municipalities to reach this agreement, which will save up to 800 jobs in Kapuskasing and surrounding areas.

The deal provides money for modernization of the mill, which will provide for the economic stability of the region for the future and create 150 construction jobs. This historic agreement is an example of how the government is listening to the people of the north in providing creative, workable solutions to the problems we face. By working co-operatively with all the stakeholders, I know our government will continue to listen to all the interests and carry on the strong, decisive leadership that it has shown in the past for future economic renewal in the north.

1340

MEALS ON WHEELS

Mrs Fawcett: As has already been mentioned by two of my colleagues, we are grateful to the Meals on Wheels program in Ontario. This community program provides any individual who would otherwise do without with a nutritious, well-prepared meal and a valuable social contact. In my riding of Northumberland, for instance, these meals are delivered by volunteers who are seniors. Great pride is taken in helping those less fortunate than themselves. Their contribution is both meaningful and appreciated. This program is co-ordinated through organizations such as Cobourg and District Senior Services, Brighton Meal on Wheels, Port Hope Red Cross and Campbellford and Colborne Community Care.

Recently I have noticed TV ads promoting the Ontario Lottery Corp and the community support programs to which they provide funding. One ad shows a person receiving a meal from a Meals on Wheels volunteer. Meals on Wheels is funded in part by the Ontario Lottery Corp through the Trillium Foundation.

This foundation provided Meals on Wheels with $34,500 for the fiscal year 1990-91. However, in that same year the Ontario Lottery Corp spent $187,400 in the production of this particular ad. That figure does not even include the cost of airing the ad. It is a colossal mismanagement of taxpayers' funds to pay five times more money to promote a grant than the actual amount of the grant. This government must look at integrating Meals on Wheels with its long-term care proposal.

HEALTH PROFESSIONS

Mr J. Wilson: The Coalition of Unregulated Practitioners, an organization encompassing thousands of unregulated practitioners, is extremely concerned with the regulated health professions legislation. The concern centres around what is known as the diagnosis clause.

Under this government's legislation, it will soon become a serious criminal offence, with a jail term or a fine of $25,000, for anyone except medical doctors, psychologists and a few other regulated health professionals to communicate a diagnosis identifying a disease or a disorder.

As Canon Bob Cuyler of the Coalition of Churches pointed out at the press conference here this morning, "Often when a responsible pastoral counsellor, social worker, chaplain, parole officer, etc, gives an answer to the question 'What is wrong with me?' the answer involves identifying a disorder as the cause of symptoms."

It is more than just a little ironic that just over a year ago the NDP was sponsoring the coalition's press conferences, and now the coalition complains that it cannot even get the ear of the minister and that it has not entered into meaningful dialogue with this government.

The Minister of Health believes that the courts will rule in favour of unregulated professionals. This matter should not have to go to the courts. Unregulated professionals should not have to spend exorbitant amounts of money in our court system to correct this government's mistakes. Passing a piece of legislation riddled with holes does not and should not fall under the Minister of Health's job description. I would like the minister to bring forward amendments to correct these injustices.

FALL FAIRS

Mr Sutherland: As we are all aware, this has been a tough year on the agricultural sector and on many rural communities, but I rise today to give credit to the many wonderful volunteers who work for agricultural societies in our province and who of course are the main sponsors of many of the fall fairs.

As we know, fall fairs instil a great sense of community pride as they have the people come together, both the many volunteers who help organize them and the many people who participate in the many events, whether it is displaying the products they produce, garden produce or corn, or the many calf- and cattle-showing displays that occur at fall fairs. They give many people in small communities, particularly rural communities, a great sense of community pride.

I want to encourage all those members who have not attended one yet -- I am sure most have -- to try to get out to some of the few that still have not occurred, and I extend congratulations to those many dedicated people in agricultural societies across this province and the many in my own riding who have provided so much entertainment and sense of community for so many years.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

POLLUTION CONTROL

Hon Mrs Grier: Today I would like to bring the Legislature up to date on the latest developments in the province's water protection program.

I am pleased to announce that the Municipal-Industrial Strategy for Abatement: Issues Resolution Process -- Final Report is now available from the Ministry of the Environment. This report establishes the principles of our program to prevent and control industrial discharges into our waterways. We will now use these principles to move into the most important stage of the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement program. In consultation with industry, environmental groups and others, my ministry will establish regulations to limit industrial discharges into Ontario's water.

For the last several months, ministry staff and I have been evaluating the MISA program, where it is working and where improvements are needed. We want to ensure that MISA: (1) reflects the government's environmental priorities and aligns with other environmental initiatives; (2) contributes to significant reductions in total chemical loadings on the environment; (3) promotes behaviour compatible with environmental values such as conservation, stewardship and efficiency; (4) contributes to the government's priority of economic renewal and the greening of industry.

As with all our programs, consultation has been central to the establishment of procedures and criteria to be used for MISA regulation development. During the past two years, ministry staff have reviewed submissions from a wide range of interested parties, including municipalities, environmental groups, industry and academia.

The report I am tabling today incorporates our decisions on these submissions and sets out the pollution prevention and control measures we will take to achieve the goal of virtual elimination of specific persistent toxic contaminants from discharges to Ontario waterways.

We will: (1) set effluent limits for a list of sector-specific contaminants; (2) prohibit effluent which kills fish; (3) establish a zero-discharge list of specific persistent toxic substances; (4) require industry to establish reduction targets for other toxic contaminants which although not targeted for elimination, need to be reduced to the lowest possible levels.

In the first phase of the MISA program, monitoring regulations were designed for nine industrial sectors encompassing more than 300 direct discharging industries. The monitoring for all nine sectors was completed in August 1991. The results of 12 months of monitoring for the petroleum sector were released in July 1990, and the six-month monitoring results for the pulp and paper sector were released in February 1991.

I am also releasing today the results of the second six months of monitoring in the pulp and paper sector and the 12-month monitoring report from the iron and steel sector. We anticipate that the results from the remaining five sectors will be released by the end of this year.

The findings of the monitoring phase confirmed the need for a review of the MISA program principles. In the Issues Resolution Process document, we have resolved 16 outstanding issues. These solutions will serve as the framework for developing limits regulations under MISA. While most of these issues are highly technical, we intend to incorporate three overriding principles which signal a significant shift in policy for the Ministry of the Environment.

This government is committed to:

1. Pollution prevention: This means we must focus industry's energy on getting things right at the beginning instead of attempting to fix them at the end. End-of-pipe solutions have, by and large, only resulted in increasingly onerous burdens on the public purse for cleanup dollars.

Prevention means that industry must overcome its reliance on end-of-pipe technology, introduce closed-loop systems within plants to prevent the discharge of contaminants into the environment, substitute raw materials to avoid the generation of harmful byproducts or waste, and introduce process changes and redesign products to minimize the amount and degree of hazard in the waste stream.

2. Stopping the transfer of pollutants from one environmental medium to another: We recognize that we live in a closed ecosystem in which activity in one environmental medium can influence quality in another. For example, water pollution is caused not only by direct discharges, but also indirectly when airborne contaminants, such as acid rain, fall in our lakes and rivers or when leaking industrial landfills and the spreading of toxic sludge affect our groundwater reservoirs.

3. The third principle is zero discharge of specific persistent toxic chemicals. As part of our pollution prevention strategy, we are adopting a zero-discharge approach to achieve the virtual elimination of the most persistent toxic contaminants. This means we are developing a list of specific persistent toxic chemicals to be banned from the discharges of all facilities regulated by the MISA program. The revised MISA will contain the requirement that the effluent must be non-toxic to fish.

I am pleased to say that we are improving the MISA program in a manner consistent with our overall environmental policy and with our commitment to involve all stakeholders -- business, industry, labour, environmental groups and the general public -- in developing strong, consistent and meaningful environmental regulations.

We are now entering the phase where, based upon the definitions in our Issues Resolution Process document, we will consult with all affected parties to design regulations on an industrial sector-by-sector basis that prevent and limit discharges. Our initial focus is on the more than 300 direct discharging industries, with the municipal sector to follow.

We are hopeful that by the spring of 1992 we will have draft regulations for several industrial sectors available for broad public review. We look forward to co-operation from all members of society as we move to prevent further toxic contamination in Ontario's waterways.

This government believes that environmental health and economic health go hand in hand. An effective MISA program will not only protect Ontario's waterways for all who depend on them, but it will also stimulate economic growth in the pollution prevention business and keep our industries competitive. Our waterways are a precious resource which must be preserved for our children and future generations. This next stage of MISA, with its shift in direction towards pollution prevention, will help ensure that we leave to them a legacy we can be proud of.

1350

TVONTARIO

Hon Mrs Haslam: In May, the government instructed the Provincial Auditor to undertake a special audit of the Ontario Educational Communications Authority, TVOntario.

Today I have received a copy of this audit. It is now being reviewed to ensure that it meets Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act requirements. Following that review, I will make the audit available immediately to my colleagues the member for Etobicoke-Humber and the member for Mississauga South. It will also be available to any others upon request.

TVO is an important cultural institution in Ontario. Its health and effectiveness is of utmost importance to this government. TVO is an integral part of the province's educational system and furthers the development of Canadian culture.

My officials and I will be reviewing this report in the coming days. I intend to come back to this House after a thorough review of the report and outline what steps TVO and my ministry will undertake to address this audit.

I want to take this opportunity to reiterate this government's unequivocal support of TVO, its mandate and programming. We value the institution and believe it is important to the people of Ontario.

RESPONSES

POLLUTION CONTROL

Mrs Sullivan: I am pleased to respond to the statement from the Minister of the Environment relating to the MISA program. The unfortunate thing about this statement is that it is approximately one year behind when it should have been made, and I suggest it is one year behind because the minister has become the minister of garbage and has left the key issues of water pollution control behind.

In doing that, she has created uncertainty in industrial and municipal sectors. Capital investment programs have been postponed or set aside while the minister has fiddled and faddled with words on these whole issues.

Last November, regulations for the petroleum refining sector should have been in place. They are not here. This fall, regulations for the pulp and paper sector should have been in place. They are not here. Where are these things in her announcement and when can we expect them?

In her postponement of decisions on these issues, I want to ask the minister, how many tons of toxic pollutants have been poured into Ontario waterways while the minister has sat on her butt? In opposition, the minister said the process must be speeded up. What we have seen from her is a little change from the Mackenzie King routine of postpone, postpone, abstain; we have seen postpone, postpone, postpone.

Where are the process changes she will require? What process changes will she require? What is her timetable? What will be her consultative process? Who has she talked to, other than her own bureaucrats, on these issues?

I suggest that there has been no formal review process since that which was established by the previous Minister of the Environment, which ended in June 1990. There has been no formal change in terms of consultation on these issues since this minister came into office.

If the minister's real aim is pollution prevention, where is her list of banned chemicals? There was a distinct promise from the Premier of Ontario about organochlorines from the pulp and paper sector. There is no mention here of that matter. Surely to goodness that could have been identified in this statement today.

Without action, what we are seeing from this minister is a minister who is stealing language from the environmentalists for headlines only, and no action. Where is the emphasis on bioaccumulation? We have not seen that. The minister talks about pollution prevention.

There is nothing here, and she is far too late in terms of dealing with these issues, in coming to terms with an appropriate consultative process and in getting things done.

TVONTARIO

Mr Bradley: I have read the statement of the Minister of Culture and Communications, and it is a non-statement, so we will not have any response to it.

Mrs Marland: I am responding to the statement from the Minister of Culture and Communications. I appreciate the promptness with which she has brought her information to the House today and that she is going to share immediately the report of the auditor. Obviously this is a very serious matter to all members of this House and I appreciate the fact that the minister understands that. I appreciate her co-operation.

I think it is very important that although this question hangs over TVOntario, based on the information that was given to an all-party legislative committee in a public forum, apart from what will be available through the auditor's report, the future of TVOntario is very important to the people of this province. This television programming provides an excellent and unique service to the people of this province and it is very necessary as an educational service. Frankly it needs our support to survive this present crisis of confidence so that it can continue to provide outstanding educational broadcasting services to the people of Ontario.

I respect the fact that the report should be cleared through the existing provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and we look forward to clearing up the whole situation one way or another as soon as possible.

POLLUTION CONTROL

Mr Cousens: The Minister of the Environment has forgotten the days when she was in opposition and would mount her high podium and shout down the government whenever it was late with a regulation or whenever it did anything that was not right. Now, after one year in office, she has forgotten all the lessons she tried to teach someone else.

This today is an admission of failure from a Minister of the Environment who has become a classic ditherer. Mr Speaker, is "ditherer" a parliamentary word? I would not want to offend any members here, except if I offend the minister and cause her to begin to react in a realistic way about the MISA regulations. Then we will have done something from the opposition, because no one seems to be able to move her. She is dithering.

She comes along to the House today and says she is doing something when she has nothing to report, absolutely nothing. Regulations as they affect refineries and pulp and paper: Nothing has happened. She is dithering. The minister is spending her time very usefully, I suppose, in her own mind, working on the garbage dumps. I wish she had some solutions there, but she is not dealing with the water problems. Since she has come to office, there is not one less gram or one less ounce of pollution going into the waterways because she has not done anything about it. It is continuing to accumulate and the minister has not acted on it.

I am getting excited about what is going on, because nothing is happening. If the people of Ontario want to believe the window dressing, God bless them, because if they want to believe the words this minister gives -- the words are high-sounding, they sound as if she means it, but the actions do not bespeak what she is doing.

1400

The minister says, "Our waterways are a precious resource." We all know that. "They must be preserved for our children." We all know that. But the minister is now in a position of responsibility. When she had a chance to complain about it, she complained; she was the best complainer. That is why she got promoted. But now that she is there, she has lost the art of complaining. Instead, the minister has become the one who pats someone on the head and gives them a banana. What she needs to do is start getting out there and putting the regulations in place. Let the municipalities know what they have to do, let industry know what it has to do.

The minister says, "We are going to do something about grey water." Yes, it is a problem, but there is nothing close to MISA. Come on. MISA regulations need to come out, and the minister should not begin to think she is doing the job until she has made those regulations clear to everybody. They are not public. She probably has not even thought about it. She did when she was in opposition. Now that she is in power, she is failing.

To call the minister a ditherer is to be complimentary, but for the other words I have, the Speaker would have been down my throat saying, "You are not being parliamentary." But by not coming forward with true solutions, the Minister of the Environment is not being responsible. To come today and make this statement is truly an admission of failure by the present Minister of the Environment, and I suggest that the Premier have a second look at what she is not doing.

Hon Mr Rae: I believe there is an understanding between the parties that I will make a statement today with respect to the Constitution, one that will parallel the written statement which I have released but will not be an exact replication of it. I think there has been an agreement that we will share time in this regard and give the opposition leaders a chance to respond.

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent?

Agreed to.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM / RÉFORME CONSTITUTIONNELLE

Hon Mr Rae: I want to make a statement to the House today about the Constitution and, as has been the practice over the last several years, want to take the opportunity to speak not only directly to the members of the House but to the people of the province and even beyond about the current situation.

I think it is fair to say that following the failure of the Meech Lake accord, the country went into a time of reflection and into a time when a number of provinces and a number of people have put forward a number of positions with respect to constitutional reform.

Our own government, this House, this assembly, has participated in that period of the presentation of positions. I think it is fair to say that period is now over and that we now face, over the next several months, the most extraordinary challenge, not of simply taking positions or of arguing from a fixed standpoint. We are now entering a very different period, one in which we must strive, all of us, to reach a national consensus and understanding that includes all Canadians and that is reflective of the greatness that is Canada.

I say this because I think it is important for us to start this time with the recognition that we are, all of us, going to have to struggle for this consensus. It is going to involve decisions that will have to be made by this House, by this government and by this Premier about the most effective way in which we can build a consensus. It is going to involve us listening and learning and understanding that change on everyone's part is going to be part of reaching a bargain. There can be no new national contract, no new deal for Canada, without that sense of compromise and without the sense that in fact we are now building to a national consensus.

Perhaps it is appropriate -- I will do this before I turn to some of my more prepared remarks -- that we start with some very basic questions.

What is this country called Canada? First we have the land, the land that has captured the imagination of everyone who has lived and visited here. If I could just quote the words of the poet A.J.M. Smith, who wrote in The Lonely Land:

This is a beauty of dissonance,

This resonance of stony strand,

This smoky cry curled over a black pine,

Like a broken and wind-battered branch

When the wind bends the tops of the pines

And curdles the sky from the north,

This is the beauty of strength,

Broken by strength and still strong.

I have found in every conversation I have had with Canadians that when we talk of our affection for Canada, in a sense we start with our affection for the land. That affection is one which we share with every Canadian and which we share as a common value.

Then, when we talk of this country, we talk of the people. We talk of the first citizens, people who have lived here for thousands of years -- thousands, not hundreds or a few decades, but thousands -- and whose relationship to the land and whose relationship to this country called Canada has yet to receive the recognition in our Constitution that it deserves. For us to understand the tension and the feelings of the first citizens of Canada, we have to appreciate their perspective, as they have seen generation after generation of immigrant and settler come and share this land with them, and their position in the land has yet to receive the full recognition it deserves.

The first to come after those who had been here for thousands of years were the people we call les Canadiens: their home on the shores of the St Lawrence, their home in New Brunswick, their home in this province which is now called Ontario, their culture and civilization, their civil code, their values, their society, again, stemming so strongly from the history of this country and built into the experience of hundreds of years. There were battles and wars fought by rival empires for supremacy over this land, but whatever may have happened, the culture and civilization, the society whose centre is found in the province of Quebec, has been a distinctive characteristic and feature of our country.

We have been through this debate. We have shared this question of the words "distinct society." We have had the exchanges on all sides. I just want to say to members that it was the view of this House just a few short years ago, in its vast majority, that we were prepared to recognize and we understood the importance of recognizing Quebec as a distinct society within Canada, within the Canadian federation. I want to say to the people of this province and to the people of Quebec that we recognize the distinctiveness. We recognize that Quebec has a distinct place in our federation with respect to its language and culture.

1410

Nous reconnaissons, avec un sens profond de fraternité envers la province de Québec et la population franco-ontarienne, l'importance de la présence de cette culture, de cette société unique et distincte dans notre Canada. En la reconnaissant, nous n'enlevons rien de notre propre identité. A mon avis, c'est une des choses uniques de notre pays, de notre cher Canada, le fait qu'on peut reconnaître la personnalité d'un autre et qu'on peut reconnaître les différences, dans les traditions et dans les expériences, en même temps que nous acceptons avec joie le fait qu'on est tous des Canadiens, que nous avons une terre à partager, une histoire partagée, une expérience partagée et un partenariat qui, à mon avis, est inévitable.

The partnership between Canadians has a certain inevitability about it. We ought to recognize that fact and we ought to recognize that the value of success in these constitutional negotiations so far outweighs any alternative, so far outweighs any possible alternative, that we cannot possibly fail. We cannot allow ourselves to fail in this event.

Les Canadiens and our first citizens were joined over our history by people from all over the world: Loyalists coming from the United States seeking a different culture, a different society, a different set of values -- peace, order and good government -- immigrants who have come from all over the world, and we are all of us in one way, shape or form the sons and daughters, the children of all those people who have come here and who have lived here. And this is the society we are building together.

We are building a multiracial, a multicultural society. We are building a society that is multicultural and multiracial with its unique relationship to this land which we treasure. We are recognizing what is distinct and unique about us as Canadians, about what has made us different.

We have a Constitution, we have a country, because it is an expression of our common values as a people and it is a way for us to provide the framework, the institutions, the houses that we live in, both metaphorically and in real terms.

Why do we have these institutions and this government? Why do we have a Constitution? For some very simple reasons: to allow us to be ourselves, whoever we are; most fundamentally, to allow ourselves, our personalities, our identities, to be affirmed in our relationships with other people. That is what a Constitution must do. If a Constitution does not allow a citizen to say, "I see myself in that mirror," a Constitution is not doing the job it needs to do.

What is so crucial in this recognition of the dignity of others and in our sense of mutual recognition of the dignity we owe one another is that we can do that and take nothing from ourselves. I lose nothing as the grandson of immigrants to this country in saying I recognize the unique characteristics of Quebec and I recognize the importance of the French fact in Canadian life. That takes nothing away from me. It takes nothing away from my children. In fact, it adds to their inheritance and to their culture and to their values in the future.

Members should think of what we are creating when our children can take as much pride in the success and in the quality of life and in the values and traditions of the native citizens of Canada as they can in their own. That is not taking anything away from us. We do not have to live in a society where everyone has to be the same or think the same or look the same. What is unique and great about this country is that we can affirm the dignity of others with a spirit of generosity and take nothing away from ourselves. That is the self-confidence we must have.

A country and a Constitution have to allow us to work and to create wealth and to make our way in the world, and so all the talk about the economic union and all the talk about how the Constitution and the real country have to work economically is important. It is not irrelevant. It is important. It is vital. I believe the Constitution has to allow us to take care of each other. That is a very important part of living in a community. Yes, we work for ourselves. Yes, we want do well in the world. Yes, there is nothing wrong with that. It is important. It is vital. It is crucial. It is a critical basis for any society.

But we have to be prepared and understand and recognize that we get sick and we get hurt and we need to provide for one another when that happens. One of the features of our society, one of the things that has made us unique in relation to other countries around us, to the United States just south of our border, is that we have decided to create a society in which we care for ourselves in a different way. When we made Canada, we were not only making it in terms of the experience of the people who have come here; we made a decision to create a country here and not to join some other country, to make a country ourselves. That is what we have done.

I say those things because as we get into the more technical aspects of the discussion so many things get lost in the works. We begin to argue about whether this clause should go here or there. Everyone in the House knows what the next few months are going to be like. Should the phrase be here or should the phrase be there? Should this clause be here or should this clause be there? We start to get overwhelmed with the technicalities of this discussion. I think it is important that we start from some very basic premises. A Constitution is about building a common sense for Canada. That is what it is about. It needs to respond to the commonsense view and vision that the people of this country have for Canada.

Having said that, I want now to turn to the federal proposals. I have said over the last couple of days that I think it is a good start. I think the fact of the matter is we now have a base for a far more intensive and productive discussion and resolution of the constitutional crisis that has affected this country so seriously. I do not agree with every aspect of the federal document and I will outline some of the questions that I have. The government has not had an opportunity and all the lawyers have not had a chance to look at all the things and give all the views about what various clauses mean or might not mean.

I really genuinely do not see this as a deeply partisan debate which has to divide the parties in this House any more than it should divide the parties in Ottawa. What I see is a federal proposal that has been based on a real effort of learning and listening to other people, a real effort at getting the dialogue and the discussion to this next critical phase of nation-building. The proposals are comprehensive and they are also complex. Without sounding too much like mumbo-jumbo, I have to say we are going to be studying them very carefully and we will be coming forward with more detailed responses as the months and days unfold. But there are some basic principles that we have taken to be important and we continue to feel important.

1420

First, we still believe very strongly that the process has to be open. The process has to be seen to be open. It has to involve the people of Canada.

Second, we have said all along that our endeavours must strengthen the unity of the country and the sense of belonging and shared purpose among all Canadians.

Third, the Constitution must be such that all Canadians can see their interests and aspirations reflected in it.

Fourth, we have built up a comprehensive network of social programs whose aim is to ensure that all members of our society have the opportunity to achieve their full potential. We continue to believe this is a very important element in building a stronger sense of national unity.

Finally, as I have said repeatedly in this Legislature and elsewhere, the economy is, after all, the real constitution of the country. We cannot solve the problems of national unity without at the same time addressing the question of the national economy: how it is managed, who benefits from it and how those benefits are to be distributed in our society.

I want to turn to a number of elements. I have already referred to the question of the distinct society. There will be lots of discussion about the exact words, about the exact place of where it goes, but I do not want there to be any misunderstanding about my views and the views of this government about the need for us to be generous and so expressive of the tolerance that is the best in Canada as we try to understand what is the challenge that faces the government of Quebec -- any government of Quebec, regardless of its political stripe -- and French Canadians across the country. It is to maintain a culture and a society that have been facing adversity, facing a world that is different from theirs for hundreds of years and whose culture and whose language and whose creativity as a society are an advantage, a plus, for Canada.

We have a lot to learn. Look at our labour relations and compare them to the state of greater consensus in Quebec. We have much to learn from the sense of solidarity that is being built in that society. I believe that. I believe as well that we have to build a stronger Canada and that building a stronger Canada and a stronger social and economic union should not be seen by anyone as a threat to that.

I listened carefully to what Mr Bourassa had to say yesterday. I was encouraged by it. I think we all should be. I think the questions he has raised with respect to the nature of the proposals put forward by the federal government are things we need to look at. I believe a strengthened economic union is crucial for Canada. On the face of it -- and this is just on perhaps the first, second and third read-through -- some of these proposals from the federal government seem to be more oriented to strengthening the federal government rather than to strengthening the economic union. You do not necessarily need to do that in order to strengthen the economic union. That is something we want to discuss with other provinces, including of course Quebec.

As a province, we have never historically felt that Senate reform was the most important part of the constitutional agenda, but we have to recognize and listen and learn the fact that it is a very important part of the constitutional agenda for other parts of the country, for western Canadians and for a great many people in Atlantic Canada as well.

The federal government's proposals, I think, will form the basis of a very intense discussion, but I can tell members of this House we are going to have to do something to reform federal institutions -- the Senate -- in order to allow the various parts of the country to feel they have more of an impact on the decisions that are taking place in the centre. We have to be aware of that as Ontarians. We have to be aware of that sense of alienation that exists in western Canada and we have to be prepared to respond to it in a positive way.

Without getting wedded to any particular formulas or saying it has to be this way or that way, we recognize -- and we are going to be participating fully in the discussion -- the importance of this issue for many people in Canada and we are prepared and eager to discuss the need for change.

We are very interested in the federal proposals on other institutional changes with respect to the Council of the Federation, as it has been called. We recognize the need for us to build more effectively the links that tie the country together. I must say I am concerned about the number of institutions and layers that we are creating. I think it would be nice if we could keep it a little simpler in terms of what we actually end up with as a structure, so that it does not become so unwieldy that it cannot work. That is just a concern I have, but I think we have to work at making sure it works effectively.

On the federal proposals on devolution, I would just say that you cannot talk about that unless you are prepared to talk about how you are going to pay for programs, particularly how you are going to pay for programs in those provinces which do not have a sufficient economic and financial tax base to fund what is being devolved on them or what they are being asked to do.

This again is going to be the subject of some very intense negotiations and very intense discussion. That is one of the reasons why we as a party have talked about the need for a social charter, the need for a sense of social union to match the importance of economic union so that everyone can see that the two things go together, that they are not fighting with each other but they are being brought together, and so that we can in fact create the climate in which economic and social decisions can be made on behalf of Canadians, recognizing that provinces have their role and their part and their position to protect and to put forward, but recognizing that fundamentally we do want to create a productive society, a productive country, in which we are able to provide work and opportunity for everyone, which surely should be the objective we set for ourselves.

I think it has become clear over the last few days that the recognition in this document of the aboriginal right to self-government does not yet adequately reflect what, in our view, needs to be done. The reason that the words "the inherent right to self-government" have achieved such significance is because what those words signify is a recognition that there were societies and governments here before 1763 and 1774 and 1791 and 1840 and 1867 and 1982. That historical fact about Canada needs to be recognized.

I believe the next six months, the next year is perhaps the most critical period this country has faced since it was born. I was very encouraged by the approach taken by Mr Bourassa yesterday. It took courage for him to do that in the face of the changing winds and climates of opinion in his own province. It is going to take some courage on our part as well. If we just sniff the wind and watch which way it is going, then the country will be in even deeper trouble than it is today. We have to set out clearly the elements of constitutional reform that are going to bring the country together and allow it to work, and to work productively.

I say to the House, as I said to the leaders of the opposition parties yesterday, this government, this Premier, is prepared to work with everyone. I have invited Mr Bourassa to come to Toronto and he has accepted. I believe the discussions and the dialogue which must take place, the work of the federal committee which is under way, has to be based on this urge for consultation and openness, yes, but we must also face another reality and that is the collective capacity of this country to make a decision. This is where I want to close.

1430

The process in a democratic country of making a constitution is, to put it mildly, difficult because so many people feel excluded and so many feel uninvolved, and because so many people have concerns and points of view which they want to express and think are important to them. We are now reaching a period over the next few months when our ability to create structures which will allow people to participate will be tested.

I continue to believe profoundly that we must do that, but we also cannot forget the fact that we have to create a collective capacity to make a decision and to recognize that this is also an essential element of reform: the will to talk, the will to listen, the will to learn, and finally the will to act.

RESPONSES

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM / RÉFORME CONSTITUTIONNELLE

Mr Elston: I have said many times to several people that one of the roles of the Ontario Premier has always been to speak out about the sense of feeling this province has for the nation which has been so kind to us, and I have thought that for too long this gentleman who now leads our province has not been able to speak out with the emotion he expressed so often before he became Premier. He did not disappoint us today when he spoke with the sense of feeling and emotion which so many Canadians, so many people who now find themselves in Ontario, wish they could have had over the preceding months.

While he speaks today, he speaks of an optimism which all of us can feel and which all of us measure in terms of the desire to lead this province to come to the conclusion that a state of Canada without one of our provinces would not be the Canada we would like to see. We must have the accommodation the Premier speaks of. We must have the language around the construction of our new Constitution which all of us will believe will provide each of us with the individual opportunity to grow to become the best person we can inside the social and cultural home we all desire. He spoke about that, that this must represent for each individual a home which is satisfactory for each of us as we relate to other people in our country.

I am happy he said that, because when all is said and done, all we ever really can conceive is the best social contract that has brought together a whole series of regions, of men and women who have arrived here one way or another to spend their natural lives in this land.

I grew up -- some say I grew up, some have said I have not -- and I have come through the 1950s, the 1960s, the 1970s and the 1980s in days in which there has been very little, if anything, that we could not grab on to; very little that we could not grasp to make our situation much better; very little that was not within the reach of us who were born in the so-called baby boom era.

For some of us, the concern and indeed the real underlying fear which confronts us with this new type of dynamic we are in is that we may not have that opportunity again. I say to the people who are looking in on this that if we cannot come to grips with reconstructing our nation, it will most certainly not be available for the children who follow us. That is what is working in my mind as I examine these documents.

I got a copy of this paper. I walked home with it last night and I walked to work with it this morning. It does not feel quite right yet and there is work to be done among all of us here, but also all of us who are looking in across Ontario, to make this feel like it is ours. While we try to make it feel like it is ours, we must make it feel like it belongs to all the people who live in the land that is described in every atlas as Canada.

If we change the word "compromise," when we try to arrive at that seemingly very easy objective, to read "accommodation," perhaps then we can find a home for all the individuals who want Canada to allow them to be the best individuals they can be; more particularly, for those of us who, like me, have come through the 1960s and 1970s in educational institutions, to ensure that our kids, and after them their children, can become the best they can be.

I am struck by the fact that almost everyone who does not have some political agenda other than the Canadian one has talked about accommodation, has talked about the starting point as being a good one. It instils within me the sense that the goodwill from the seaboard on the east to the west coast will inspire a whole lot of work by people to try and build a home for all of us who live in this province and for all of us who live in Canada.

While we go out and listen to all the suggestions that are going to be put before our committee here -- it is chaired by the member for Victoria-Haliburton, who looks on with interest -- and all the information that is given to the federal committee by all the people who want to respond with their ideas about how Canada can accommodate their individualism, accommodate their growth, after all is said and done it comes down in the end to leadership and decisions having to be made, decisions having to be taken by men and women who have rightfully heard all there is to be said in the next few months about what there is to create the type of Canada that we all see accommodating the people who come after us.

While we think about the words we write here, we must think about the lives that will be affected by them. While we put our energies into creating new words in this document, we cannot forget about the lives that go on day by day and that need to be sustained while we build the new world according to the Constitution.

While we may live more by words than many others, in our society men and women still require work. They still require the support and the sustaining drive of people who have not deviated too much from the real world. The real world still afflicts women and men in Ontario with the fear of unemployment, with the fear of disease, with the fear of alienation and with the fear of violence, and governments need to put an end to those fears.

By this alone, we cannot end fear. By this alone, we cannot end uncertainty. By this alone, as men and women who have been elected to represent all of Ontario, we cannot come to grips with each problem. While we may put our stock in this in some academic way, men and women today require some practical demonstration that they have not been lost, that the energy and resources of all of us here have not been diverted from their plight, that they will not be forgotten in this generation in an attempt to create an ideal generation to come.

1440

Anybody who reads this document -- and I have read it a couple of times, some parts more than others -- will know that it does not provide the feeling that is needed to sustain our people. Words alone of course are not enough. Actions which fall from this are what will make us, as a society, measured a success by the people who put us here. Feeling the fear of people, feeling the insecurity of people, addressing their insecurity in a way which will build this into something real, is what in the end will prove our efforts successful.

I would just say to anybody here in this Legislative Assembly that we have been here before many times as a people, and we will be here again. The mark of legislators is their ability to respond to the moving nature of social and cultural and economic change. To hold this as the final product would be a very serious mistake. This is, as the Premier has said, a starting point, and the discussion which terminates after this paper has been resolved into action will be but a starting point; and the measurement of this assembly and the measurement of the politicians and the measurement of the people who provide the services to our society as it is reconstructed will be how well we eliminate the fear and insecurity and how well people are made to feel at home.

That is what this is: It is our home. For each of us, and for each man and woman who resides inside that area described on the map as Canada, there must be a sense that there is security for us as individuals in our home. That is our duty.

Mr Harris: I will not be at all lengthy today. I reviewed some of the comments that were made by the Premier, Mr Nixon and myself on March 27. I am very pleased to say that I sense in the country, from what I have read in the last couple of days, and I sense in this House today far more optimism than was prevalent in this chamber, than was prevalent, indeed, around the country, in the House of Commons, in the other legislatures, in the media, the newspapers, radio and television. It was very pessimistic.

In fact, after meeting with the Premier and the leader of the Liberal Party last night -- and last night I read these comments -- I was really surprised and a little shocked myself about how far we have come from that pessimism of just last spring, all three of us, in the remarks on behalf of our three respective parties, and truly, I think, on behalf of all of us in the House and on behalf of Ontarians, so I want very strongly to suggest, as we look at the awesome task ahead of us, the pitfalls that lie in the way, that in my view we have come a long way, we have come a long way just since last spring.

When I reflect on Meech and why Meech failed and the difficulties at that time, 99% of the comment really aimed at the process. It failed because of the process, or maybe it was okay but it was not understood. It was reported differently in different parts of the country because of the process, because of 11 first ministers, because all the legislatures were not involved, all of the people were not involved, all of the stakeholders were not involved.

If you reflect, sure, there has been criticism of commissions and how much they have spent and "Is this consultation necessary?" But look over the last six months and reflect and think how different this process is now -- now it is not the Quebec round; now it is everybody's round; now it is reconfederating Canada -- and how much more complex that is. Think of Meech, the simple task, in comparison, that it had to do -- "This is the Quebec round; How do we bring Quebec into the Constitution to get it to sign this document we finally brought home from England?" -- and then think of the complexity now. It makes the optimism now to me even more satisfying, more exciting. You have to feel much more enthusiasm, I believe, for our ability to achieve success.

I want to talk in a few minutes about the process, not the specifics and not the details. Perhaps I will use one example of how we got derailed, because there is still some misunderstanding. We are in a much more open process, all of us, legislatures, the federal government, a much more co-operative process.

When you think of "distinct society" that the Premier referred to -- I think it is important that we do talk about it -- when you think of how "distinct society" was reported in Quebec and then how it was reported in Ontario, or in French Canada and in English Canada, surely you could not have believed you were reading the same document or even that it was reported in the same country. We have had great difficulty. I say to all of us here and, quite frankly, I say to the media, I say to all Canadians -- it is not just legislators and politicians -- that we must not allow 99% of reporting in English Canada to be different from 99% of reporting in French Canada. When we remind English Canada about Quebec's override of the charter and never mention Alberta's override of the charter to take away rights from French-speaking Albertans, we must send a message -- and I am sending it; I am happy to say it and I do not mind saying it -- to the Quebec media: "You must not report Alberta's override of the charter to take away French rights in Alberta, while never mentioning Quebec."

We need to understand what is meant by "distinct society," so I applaud the efforts of the federal government to come forward and say, or attempt to, anyway, to open the debate -- it will be a long debate, I have no doubt -- "Here is what we think 'distinct society' means."

1450

The Premier very clearly is on the record, always has been, and part of that process of supporting Quebec as a distinct society, I believe he said, is with respect to language and culture. I know he means, as well, the justice system. To suggest that it is not distinct in those aspects is really not looking at history, at reality, at what Quebec is today. Is it majority French-speaking? It sure is. Is that distinct from the rest of it? It sure is. Is their justice system based on a different code? It sure is. It always has been. Do we have difficulties with that? I think the Premier was right. That does not take anything away from me, I do not believe, as an Ontarian, as a Canadian. When we are dealing with culture, is their culture different? Yes it is.

There will be those who will interpret it in such a way that it does take something away from us. I think we will reach a successful conclusion to this debate provided we are not saying one thing in Quebec and another thing outside Quebec, we are not saying one thing in Ontario and another thing outside, we are not trying to define this to sell it to one group and then define it differently to another group. If we have learned anything from Meech, those days are long gone.

I mention that and some of the mistakes we have made in the past in the hope that we will not make those mistakes again and will not be afraid to talk about bilingualism and French language and what it means, how it affects Ontario, how it affects Quebec, because I, too, believe it can be interpreted in such a way, can be entrenched in the Constitution in such a way and can be applied practically in day-to-day life in such a way that it does not take away the rights of any of us. If we achieve that, we are a long way down the road.

I know there are many other issues on the table. It is now a reconfederation process, but we must remember as well that unless we deal with language and culture and the justice system in Quebec and with this definition, what we are dealing with is reconfederating nine provinces in Canada, not 10; we are reconfederating a different piece of geography than we are dealing with, or we are exploring how we are going to relate to a sovereign Quebec.

All I am saying to natives across this country and here in Ontario, and to other groups now seeking a greater understanding of their rights in the Constitution, that by putting some focus on Quebec it determines whether it is Canada's geography as we know it today working on the social rights, on the economic rights, on how we are going to function as a country; on ensuring that while extending these rights, recognizing the privileges that are there and recognizing the obligations that go with them, we are not indeed taking anything away.

I really am encouraged that all three parties here in Ontario and in the federal House and, from what I have sensed across the country, are prepared to work together. Perhaps it is necessity, because in my view our role has diminished, quite frankly. Perhaps we were never important, some may say, in the whole process, but I think the Premier, in the discussions yesterday, alluded to the fact that his views, the views of a Premier of a province, are not so important any more.

There is going to be some leadership required and the understanding that those of us involved are very important in shaping public opinion, but ultimately the people are going to decide. No more Meech Lake. No more going back to inform everybody how they are going to stand up and vote. That is not going to be the ultimate process out of this. We have recognized that in the committees we have set up, in the consultation, in how we are moving forward. I want to tell people and Ontarians that I am encouraged that we have not ruled out any possibility for that final determination, whether it is a national referendum, whether it is a whole series of provincial referenda. It seems to be that kind of debate, not the fact that there is not going to be a ratification process -- not by me, not by my party and not by the 130 of us here, but a ratification by the people of this country.

We have not ruled out constituent assembly, even those who are violently opposed. That may be the ultimate way to both arrive at the package and perhaps to get representative groups to give their stamp of approval beyond the Premier's, beyond mine, beyond the Liberal Party's, beyond all of us 130. I am pleased with that and I think that is very important as well.

I appreciate our Premier sharing with the Liberal leader and myself the information he has, his understanding, those chats he does have -- sometimes it is revealing -- and the ones he does not have across this country, including in the province itself. I appreciate that because, more important than ever, the opposition parties, the leader of an opposition party is probably much more important than in the past.

The views of members as individuals -- not because they are going to be the ultimate ratifiers; it is going to come from the public -- are more important than they have been in the past too, because it is not 11 people with whatever advisers they have making the decision. It is the public, and it is us who can shape public opinion. It is us who can clarify or mislead depending on which it is we want to do.

I hope it is to clarify. So far there have been comments in the media from some who have a different goal of Canada, particularly in Quebec. I do not get a great sense that it is to clarify and to understand, but I think that is very much in the minority in Quebec, in Ontario and indeed across this country.

It is important that those viewpoints be to clarify -- constructive and non-partisan. I accept that obligation, I accept that responsibility and I take it very seriously, and I want the House and the Legislature to know that.

I indicated at our meeting last night, to the Premier and the leader of the Liberal Party and to the committee, that I am leaving next week. I am going out west to meet with the three premiers of the western provinces. One is a little tied up right now -- two of them are tied up, but one is substantially, it appears to me, more than the other. The three premiers I am going to be meeting with, Monday with Premier Getty and Tuesday with Premier Filmon and Wednesday with Premier Devine -- I appreciate the time of Mr Devine who, as we know, is tied up as well but who believes strongly in this country -- were three who were involved pre-Meech, during Meech, post-Meech and involved now.

I am very interested in a two-way exchange. I am very interested in relaying to them the mood, the sense that has been reflected to our all-party, non-partisan committee here in Ontario, the collective understanding from the Premier, from the leader of the Liberal Party, from myself, from my caucus, from our people of what we sense the mood is in Ontario, our desire to find a solution and our understanding of what needs further clarification and perhaps some things that we may not find acceptable, and seeing how that meshes with the views of the western premiers on how they view their jurisdictions, how they view what their people feel, what their committees are saying, how they feel about native self-government, about distinct society, about a social charter, about the economic proposals and indeed the federal proposal itself.

1500

I hope that will help me understand a little better. I hope it will help them understand as best as I can convey it what is happening in Ontario to those individuals. I will report back to the Premier, to the leader of the Liberal Party and to the committee the sense that I receive next week as I embark upon this mission, which I think is important for me to do.

I really believe that we do owe it to ourselves to explore every opportunity to understand and to interpret correctly. It does not mean we have to agree with everybody. We never do, as members know. But I think if we truly understand and we are using the same definitions and we are trying to bring the light of day to what it is that provinces, regions, jurisdictions, people and different linguistic groups are looking for, I think they can be accommodated in a Constitution in Canada. That is the challenge.

I conclude by saying how much more optimistic I am. Some will say: "You silly fool, how can you be optimistic with this great challenge ahead? Look at the history and experience over the past period of time." I have been here in government, in opposition. I have been involved on the periphery and on the inside and at various levels. I have been involved with my constituents, more importantly, for 10 years on these constitutional issues. I sense a better understanding today than there was even six months ago. I think where there is understanding, there is a basis for agreement, there is a basis for consensus and there is a basis for a Constitution for our country.

ORAL QUESTIONS

BUDGET

Mr Elston: My speech drove my favourite minister out of the House. I am going to have to speak to the Chairman of Management Board instead of to the Treasurer. The Chairman of Management Board confirmed yesterday that he likewise would be making a statement next week about those steps to be taken to cut the funding that is going through the budget. I hope he will be a little more helpful than the Treasurer has been. I usually ask the questions and the press get the answers.

I wonder if the Chairman of Management Board could enlighten us a little bit on what we found out in the press today, that the colleges and municipalities will be bearing the brunt of the government's problem of managing its expenditures. I wonder if he can tell us if he is in favour of forcing municipalities to have to increase their property taxes to deliver the services they are currently delivering.

Hon Mr Silipo: I am not sure that the questions as they have been posed by the Leader of the Opposition fall entirely within my prerogative as Chairman of Management Board, given the change of the responsibilities in Management Board to treasury board. However, I will certainly attempt to answer the questions.

Let me say to member very directly and to members of this House that it is certainly not our intent as government to pass on our responsibilities as government to colleges or universities or indeed any other sectors. I think we believe very strongly that we have some clear responsibilities in those areas and we will do the best we can to live up to those responsibilities.

What we have been doing, as I indicated yesterday, is that we have been in the process of meeting with both union groups and employer groups in the broader public sectors to share with them the reality that we are dealing with in this year and heading into next year. We think it is our responsibility to do that and to make them aware of those realities.

Mr Elston: It sounds like the minister just said that if that is what it takes -- ie, if that means municipalities will have to increase property taxes to deliver their services -- then that is what will have to happen.

I want to ask the Chairman of Management Board, who is in charge along with the Treasurer of casting the entire cutting program on to the table for their colleagues to see, if he likewise agrees with the strategy of forcing colleges to accept also the responsibility for his mismanagement of the budgetary process. Then, having said that colleges will have to live with less, is he also in agreement with the Premier, who says that there will be no increase in tuition, and could he tell us then what option that leaves for the colleges?

Hon Mr Silipo: First of all, I would have to take strong exception to the notion that we are mismanaging our responsibilities. I think, in the face of growing pressures upon us in terms of social welfare costs and other costs, we are doing a very good job in responding to those needs and trying to maintain our fiscal responsibilities. I will reiterate to the Leader of the Opposition our commitment to continue to live up to our responsibilities and to do so in a fair and equitable way right across the board.

Mr Elston: "Fair and equitable" is an interesting turn of phrase which we will bring back to the honourable gentleman next week as we review his cut-and-slash program, along with his colleague the Treasurer.

Can the honourable Chairman of Management Board tell us, along with the two new members on the losers' list which was viewed first in the papers this morning, who else is also on the losers' list? Who also will be bearing the brunt of his mismanagement of the budgetary process in Ontario?

Hon Mr Silipo: Again, I would have to take exception to the notion that there are losers and winners in this process.

Mr Jackson: Were you not the chairman of the Metropolitan Separate School Board? Have you forgotten?

Hon Mr Silipo: Actually, I was not the chairman of the Metropolitan Separate School Board, for the record.

I will just reiterate the point that we are going about this process of dealing with the budgetary pressures for the 1991-92 year, I think in a fair and reasonable way. The Treasurer will outline some of those steps in his statement next week and, as I indicated, I will outline some further steps that we will be taking, as the Treasurer will, with respect to the 1992 fiscal year.

Mr Elston: I want to thank the Chairman of Management Board for those enlightening answers. We will be waiting for his replies next week to our questions about fairness and equity as well.

EMPLOYMENT

Mr Elston: While I have an opportunity, I would like to talk to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, the gentleman who reported to us on Tuesday about a paper which apparently was supposedly released by his colleague the Minister of Labour, but which later the Minister of Labour said was not available, the same man who reported to us that he had created some 1,291 jobs. When we checked with his ministry officials, the reply we got was extremely interesting. It was, "Whoa, we don't know where the minister got those figures."

Having come up with that, we were prepared to accept that he had someplace that he picked those numbers from, but can the minister tell us, while he was creating those 1,291 jobs through his ministry, what he was doing for the almost 1,200 people who have lost their jobs in the two businesses most recently closed down in the city of Barrie, General Tire and Kolmar? Can he tell us what those 1,291 jobs that he created are going to do for the over 1,100 people who have lost their jobs in Barrie?

Hon Mr Philip: I can tell the member that the figure I used was the Ontario Development Corp's figure as to jobs that were created as a result of investment by that corporation. I can tell him also that the union, the mayor and the company have all admitted that the unfortunate situation in Barrie is related to a downturn in the tire market throughout the world and in particular in North America; that we have met with the company; that I have met with the mayor on two occasions; that I have spoken to the mayor; that my officials are meeting with the city of Barrie and with its industrial development people; that we are working on a series of plans to try to attract new industry to Barrie; that the Minister of Labour has his staff working with the company and with the employees and the union in that particular plant, and indeed that I met with the advocates.

1510

Mrs Caplan: They are leaving. They are not coming here to Barrie or anyplace else.

Hon Mr Philip: If the member would be kind enough to let me answer, I am sure that her colleague who asked the question would like the answer.

Furthermore, I met with the sector itself this morning to talk about new relationships with the rubber industry so that we can work with that industry as a whole.

Mr Elston: So far the reply has been that the minister is talking a lot, but for the men and women who will lose their jobs permanently in Barrie tomorrow, there is no relief and there is no relief of the fear and insecurity that those people feel.

Can this minister who talked to us about 1,291 jobs that he created tell us whether or not those 1,291 jobs will fill the void for the over 1,850 people who will lose their jobs under the Algoma restructuring that is currently going on? Is he satisfied that he has done everything he can to alleviate the dislocation, the insecurity and fear which are in the hearts and minds of the men and women of Sault Ste Marie who did not know about the 1,291 jobs that he created this past year?

Hon Mr Philip: I am pleased to say that this government has worked with both the union and the management at Algoma. A restructuring plan has been brought forward in its first phase that is acceptable to both the workers and the company. I say to the member then that as we work our way through that process, we will have a proposal that will be acceptable not only to the workers and the union and the company but also to the banks, as we put our final touches on that particular agreement by October 31, which is the deadline that both parties have been able to obtain.

Mr Elston: I have not heard how the 1,291 jobs the minister presumably has created are going to fill the void for those 1,850 people. Can he tell us how the people --

Hon Mr Wildman: I thought one of your other members, Mr Kwinter, was opposed to helping Elliot Lake.

The Speaker: Order. The Leader of the Opposition has the floor.

Mr Elston: Somebody from Algoma is testy because he knows the 1,291 jobs are not helping the 1,850 people who are losing their jobs.

I want to ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology how his supposed 1,291 new jobs are helping the 250 people who have lost their jobs at Red Rock and what he proposes to do to assist that entire community, as it goes through the fear and insecurity of thinking about losing its entire industrial activity. I want the member who is now the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology to tell us what he is doing, other than those 1,291 supposed jobs he has talked about, to offset the insecurity that is being felt in Red Rock.

Hon Mr Philip: I believe the honourable opposition member's information on Domtar and Red Rock is not accurate, but we will be happy to answer that question later. Let me tell the honourable Leader of the Opposition that his party's position is to do nothing in each of those cases.

Let me just read what the official opposition critic had to say about Elliot Lake, and I quote from yesterday's estimates: "Elliot Lake is a community that has no reason for being where it is, other than that at some time it was perceived to be the location of uranium. But now that it is no longer competitive, people are pouring hundreds of millions of dollars to keep it alive. The economics of it do not make any sense."

That is what the member for Wilson Heights said. That is the opposition's position on Elliot Lake, "Write off Elliot Lake." The member should read the Hansard from yesterday. His critic said, "Write off Elliot Lake." He said, "No money to Algoma." He would have written off the whole town of Kapuskasing because he thought that was a waste of the taxpayers' money, and he did not want the workers at de Havilland to have a restructured company that would --

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

EDUCATION POLICY

Mrs Cunningham: My question is to the Premier. The Premier is familiar with this document, A Canadian Social Charter: Making Our Shared Values Stronger. I would like to read from it.

"National standards are very important in promoting the Canadian economic union.... Differing standards for health care or social assistance can act as a barrier to interprovincial labour mobility.

"Our education and training systems are also critical to future prosperity. National standards promote the economic union by assuring that these important programs play a comparable role throughout the country."

Given the Premier's proposal to entrench these principles in our Constitution, will he explain why Ontario is the only province to refuse to participate in a national testing program for education?

Hon Mr Rae: If the minister were here I would naturally refer the question to her, but she is not here so I will respond on behalf of the government.

I can tell the member that when I was in Alberta in August, Premier Getty and I discussed this question. We also discussed it at the premiers' conference in Whistler. I said to the Premier at that time, on the basis of the discussions I have had with the minister and the deputy over many months, that the concern that has been expressed by Ontario has to do not with the principle of evaluation, it has to do with the nature of the evaluation that has been proposed and with the fact that we do not feel the stakeholders have been sufficiently involved -- the teaching profession, the school boards, the trustees and others -- in this national exercise. That has been the position. That is the position I put to Premier Getty.

As a result of those discussions, when the minister met last week with her colleagues in Edmonton -- I believe the discussion was in Edmonton -- there was a willingness expressed by everyone there to have another look at the concerns Ontario has expressed with regard to those two questions. So I would say to the member that Ontario has taken a view that I consider has been --

The Speaker: Would the Premier conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Rae: I will leave it at that, and then the member can ask me a supplementary.

Mrs Cunningham: The Premier can finish with the second part. An article in this morning's Globe and Mail, subsequent to those meetings, suggested that if Ontario does not get its own way with the discussions over national testing, the minister will simply take her football and go home. I think there is a clear contradiction, and I am sure the Premier would agree, between these kinds of undertakings, the Premier's position right now on national testing and his proposals last week. I think the game has changed, given his proposals. It just does not make sense to call for these national standards in education while we are holding out and not working with the other provinces.

There is a time frame and perhaps, given what he has just said, I should ask him right now, is he going to discuss this with his minister and give her clear direction to work as hard as she can in the next few months, given that we are just now in a pilot project stage on the questionnaires?

Mrs Caplan: Yes.

Hon Mr Rae: I appreciate the member for Oriole, who while she was on this side of the House was always a model of brevity. I will answer the member for London North and say to her as directly as I can that it is not a matter of my issuing instructions to the minister. The minister has been playing a leadership role in trying to get a discussion with teachers and with other ministers of education about the kind of evaluation that makes the most sense for this country at this time.

We participate fully in international evaluations. It was initiated by the former government. We are participating in that. We are initiating a benchmark evaluation of the success and progress of our kids through schools, right the way through. An evaluative and an accountable system is what we are all aiming for.

It is not a matter of Ontario picking up its ball and going home; it is a matter of Ontario saying: "Wait a minute. Let's make sure the teachers are there. Let's make sure the trustees are there. Let's make sure we're doing it in a progressive and effective way." That is the approach we are taking, and we are still trying to make that approach succeed.

1520

Mrs Cunningham: All of us will appreciate the Premier's word "accountability," because that is what we are all here for. I should remind the Premier also that the other ministers have agreed so far in the progress that has been made, and all of the other provinces are part of this solution.

With over $13 billion being spent to educate our children, I think taxpayers, parents and students have a right to know if they are getting value for their money. Our children deserve to know that their education measures up to students in other provinces.

Right now I am going to ask the Premier, no matter what happens, will he put the his best efforts along with the minister into getting those people to the table, and no matter what happens, make it work so that Ontario can be part of a national testing scheme in 1994?

Hon Mr Rae: We are committed to an approach which we think is going to be the most effective in getting the teachers involved, because it really works much more effectively. They are the ones who are meeting the kids every day. It does not make sense to us to create a system they do not feel they are part of as well. We also want to make sure the trustees across the country and trustees' organizations are involved.

That is the approach we have taken, and I think it is the good approach. The minister has taken some heat on it because of some misconceptions and misinterpretations of our position, but in my view she has been doing a fantastic job in persuading the other ministers of the merits of this. I appreciate the member's advice.

ASSISTED HOUSING

Mrs Marland: My question is to the Minister of Housing. Yesterday my leader explained to this minister that it will cost $2 billion to build 7,000 units at the proposed Ataratiri housing development. Her response to this was to say, "We are working hard on that to make as reasonable and practical plans for the future as we can." Surely affordable housing that costs $250,000 per unit to build is not reasonable, practical, or for that matter affordable. My question is, when will she put an end to this ludicrous project?

Hon Ms Gigantes: The member for Mississauga South fails to indicate that yesterday in the House I indicated we were looking at all the options for this project. When I say all the options, I mean all the options.

Mrs Marland: I do not know how long this looking at all the options is going to take, because in the meantime nothing is being done to put additional affordable units on the market for these people who need housing accommodation today. The interest on this $2-billion white elephant would be $200 million per year. That means that each unit of housing will carry an interest charge of close to $2,400 per month, year in, year out, interest only. That is without the cost of heating, hydro or maintenance. Clearly this level of operating subsidy is outrageous.

When the minister has all those facts before her, when will she tell us that she is pulling the plug on this multimillion-dollar sink-hole before any more time and money is wasted? How much more information does she need to tell her that to go ahead would be absolutely in the wrong direction?

Hon Ms Gigantes: I think before the member for Mississauga South relates facts to this House she might like to check them once, twice, three times. There is a great deal that is speculative about her description of facts, both in this case and in other recent cases.

She has suggested that nothing is being done to house people. I will point out to her that at this point in 1991 there are over 25,000 units of co-op or non-profit housing that are in one stage of the process of building or another. We are working very hard to provide affordable housing for people, not just in Toronto but throughout Ontario.

Mrs Marland: I would like to give this minister some facts out of today's newspaper under accommodation for rent. For $2,600 you can rent a penthouse at the Palace Pier of 3,100 square feet. You can actually rent a luxurious house for $2,500 in the downtown area with three bedrooms and a den and so forth. You can also, for $2,490, rent in downtown Toronto a luxurious Victorian town home, and so forth and so on. What the minister is talking about is going ahead with a project at government expense that is comparable to what these kinds of places are renting for today.

I would suggest to the minister that when she is looking at what is available and is trying to make the decision, she should read the facts that are available today. It is a clear indication that government has no business in the housing business. When will the minister agree to take the money from this project and if not the capital investment, at least the interest on that money, which is $200 million per year, and take that money to subsidize through a shelter subsidy program in which she could then provide accommodation for 65,000 families instead of 7,000?

Hon Ms Gigantes: While we are in the process of looking at all the options for the Ataratiri area, I am sure that ministry staff would be pleased to hear from the member opposite if she has ideas about what those options might be. She is suggesting that before we look at options we ought to just put the land on the market. She suggests that this would easily provide alternative housing for people here in the city of Toronto. I hope she will take a very good look at the facts when we report to this Legislature on the best way we have been able to assess them. I hope she will put forward any options she has that would help us determine what will be the best kind of decision to make for Ataratiri.

LANDFILL SITE

Mr Mahoney: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. As he knows, there are some municipalities in part of the area I represent that are somewhat upset with his seatmate the Minister of the Environment. There are some very high-profile political people in the community who are extremely upset with the Minister of the Environment. I see, and I hope that minister would agree, that his role as Minister of Municipal Affairs is as an advocate at the cabinet table for the municipalities.

I wonder how the minister reconciles his position as an advocate when he sits at the cabinet table and the Minister of the Environment says she is going to ignore a legal agreement signed between the city of Mississauga, the region of Peel, and more important between the citizens of that community, to close the Britannia sanitary landfill site in 1992 after a 12-year lifespan, an agreement that was signed and put in writing. This minister has just arbitrarily thrown that agreement out and issued an order for the region to comply, to expand the Britannia sanitary landfill site, obviously to take all of Metro's garbage for the future.

How does the minister reconcile his role as an advocate, and what does he say to the elected municipal officials and the staff at those municipalities when they ask him why this minister is betraying those agreements that were entered into in good faith?

Hon Mr Cooke: I think the member and the critic for the Liberal Party should understand that this entire government -- all the members of this cabinet -- are ministers who support the environment policy of this government and support the environment. The decisions that have been made by our Minister of the Environment were made because there was not adequate planning in the past and because the landfill the member refers to was in fact, as I understand it, approved under the Environmental Protection Act. We are trying to find long-term solutions and long-term facilities for garbage in the greater Toronto area that will go through the Environmental Assessment Act, so that the people of this province and the people of this region will have environmental protection and also a place to put their garbage. I support very strongly, and this government and all the members of this cabinet do, the actions that have been taken by our Minister of the Environment.

1530

Mr Mahoney: I guess the minister did not understand my question. It was not an environmental question. As the honourable member is, I assume, the advocate -- if he is not, maybe he could tell us and all the municipalities in this province -- as the Minister for Municipal Affairs, sitting around the cabinet table, what does he tell the municipalities when he shoves things down their throats? I would just like to give the honourable member some idea of how they feel.

Interjection.

Mr Mahoney: Excuse me, are the members doubting the word of the mayor of Mississauga? Let me quote her. "'Ruthless, hypocritical, dictatorial,' was Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion's description of Grier." Those are not my words; those are her words. She feels betrayed.

This minister has issued an order, and the outcome of that order, if it is not obeyed, are fines of up to $100,000 a day and jail terms. The mayor of Mississauga has said she is prepared to go to jail to fight this minister. The member is her minister at the cabinet table. Is he going to sit there while the Minister of the Environment puts Hazel McCallion in jail, or is he going to speak up for the municipalities of this province?

Hon Mr Cooke: I indicate two things to the member. First, all the cabinet ministers in this government are advocates for the environment. All of us are advocates for the environment. I also indicate to the member, if he wants to quiet down for a second and listen to the answer, that if he takes a look at the record of this government and our relationship with municipalities, in the first year of government it is a good record and shows very clearly that we are sensitive to the needs of municipalities. If he wanted to understand that, all the member had to do was to show up yesterday at the AMO consultation with cabinet, where it said there is a clear and total difference in the relationship between the municipalities and the provincial government now that we are in power.

Interjections.

The Speaker: When the members have come to order, we can continue with question period.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Carr: My question is to the new Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, and I would like to congratulate him on his new position. As he stated yesterday, it is a critical position in this government. However, leadership is action, not rhetoric, and the people of this province want solutions, not slogans.

I have in my hand some recommendations from the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, about 111 pages of concrete action on everything from health care all the way through to parkland. It takes about 15 or 20 minutes to read. I am going to send a copy over to the minister. Tonight, when the chauffeur is driving the minister home, I hope he will read through it. With traffic jams being what they are, he will probably get it done by the time he hits Spadina.

My question is very clear. When does the minister plan to implement any recommendations from the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, what recommendations will they be and when can we expect them to be implemented?

Hon Mr Philip: I have had a very productive meeting with the Ontario Chamber of Commerce and with a number of other business groups in this province. I have met with their president on some three or four occasions, as the Minister of Transportation and also, as the member probably knows, the president of the Ontario Chamber of Commerce is on the Premier's Council on Economic Renewal, on which I sit.

Their recommendations are being considered and implemented in the new economic strategy for the restructuring of the economy in Ontario and, when we announce that, I think he will see that many of the recommendations of the chamber of commerce, as the recommendations of other groups, will be considered.

While I am on my feet, I compliment the member for a very constructive and, I thought, interesting speech in his leadoff to my estimates yesterday.

Mr Carr: I thank the minister very much. Unfortunately he has come into a ministry where we see nothing but disorder, friction and malperformance, and the people of this province want answers.

Page 2 of that same report I sent over to the minister says:

"The planning process for any long-term project in the province of Ontario was seriously undermined last December when the Minister of Transportation" -- lo and behold, the now Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology -- "announced the withdrawal of the provincial funding for building of the north-south link.... Over 30 years of planning, land acquisitions, months of consolidated environmental hearings, a supportive ruling by the Supreme Court and over $70 million has been spent on this project."

In today's report in the paper -- as the minister will remember, he had an opportunity to meet with the president, the chief executive of Ford -- the headline reads "Potential Disaster" in regard to some of the legislation brought in. My question is very, very clear. Why should anyone believe the minister when he says he is going to work with business in Ontario?

Hon Mr Philip: The particular decision we made was an environmental decision, and it was a cabinet decision with regard to Hamilton. Indeed the money is still in there, and it is building roads and infrastructure in the Hamilton area. I am proud that I happen to have made an environmental decision when we made that decision, as did our party, and I think it is supported by a large number of people in the city of Hamilton.

But the member asked me the question, why should anybody be interested in investing in this province? I tell him that the president of the chamber of commerce no less has suggested, and I have certainly agreed, going with me to the United States to meet with investors to tell them Ontario is a good place to invest. Let me tell him this. Just recently, Leo Sakada Electronics in Singapore is investing $3 million in the greenfield operation of the municipality of Thunder Bay; Ilkay Inc of Korea, $4.5 million in North Bay; Eli Lilly, $50-million expansion of its Ontario manufacturing plant; Upjohn --

The Speaker: Would the minister take his seat, please. Perhaps on another occasion he could respond a bit more promptly.

JOB SECURITY

Mr Abel: My question is also for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. Keeprite is an important industrial employer in Brantford. Recent accounts in the newspaper had said that the firm could close down because the company was rationalizing its operations in the United States. Can the minister explain the status of the situation?

Hon Mr Philip: I would be happy to. Keeprite in Brantford is an important industrial employer in that region, and recent newspaper accounts said the firm would close down. I am pleased to inform the member that Keeprite has decided to rationalize the production of all residential and commercial heating and cooling products in its Brantford plant.

This is obviously good news to the region since the decision will immediately save more than 300 jobs in Brantford and the company's plans call for the doubling of employment levels over the next five years. This means transferring jobs from the United States to Brantford and to Ontario. I am proud that this has happened to us.

1540

TRUCKING INDUSTRY

Mr Kwinter: My question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. Last week hundreds of businesses and thousands of people suffered through the fifth tie-up in the last nine months of traffic at the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor. At a time when the most senior members of the cabinet met night and day considering options because of the impact of Toronto's transit strike on the people of this city, no one in this government could find one minute to travel to Windsor to attempt to resolve the latest and most devastating blockade of trucks. The minister knows that much of Ontario's industry depends on just-in-time delivery and that the blockade had a significant impact, shutting down a number of assembly lines in the province.

I see the minister is looking at the Minister of Transportation. I would like the minister to tell this House why not one representative from the NDP government could find time to travel to Windsor to get involved to ensure that business, workers, truckers would do something to make sure that the lost production, particularly in the automotive industry, could be resolved. This is not a transportation problem; this is an industry problem. I would like the minister to answer that question.

Hon Mr Philip: It is both an industry and a transportation problem and the Minister of Transportation will be pleased to answer the question.

Hon Mr Pouliot: I welcome the question from the member opposite because he is most aware that although Ontario has 40% of the trucking business in this country, Quebec being second with 17%, giving central Canada a total of 57%, he is also cognizant that we have a monopoly on blockades.

Why was the minister not at his post like a sentry to address the truckers in Windsor? Because the minister could not be in two places at once. He was in Winnipeg at a ministers' conference, meeting with the federal minister, with the chairperson and with the president of the Ontario Trucking Association, informing his colleagues across the country of the need to have a better depreciation allowance for truckers and of the difficulties with which truckers are faced in terms of the transition with the recession coupled with free trade.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Pouliot: I was there. Where was the member?

Mr Kwinter: I hope the minister will realize he is the government and we are the opposition. It is his obligation to be there, not ours.

Not a long time ago the minister's political cousin in Ottawa, Steven Langdon, staged his own illegal protest on the bridge. That really set the pattern for what has been going on, so it would seem to me that maybe the minister's reluctance to go to Windsor is because he seems to have some sympathy for Mr Langdon's position.

I suggest to the minister that he be aware of what has happened in the Windsor city council, which passed a resolution asking this government to amend the Highway Traffic Act. In addition, the Windsor Chamber of Commerce faxed a letter to my colleague the member for Essex South asking that action be taken to prevent Windsor from becoming the blockade capital of Canada.

The Speaker: Order. The member's question?

Mr Kwinter: The minister has found a new religion, and that new religion is co-operation with business. When is he going to act as if he had any kind of concern about what is happening to the business community in Ontario?

Hon Mr Pouliot: We have and we will. Partnership with business, with the private sector is a religion that the member opposite and I and this government have in common indeed. We are awaiting the competitiveness studies. There are two of them, and they are an important factor in our relationship and the long-term solutions vis-à-vis the dilemma, the impasse that is faced by the truckers.

We are putting the final touch to the competitive studies. They will reach us. It would analyse the difference between the way business is conducted in the United States and our competitive advantages and/or disadvantages in Canada, and it will parallel a federal study. Then we will have all the tools at our disposal to address the problem short-term but, more important, to look at the long-range solution so that the present confrontation will become the order of yesterday, not the order of the day.

We have a responsibility not to impede the flow of traffic. We are law-abiding. We invite people in the trucking industry to negotiate with us. Our door is always open and we do not do it in the climate of confrontation. We identify the problem. We seek solutions. We are very concerned and we are acting on it.

ELECTORAL DISTRICT OF BRANT-HALDIMAND

Mr J. Wilson: On behalf of my leader, the member for Nipissing, I have a question for the Premier. Last night I, a number of my caucus colleagues and my leader met with hundreds of residents in the riding of Brant-Haldimand. These good people are anxiously awaiting the Premier's call for a by-election. I recall that when the riding of Welland-Thorold became vacant in 1988, he demanded that the Premier of the day call a by-election. He said, "People are entitled to local representation." When will the by-election in Brant-Haldimand be held?

Hon Mr Rae: There are many answers I could give, but some of them would get me into even more hot water than I am in at the moment. I would only say to the member that we are obviously looking at the situation. I think, if he has some sense of the history of this place, that the delay has not been unduly long. Obviously I am aware of my responsibilities to ensure that the people of Brant-Haldimand have representation in the House.

Mr J. Wilson: I think the Premier would agree -- at least he agreed when he was in opposition, but I guess that was then -- that the residents of Brant-Haldimand deserve representation at Queen's Park. In fact in the good old days, as far as we were concerned, when he was on this side of the House, he went to great length to give us and my former colleagues in the House lectures about democracy and the need and the right of people to be represented in this chamber.

The last Premier, he may recall, the guy who is not here any more, played politics with the people too. He played politics with the timing of the last provincial election and he paid a tremendous price for this. So I am going to ask the Premier again: When will he call the by-election in the riding of Brant-Haldimand which the people deserve and want now?

Hon Mr Rae: The length of time of the vacancy has not been long. The former member served for a good part of the summer. That is a reality. I think it is worth pointing out that we have a responsibility to fill the vacancy with respect to an election within a reasonable time after the vacancy has been declared, and we will certainly do that. That is exactly what we are going to do.

ADVOCACY AND GUARDIANSHIP

Mr Owens: My question is to the Minister of Citizenship. Recently the Toronto Star has contained several articles with respect to the new Advocacy Act that our government will be bringing in. The articles have implied that many seniors and many people with disabilities will require advocates. I am wondering if the minister can clarify for the House and for the people of Ontario exactly what the role of advocates will be and who will require advocates.

Hon Ms Ziemba: I am very pleased to respond to this question and help to clarify some of the misconceptions that have arisen. As members know, over the past 16 years coroners' inquests have asked to have an advocacy system in place. Previous governments have asked to have an advocacy system in place by having the Fram report and the Sean O'Sullivan report. We know the system is needed.

The goal of the legislation is not interference but autonomy. Those who do not require advocates will not have advocates. The vast majority of seniors and disabled people do not require advocates; they live independently. Others have families and friends who can assist them. That is the way it should be. What the advocacy system will do is to assist those who are especially vulnerable, those who have been vulnerable to exploitation, neglect, coercion and abuse because they are alone or isolated.

Mr Owens: Some of the articles, and members of the Doctor Save caucus, have brought up the issue of cost. Can you explain to the members, Doctor Save caucus, why it is important that we bring in this act and why every single penny spent on this act is an important penny spent?

Hon Ms Ziemba: It is our conviction that this act will go a long way towards addressing some of our long-standing social injustices. Even though some of our disabled people and seniors are in need of our protection and care, they should continue to make their own decisions and exercise their rights to the extent that they are able. The Advocacy Act is going to assist them to be able to do so.

I think we heard the Premier speak very eloquently today about the fact that we as a country want to have social justice and we in our country want to take care of each other. The advocacy system will do that.

1550

EXPO 98

Mr Ruprecht: I have a question for another minister in hiding. I would hope he will be presently coming forward to get this question. The question is really to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. In the meantime, let me ask the government whip, since the minister is not present --

The Speaker: To whom is your question directed?

Mr Ruprecht: I have a question to the government whip, Mr Speaker. As you can appreciate, we have no choice on this side. The Premier is not present, the Treasurer is not present, the Minister of Tourism and Recreation is not present, the Minister of Community and Social Services is not present, the Minister of --

The Speaker: Would the member place his question, please?

Mr Ruprecht: You can see why I am almost forced to ask the chief government whip. Would the chief whip --

The Speaker: Will the member take his seat, please?

Hon Mr Wildman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I really do not want to belabour this, but is it not against the rules of this House to comment on the presence or absence of another member?

The Speaker: The basic nature of this exercise is to identify a minister to whom you wish to address a question and then to go ahead and address the question. Would the member please get on with it?

Mr Ruprecht: Mr Speaker, thank you very much indeed for your comments. I just want to remind you that in my search for a minister to address this question -- and I have stumbled across a serious item in this government's agenda --

The Speaker: Would the member place his question, please?

Mr Ruprecht: There is no one there to ask questions of in the front row. That is why I am forced to ask the government whip, and I will therefore place my question to her.

The Speaker: Quickly.

Mr Ruprecht: Would the government whip --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Ruprecht: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Would the government whip not agree that the opposition has a right to ask questions on any government expenditure that has taken place? Consequently, my question to her is, if a minister of this government is not producing either a press release or a statement by the ministry to this Legislature, would she not then agree that is not the way we work in this Hous, and traditionally we will not be able to carry on our government business?

Hon Mrs Coppen: The member has every right to ask a question of course. If I am not mistaken, the opposition is informed when our ministers are not going to be in the House. Is that not correct? My ministers are away on government business right now and the opposition is notified of their absence. There are times when ministers will be absent from the House because they have to make emergency phone calls or be back in their offices, but that is only briefly.

Mr Ruprecht: I just want to remind the government whip again that on this list that she has produced here today, there are at least five ministers I can tell her are not present today. Consequently I am very unhappy about this and sorry to say that we are not able to continue, in this government's business, to raise questions in the Legislature.

But my question, Mr Speaker, was really different. You indicated earlier that it is our right to ask questions any time the government spends taxpayers' money. I have repeatedly asked this. The Minister of Tourism and Recreation did not inform this House how much money this government has allocated to support our bid for Expo 98. He has not as much as produced a press release to tell this Legislature and our members so that we can ask a question in this Legislature. Would the government whip not therefore agree --

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat please, now. The member will recall that the standing orders are quite specific that supplementaries are to flow from the original question placed. We will have a new question. The member for Dufferin-Peel.

Mr Phillips: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: If you would refer to the question that the member asked, the supplementary flowed directly out of it. The problem was that I do not think the minister answered the question the member asked. I would ask you to look at Hansard and you will find that the member's question was directly around his supplementary.

The Speaker: To the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, I will indeed be happy to review Hansard. My understanding was that the question originally posed had to do with the attendance of ministers in the House, and therefore I did not allow his supplementary. I will review the Hansard and report back Monday. I have recognized the member for Dufferin-Peel.

Mr Ruprecht: Mr Speaker, on a point of order --

The Speaker: Is this on the same matter or something else?

Mr Ruprecht: Would I be able to address the Speaker, please? Is that possible?

The Speaker: The member should be aware that we are utilizing question period time. I have undertaken to review Hansard and I will report back to the member as quickly as possible. The member for Dufferin-Peel.

LAND REGISTRATION

Mr Tilson: I have a question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. The closing of 14 registry offices across Ontario has been and continues to be of great concern to the members of my party. Through our efforts, witnesses from across Ontario appeared before the standing committee on general government last July to tell the minister that her plan would result in irreparable harm to local communities. Throughout the hearings, government members of the committee continually displayed obedience to the decision of the minister and it was clear that they did not care about and were not listening to the concerns of those appearing in front of them.

This obnoxious and arrogant attitude was reinforced by the ministry's decision to close the Toronto registry office while the hearings were still in progress. Since then, Bowmanville has been closed and Arthur is set to close next week, while the report from the committee has yet to be reported to this House.

My question is whether the minister feels this course of action is fair and democratic, and will she agree to stop any further closures until the committee has reported back to the House on its findings?

Hon Ms Churley: The answer to the first question is that, yes, I think this is a fair and equitable decision to make, and yes, I will continue to try to keep on schedule in terms of the integration of the land registry offices.

Mr Tilson: It kind of makes our whole system a sham when she consents to going through those hearings knowing full well she is going to ignore what we are going to be doing.

My supplementary question is this. In the April edition of Registration News, a newsletter of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations registration division, it was reported that the Strategic Alliance Corp, an alliance between the government and Real-Data Ontario Inc, would be incorporated in May and that business would start up and would follow in the next six months.

I am aware, as is the minister, that this corporation is now complete and that the company is now called Teranet. I am sure the minister knows the background surrounding the initiatives of Teranet and I would like the minister to tell us what the status of Teranet is today and what the relationship is between its goal to automate land registry offices and the closing of these offices across Ontario.

Hon Ms Churley: I suppose the question is related, but really it is two separate sets of issues, because the implementation of Teranet has absolutely nothing to do with the closing of the land registry offices. There is no connection whatsoever and I am sorry information is erroneously out there. I want to make clear that when Teranet does start up its business, it will in fact provide more up-to-date information to the land registry offices.

Since it is a supplementary question, I also want to remind the member that the decision to integrate the land registry offices was a cabinet decision. It was examined very carefully by myself, by my ministry, by cabinet, and in fact, I have read, at one time by members of his government, when the PCs were in power and they backed down, but Larry Grossman was quoted as saying, "It's a good idea."

We are moving forward with this and I still believe that it was the right decision to make.

One last point --

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

Hon Ms Churley: I have examined very carefully all the letters and comments that came through the committees and I still feel, after examining all the questions, that this is the right decision to make.

1600

POLLUTION CONTROL

Mr Johnson: My question is for the Minister of the Environment. I was delighted, and I am sure my constituents will be delighted, to hear the announcement the minister made today in the House. My riding of Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings has the longest shoreline on Lake Ontario of any riding in the province. There is a strong tourist industry there where people have an opportunity to swim in the lake and fish, and many people draw their drinking water from Lake Ontario.

My question to the minister is this: I would like to know if she could explain in more detail zero discharge and virtual elimination so I might have a better understanding of this and so my constituents too might better understand that.

Hon Mrs Grier: I am glad to elaborate on the concept of zero discharge, which has been the subject of much debate over recent years. The principle was first enunciated in an agreement signed between the federal governments of Canada and the United States, the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, in 1978. I know the member will share my pride when I tell him that we are the first government in the Great Lakes basin to take that principle seriously and to commit ourselves to putting it into practice.

What that agreement called for was the virtual elimination of persistent toxic substances from the Great Lakes basin, and that happens in two ways. It happens by cleaning up existing contamination, and I am sure the member has participated in the remedial action plan that has been working, with a great deal of public support and hard work in his own riding, for the Bay of Quinte.

The second part of virtual elimination is preventing the entry of any further persistent toxic substances into the ecosystem. That is done by phasing out and eventually banning the use of chemicals that do not break down in the environment or that cause death, disease or abnormalities, and that is the basis upon which the regulations of the MISA program will be developed, starting today.

Mr Offer: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It is with respect to a response given by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology on September 24 in response to a question posed by the member for Wilson Heights. On that day the member for Wilson Heights posed a question dealing with a cabinet document, dated August 7, which outlined numerous controversial changes to the Labour Relations Act. Mr Speaker, I am reading right from Hansard, as you can see.

"The communications plan of this document outlined a detailed strategy for squashing all business concerns, and the most telling passage of this document is where the minister states, 'There must be a special effort made to neutralize all opposition from the business community.'"

The question contained a number of other aspects, but in response the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology stated, and I read directly from the second sentence of the response, "He has a discussion paper out there." The "he" referred to the Minister of Labour.

About an hour later on that same day, we conducted, through the standing committee on estimates of this Legislature, a procedure where I posed a question to the Minister of Labour as to whether in fact there was a discussion paper out there around the Labour Relations Act, as the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology had alluded to in his response to the member for Wilson Heights. The Minister of Labour indicated that there was not a discussion paper. I would have thought that the --

The Speaker: What is your point of order?

Mr Offer: My point of order is that I would like to give the opportunity to the minister, who surprisingly is here today, to correct the record. I would certainly hope that he is an advocate for --

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat, please. This is all quite interesting. It is, first of all, a committee matter, and second, points of order relating to anything that is recorded in Hansard should be raised at the earliest possible moment.

Mrs Sullivan: Mr Speaker, I have a point of order relating to the statement just made by the Minister of the Environment relating to the water quality agreement with the United States. The minister should know and in fact should have informed the House that this agreement has expired and she has not participated in negotiations to renew it.

The Speaker: That is not a point of order. It certainly is of interest to many and perhaps could have been contained in a response at the time.

Mr Offer: Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Another point of order?

Mr Offer: No, Mr Speaker. You indicated that the matter should be raised at the earliest possible moment. The earliest possible moment was today when the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology was here. I would have raised it earlier, but I do not believe he was present in the House yesterday. I wanted to raise it while he was present in the House so that he would have the opportunity to correct the record. I thought that would be done more as a matter of protocol and courtesy.

The Speaker: I appreciate the member's interest in these parliamentary matters. I am sure he is also aware that it would be more appropriate to raise it in committee, since it is indeed a committee matter.

PETITIONS

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Runciman: I have a petition signed by over 600 employees of business and industry in Brockville and area expressing concern with respect to some possible announcements related to labour law changes and basically expressing concern about the ability of business and industry to compete because of legislative programs and taxes that have been instituted in this province over the past five or six years.

RELIGIOUS EDUCATION

Mr Cooper: I would like to present this petition on behalf of the member for Perth. It has 95 signatures and it is objecting to only evolutionism being a compulsory core unit in the history and science Ontario academic course. It goes:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"The Ministry of Education has made evolutionism a compulsory core unit in senior OAC, previously grade 13, history and science. Since evolutionism and creationism are completed acts in the past, neither can be proven or disproven. In fairness to all parents and students, equal time should be given in presenting the underlying assumptions of each. Through the two-model approach, the skills of critical thinking, such as recognition of bias, awareness of society's influence on one's bias and the awareness of assumptions, can allow students to examine their own belief system and better appreciate an opposing view."

1610

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

Mr Jackson from the standing committee on estimates presented the committee's report as follows:

Pursuant to standing order 58(a), the following estimates are reported back to the House, as they were not previously selected by the committee for consideration, and are deemed to be received and concurred in: Office of the Assembly, $127,057,000; Office of the Chief Election Officer, $1,096,300; Ombudsman program, $9,716,500; and Office of the Provincial Auditor program, $8,025,000.

The Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 58(b), the estimates not selected for consideration by the standing committee are deemed to be concurred in.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

La Chambre en comité plénier.

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 EMPLOYÉS)

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.

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

The Second Deputy Chair: Are there any questions, comments or additional amendments? The table would very much appreciate having them now if different parties do have questions, comments, or amendments in particular.

Hon Mr Cooke: Mr Chairman, I believe there is an agreement among the three parties that any amendments that are divided on will be stacked until we have completed the bill.

The Second Deputy Chair: Is it the pleasure of the House that we stack all amendments until completion of the bill?

Agreed to.

Ms S. Murdock: I would ask that the minister and myself be allowed to sit at the front, close to our staff.

The Second Deputy Chair: Is it the pleasure of the House that the parliamentary assistant and the minister be allowed to move down to the table in the front row?

Agreed to.

The Second Deputy Chair: We would like at this point to make sure that all members, if they have amendments to be made, bring them forth to the table now so that we could check them with the amendments presently filed with the Clerk to see if we have any duplicates, and then we could proceed with Bill 70.

Mr Offer: We will be moving amendments to section 5 of the bill, section 6 of the bill and section 16 of the bill. I believe, Mr Chair, that you do have copies of those amendments and the subsections under the sections that we will be moving amendments to, and I believe members of the opposition and government also have copies of those amendments.

The Second Deputy Chair: I thank the honourable member. Yes, we do have copies of the official opposition's amendments to Bill 70.

Mrs Witmer: We also have amendments to the bill and they refer to section 5 of the bill, section 5 of the bill again, section 15 of the bill and section 17 of the bill, and we have submitted those amendments.

The Second Deputy Chair: Any other amendments to Bill 70? We will proceed with consideration of Bill 70.

Mr Offer: As a preliminary matter as we start with the committee of the whole, there was a request made during the committee that we might be able to receive information from ministry staff as to what they feel will be the average payout under this particular plan. To date, I have not received that information and I was wondering if that information is now available.

The Second Deputy Chair: Possibly the Minister of Labour may want to comment on that.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: The average claim at the moment is $4,200.

The Second Deputy Chair: Any more comments prior to consideration of Bill 70? We will now proceed in the normal sequence.

Mr Offer: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I ask that we stand down discussion on sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 at this point in time to the end of our deliberation and commence with that part of the bill referred to as section 5, which is entitled "Employee Wage Protection Program." This is in keeping, in large measure, with the procedure undertaken by us in committee deliberation.

The Second Deputy Chair: Normally we would be proceeding with the first, second and third sections. However, the honourable member for Mississauga North has requested that we put off discussion of sections 1, 2 and 3 until the end of consideration of Bill 70. Do we have agreement on the request? Would that request also include section 4?

Mr Offer: Yes, I believe I alluded to section 4 also.

The Second Deputy Chair: Are we all in agreement to postpone discussion on sections 1 to 4 until the end of the proceedings?

Agreed to.

Section/article 5:

The Second Deputy Chair: We will now be moving into consideration of section 5 of Bill 70. We do have a number of amendments to section 5. We have an amendment to section 5 of the bill proposed as subsection 40b(2) of the act, a Progressive Conservative amendment.

Mrs Witmer moves that subsection 40b(2), as set out in section 5 of the bill as reprinted, be struck out and the following substituted:

"(2) When an employee is compensated by the program, the wages for which an employee may receive compensation are regular wages and vacation pay."

1620

Mrs Witmer: At this time I would like to make some comments regarding the intent of this amendment. I think it is important to recognize that Bill 70 presently still does have some flaws. I think it is extremely important to consider this in the context of the harsh economic circumstances and the other NDP policies. Also, we have to remember that this bill will contribute to the already deteriorating incentives to do business in Ontario. Certainly some of the points within this legislation will prompt more businesses to move south in search of a much more favourable business environment.

Our intention here is to limit the definition to earned wages without the inclusion of severance and termination. I think it is important to remember that under this bill when a payout is made to an employee, about 10% will be to reimburse the employee for wages and vacation. However, 90% will be devoted to paying him or her for severance and termination.

We are also proposing this definition because it parallels the proposed federal program. We are also very concerned, as I mentioned at the outset, about the economic climate. We really question whether we can afford to be quite this generous at this time. We have to remember that we do have a $9.7-billion deficit and that there is a projected doubling of the provincial debt to $77 billion by 1994-95.

We have already learned that this fund is going to cost $175 million in the first 18 months. That is assuming 56,339 workers access the fund. By 1992-93, assuming we do have a return to normal economic conditions, an additional 19,411 workers will access the fund at a cost of $55.33 million.

We also need to remember that the amount of the average claim has increased from $3,254 to $4,200, as was reported to us in July of this year. We need to consider the impact of the changes that are being proposed by Bill 116. These are the changes to the termination, and it would certainly make the program much more expensive if those changes were to be accepted by this government.

We need to remember that workers are protected by the unemployment insurance system and we have to remember that the minister did indicate that workers who have received their unemployment insurance premiums from the federal government may have part of their employee wage protection program claim clawed back, because the federal government does deem severance and termination pay as income. In essence, the provincial government could well be paying the federal government.

Also, this expanded definition expands the immediate liability of directors, as they were previously not liable for termination or severance pay. Thus, it is going to increase the cost of running a business in Ontario, as companies now are going to be forced either to set aside vast amounts of cash in case of a future insolvency situation or obtain liability insurance, which many of them are finding it almost impossible to purchase in the first place. The cost of doing business in this province is going to increase if the government expands the definition to include severance and termination, and there will be less money available to actually help provide jobs for employees.

These are some of the reasons. I would like to add one other. We have to remember that this definition of the wage protection fund includes not only those people who are unemployed, who lose their jobs because of bankruptcy. This also includes now under this bill those who are employed and it includes the amounts owing them in compensation for violating pay equity or pregnancy leave requirements or for wrongful dismissal for refusing to work on holidays and the like. So in time this bill, if we were to take a look at the definition that is presently being proposed, could become a tremendous burden for the taxpayers and the business people in this community. Thus, we would like to see the definition of wages limited to actual earned wages.

Mr Offer: I would like to talk to this particular amendment because it brings back some of the representations and presentations which we heard during our committee deliberations. Certainly we on this side of the House will recognize that we were dealing with what we felt to be an extremely important bill, important not only in terms of its substance but also in terms of the principle and the message it was conveying to a great many people in this province.

One of the problems we had at the outset was that in recognizing and embracing that particular importance, we would have appreciated, and certainly wanted, a great deal more time devoted to this bill and to its deliberations. We wanted more time to allow more people to be part of the process in the committee room. We wanted to be able to travel throughout the province so that more people who are in business, who are the victims of the recession, would have had the opportunity to come to the committee to talk to us about what this bill means to them and indeed how this bill could be improved.

Unfortunately, when that motion was put forward by us in committee, the members of the government and in fact, with all due respect, the members of the third party voted against travelling. I think that will be something which will always be the subject of criticism of this particular bill. At a time when we were in the worst recession since the 1930s, when 250,000 jobs had been lost, when bankruptcies were soaring, when optimism and confidence were at a very low ebb, the government members decided not to travel, decided not to listen to business, to those victims of the recession who just a year or two ago had a job, had optimism, had confidence and now did not.

That is something we will have to carry with us as we deal with these deliberations, because we did not hear from people in the Windsor area, we did not hear from people in the Ottawa area, we did not hear from people in the London area, we did not hear from people from northern Ontario. We heard from people in the area surrounding the Toronto area. The presentations and submissions were very good, but I think all will recognize that it was an obligation, if not a responsibility, of ourselves to vote in favour of travelling on this particular bill. Though we and our caucus did recognize that, we are certainly sorry that was not the case.

I think that before we deal with this particular amendment, we have to recognize that the bill is really of two parts. The first is the part which talks about a fund for employees to access, to come and receive dollars as the result of a loss of wages, vacation pay, termination and severance. That is one area of the bill, an important area of the bill, but it is not the only part of the bill.

There is a second part to the bill which talks about in many ways the enforcement aspect of the bill, that being what happens when an employee is making application to the fund and receives money. What steps are taken through the employment standards branch to try to recoup some of those dollars? That is the enforcement aspect.

During our discussion of this bill today, and if unable to complete it today, then in the future, I think we have to keep that very clear distinction in mind. There is the access portion of the bill, there is the enforcement portion of the bill, and in many ways, although of course they are within the same bill, they are not in fact related.

1630

The proposal put forward by the member for Waterloo North is one that says that the funds which an employee may have access to through the fund are to be limited to wages and vacation pay; therefore, severance and termination will be excluded.

We had some very good discussion around this particular point and there was no question that a great number of people brought forward their opinions on this matter. When I heard submissions made, many by the small business persons in this province, they indicated that they recognized their obligation. They knew what was owed by them to their employees. They understood that and accepted that. In fact that type of obligation and responsibility is now found under the Ontario Business Corporations Act. This bill does not create any new rights.

The parliamentary assistant, who is now looking at me, will be saying, "Well, we think it does." In fact we have had that discussion and I believe this particular bill does not create any new right of access to funds by employees. It does create an enforcement mechanism, but it does not create anything new that is not now part of legislation somewhere in this province, particularly under the Ontario Business Corporations Act.

But I note that under the Employment Standards Act there is a recognition that termination pay, severance pay in certain instances, vacation pay and of course wages are things that are earned under the Employment Standards Act. I and my caucus have thought long and hard about the whole limitation aspect of the bill and what it means. We believe that if a person is entitled to certain benefits under a particular piece of legislation, then he should be entitled to those benefits, and if a fund is set up by the government to secure those benefits, then so be it.

We believe that as a result this amendment flies in the face not only of the small business persons and many people who came before the committee discussing and accepting their obligations, but also of provisions under the Employment Standards Act, which we enhanced when we were in government, and we are quite proud of that. Though I understand very well the concerns indicated by the member for Waterloo North, I believe there are other ways in which this bill can be amended which come to grips with and meet the concerns of those people who came before the committee.

This amendment, in my opinion, does not do so. We will be moving amendments of a different kind and a different nature as we proceed through this exercise. I am pleased to see the Minister of Labour is here. I hope he will think long and hard about some of these amendments which both myself and my colleague in the third party will be bringing forward. They are amendments that are really in many ways the product of people coming to our committee. They are in many ways a recognition of the implications of this bill.

We understand the principle that was announced last October by the Premier. I believe it was stated at the very time the Premier announced the government was going to allow Varity to leave this province. It was stated at that very time and at that very table. As they were allowing Varity to leave this province, as the guaranteed employment levels that Varity had already indicated would be lowered, and as the government and the Premier were saying, "That is okay," so they also indicated there was going to be an employee wage protection fund which was designed to secure wages earned by those employees who were the victims of the recession.

I think that when we talk about some of these sections in the bill, we will first see that the principles as enunciated by the Premier are not ones that are carried forward in this bill, that in fact this bill is not limited just to people who have lost their jobs as a result of the recession. I believe it will be necessary to fully debate that in this Legislature, as to whether we are, first, well aware that the principle, the words of this bill, do not bespeak the principles of the legislation as previously announced by the Premier. That is going to be something we are going to have to talk about, something we are going to have to deliberate, and it is something in the end we are going to have to vote upon.

Though I speak against the amendment put forward by my friend the member for Waterloo North at this time, I do so because there are rights, obligations, privileges and responsibilities which have been outlined and enhanced under the Employment Standards Act. These types of rights, responsibilities and enhancements can be met in a sensitive and secure fashion. We can address the concerns that have been raised by those individuals who came before the committee. Again, unfortunately the committee hearings were severely shortened. They were severely curtailed because of the lack of being able to travel on this committee on a very important bill.

I will be bringing forward amendments that I believe will meet those concerns. I know that I and my caucus have opinions on this particular piece of legislation. We have concerns as to what this legislation means, we have concerns about what message this bill has in terms of small business, small business creation and job creation in this province.

We believe the people of this province are looking at this point to members of this government to put some substance behind some of the speeches they make. If they truly believe in the importance of small business, then they will accept some of our amendments. If they do not, then their speeches must remain only words on a piece of paper, because the opportunity they have had through this deliberation to back up those words on paper with substance will have been lost. I look forward to a continuing debate on these and other issues on this bill.

Mr Carr: I am pleased to speak for a few moments on the amendment that was proposed by my colleague. I think the intent of this amendment is very clear; the intent was to parallel the federal program. All too often, as I take over my responsibilities as Industry, Trade and Technology critic, when we sit back and reflect what business says in some of the concerns it has, it is more about how the regulations and various programs interact. When you look at them, it often seems like governments at all levels, because of overlap and entanglement, do their very best to make it complicated. Instead of trying to smooth things down and make some of the programs run parallel so people can understand them properly, we attempt to make them head in different directions.

1640

It was interesting earlier today that we had the discussions with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, who not more than about an hour or so ago went on and on about how they are listening to business and how this is the new government and they are trying to work with them. That proposal that I sent over for him to read on his way home this evening, when his chauffeur is taking him along the QEW back to Rexdale there, I hope he will flip to page 65 where they talk about what they would like to see. I really think that the minister, being in such a high portfolio -- in fact he was out yesterday in Oakville saying what a great job it was to have this position, but unfortunately around the cabinet table he must not have had much of a chance to speak up.

Businesses, through the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, which he again talked about having a meeting with, and also the chambers of all different sizes, had some concerns with the regulations. In fact, they list it, after taxes, as the number one problem for small business in Ontario. It is not the free trade agreement, it is not the cost and availability of funds or even the high Canadian dollar. They say the two biggest things are, number one, taxes, and number two, regulations. Instead of trying to simplify it, what do we do? We get two parallel programs that could work in conjunction and then we get them heading off in different directions, because governments try to claim that it was their idea first or that they cared more so they gave more.

Instead of thinking of some of the small businesses and trying to end this entanglement, when you look at it, it often appears to the people in the business community that governments do everything they can to make it very, very difficult. Most small businesses will need legal advice to figure a lot of this out. It is probably not a coincidence that most of the people writing the laws in the past have all been lawyers. They make it so difficult and so hard to understand that they keep themselves employed, although I think last time a lot of the lawyers ended up on the scrap heap after the last election. This is a particular example of that. Instead of simplifying it, what we do is we try to make it more complicated.

It is interesting to note something that I think we will be hammering away at probably for the next four years. If they go their full five, I guess we have another four. With the amount of money that comes out of a program, somewhere the money has to go into it. Something is very clear and if the government has not heard it or understood it, it should. When we increase taxes, whatever it may be, for whatever good intentions and good reasons there may be, if we increase taxes to pay for some of the programs -- and we had a great debate on this very question this morning about whether it will be payroll tax or how they are going to pay for it. I think it was interesting to note -- by the vote of the government I think we know very clearly, and if I was a betting man, I think I would take out a bet and know exactly where the funding will come from. None the less, what it very clearly shows is that if you have higher taxes it means fewer jobs. Here we are talking about a program to protect workers, and what we are doing is taking another step and putting another onus on some of the businesses, particularly the small businesses.

I think the chamber of commerce said it when it said that some of the funding principles penalize the healthy and responsible employers, and it may have some concerns about that. What we have attempted to do is be a little bit practical with some of our solutions. We are now looking at a deficit which is probably $10 billion or $12 billion. Whatever we can cut it back to now is going to be the big question over the next few weeks.

People say the fund will be $175 million -- that is what it will cost -- just like the Treasurer of this province stood in the Legislature and said he would keep the deficit to $9.7 billion. We all see how those projections were wrong. So when they say $175 million, what will it be? We will probably hit the bicentennial mark of over $200 million even before the first eight months are hit. They talk about $175 million over 18 months. The Treasurer was so far off.

It was interesting that during the hearings on the budget his parliamentary assistant went around and kept saying: "Boy, our numbers are right on. The federal government never hits them, but our numbers are right on. Aren't we terrific?" Less than a week later we have a Treasurer of this province who has to make cuts, probably to the total of about $2 billion if the truth be known.

Then we wonder why people are a little cynical about politicians. They go around and champion things and not more than a week later they have to backtrack. So when we have these figures, $175 million that it is going to cost, assuming the amount of workers who are there, the business people look at that and say, "The $175 million is another guess."

If we, as we were going through school, were as wrong as the government is in its projections, we would never have passed any grades. They are continually wrong and it is to the point now where people do not even bother looking at the figures. They know they are going to be wrong; they know they are going to be off. Depending on what happens with this current recession with the number of workers, putting some of the projections in place, I guarantee they are going to be off as well.

As we sit here, we are looking at doing something to try to be practical in making some of the changes. At the very time when you look at page after page -- some members may have seen some of the reasons that businesses were leaving over the last little while. There was a report in the Toronto Star that talked about the companies going for business and why they had left. The overall cost of doing business is such that they are saying, "Thanks very much."

The ironic part of it is and the sad part of it is that these businesses are struggling so hard to survive. When I talk to some of them and I say, "Why don't you come out to some of these committee hearings?" -- and there were numerous ones, as we all know, over the summer, whether they were the budget hearings or whether they were these hearings -- most of the business people say: "We don't have enough time to do the things we need to do now in the amount of hours. We're working six hours, seven hours a day, more than 15 hours, and you want us to come out and talk to a government that has continually not listened to us."

We have the government in question period championing and saying: "Oh, yes, we're going to listen. We're going to listen to the opposition parties." I sit back and remember what happened in this very House when the Premier said that he wanted input on the conflict of interest. Less than 45 minutes later, they invoked closure in that committee because they did not want all the publicity about all the scandals that were happening in the government at the time.

Unfortunately the people of this province and the small business owners know very clearly where this government stands, and it is a sad state of affairs that the situation is such that groups such as the chamber that have been around since 1911 and employing so many people do fine documents that outline it to the government and nothing gets implemented. They do not listen.

We are already now at the point where we are the highest-taxed jurisdiction in not only Canada but all of North America, and yet we are in a situation now where instead of trying to look at the root causes, this government is trying to champion the causes by trying to look at giving some of the money instead of trying to get to the root of the problem.

I guess as I sit here and look at some of the amendments, the problem with this entire piece of legislation is that there is no long-term planning and in fact, there had not been under the previous government either.

It was interesting that we looked at some of the changes that are here and some of the ones we have proposed, and I hope all members would attempt to keep in mind the very clear message that is being sent by some of the folks who are in the small businesses out there, the people from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the people who in most cases have less than 10 employees, who are struggling to keep up.

If we can do things like try to make the programs parallel each other and simplify them and end the overlap and entanglement, I think we would be doing well. If we did nothing else but that, it would help the small businesses and the people who are out there, the entrepreneurs who in spite of these tough economic times, in spite of the fact of what the government is doing to them, are trying to survive out there. So I think the amendment that has been brought forward is --

The First Deputy Chair: May I remind the member that we have granted him considerable latitude in his remarks, and I would appreciate it if the member could focus on the amendment.

1650

Mr Carr: As a matter of fact, I was just about to close. You actually kept me on longer. I thought I was focused. Yes, I was wandering. I was just about to be brought back by the fine new Chair whom we have up there.

In closing, the fact of the matter is that what we are looking at here is to limit the definition. I look at the bill and I see the original definition that is on page 2 of the bill. In all the referring back to sections 39c, 39f and 39k, as they are laid out in this particular piece of legislation, the fact of the matter is it makes it more complicated for everyone involved. What we need to do is simplify it.

I hope we would have the support of all members. I think we have heard from the Liberal Party members saying they would not, but I hope the government will take a look at it.

Mr Arnott: I am very pleased to stand in my place today and support the motion that was sponsored by my colleague the member for Waterloo North to Bill 70. I will read the amendment very briefly. "When an employee is compensated by the program, the wages for which an employee may receive compensation are regular wages and vacation pay." Of course the intent of this amendment is to limit the money paid out from the fund to the dollars which are actually earned, wages and vacation pay, and limit the money paid out, not to include dollars that are not actually earned but only provided by way of legislation, meaning severance and termination pay.

I believe this is a very important amendment which would greatly enhance the ability of small businesses in Ontario to compete with their counterparts in other jurisdictions.

I was recently appointed our party's small business advocate and I take a great deal of enthusiasm to that role. I am looking forward to working with my seatmate, the new critic for Industry, Trade and Technology, as we attempt to bring forward positive suggestions and so forth to the government, and hopefully they will pick up on some of them.

I would like to beg the Chair's indulgence for a minute or so and add a personal observation to this. My grandfather's name was Leonard Arnott and in my opinion he was a great man. He started a business in 1929 at the height of the recession when he was 21 years old. As soon as he became of age, he signed a contract to build a bridge and I think it took a great deal of courage and a great deal of vision to initiate a small business at a time when we were coming into the Great Depression.

He kept at this business for many years, and when I was growing up, I can recall being around with him. He had more energy at 70 than I have at 28. He worked so hard, he worked seven days a week and he put his life into this business. He passed away about five or six years ago. I worked for this company. It is called Arnott Construction Ltd out of Collingwood, and I paid my way through university with the wages I earned while working summers.

Recently, the president of Arnott Construction, who happens to be my uncle, wrote to the Premier on July 9, and I would like to read a couple of paragraphs from the letter. In the interest of time, I will not read the whole thing, but it reads:

"Dear Premier:

"We are a 62-year-old, family-owned construction company involved in heavy engineering construction throughout Ontario for both the private and public sectors. In our peak construction season, we should employ around 175 people in the office, shop and field. Presently we have 78 employees, with many on UIC, work-sharing or reduced hours. I said we were a 62-year-old company, but we may not make it to 63 under the type of legislation that you are enacting or entertaining."

The letter continues and concludes:

"The economy of Ontario is in difficulty and is of concern to us all. Your budget and the changes in the labour law, if implemented, would impose further financial and administrative stress on the economy as it faces increased competition through a more integrated global economy.... The implementation of any of these proposals in the present economic climate would result in increased scepticism in Ontario at a time we are struggling to recover from a serious recession. The welfare of both employers and employees will not be enhanced in the short or long term by their adoption."

It is signed by Wayne Arnott; as I said, my uncle.

I would like to say to the Minister of Labour and his parliamentary assistant over there that if they use their majority to defeat this amendment, I guarantee them that companies such as this will not be in business next year, and in fact they will be destroying jobs in Ontario.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: Just a few comments briefly: First off, to the member for Wellington, I have difficulty understanding how this money that has been earned by employees and is finally able to be collected would destroy any small firm at this point in time in Ontario.

To the member for Waterloo North, I simply want to state that I understand the position she has taken. I understand her amendment, but if she thinks that reducing from $4,200 -- if 10% is what applies to wages or vacation pay -- to some $400 is a just return to the workers who have earned severance pay and other termination pay that they are entitled to, it is a pretty weak piece of legislation and does not do exactly what we intended and set out to do with this piece of legislation: to give as much protection to workers as we could for money they had actually earned and was theirs. That is why we simply do not buy the amendment.

On the federal bill, I can tell her we are negotiating with them, and there is a pretty general agreement if we see the federal legislation. Forgive me, I have only been in this House 16 years, but this is an issue I raised at least six or seven or eight times over a period of better than 10 years and got the answer, "It should be resolved through federal changes."

On a couple of occasions, previous ministers of labour actually had commitments that it was going to happen, and to this day we do not have it and we are not sure yet that we will see the finalization of the current bill. If we do, up to their maximum of $2,000 -- the agreement is not signed, once again, so I will not make that absolute either, but the intent of the conversations we have had seems to be that this money, to the extent that we are entitled to it, would be paid into our fund if this happens. We think there will not be any difficulty, because we do not want a duplication as well in resolving that particular problem.

I think those are the key points. I was pleased to hear that at least on this point, we had the support of my colleague the member for Mississauga North.

Mr Offer: If I might make a comment just based on the minister's last remark, a number of people came before the committee and spoke about the federal plan, which has not yet been passed, as well as ours, which obviously has not been passed but seemed to be a little farther down the line. They were questioning how the minister views the discussion and the amalgamation of these two plans.

The question, I think, boiled down to whether it is the opinion of the minister that if there are two plans in place, the amount of money that an employee could access would be either $5,000 plus $2,000, or $5,000, of which $2,000 would come from the federal coffers. I would like to use this opportunity, if I might, to ask the Minister of Labour, in the event that there are two plans that have been passed, what will be the position of the government?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: The federal plan does not cover all the same areas that we cover, but the maximum entitlement would be $5,000, I can tell the member that, not $7,000, if that is the question he is putting.

1700

The First Deputy Chair: Is it the pleasure of the committee that the motion carry?

Mr Offer: I understand there is an agreement to stack these votes till the end. Maybe we could get some direction from the Chair as to the procedure. Does it require that five members stand?

The First Deputy Chair: The procedure that was agreed, I think you have already heard, is that we put the amendment to a vote and if five members stand then the vote is deferred.

All those in favour of the amendment please say "aye." All those opposed? In my opinion, the amendment is lost.

Vote stacked.

The First Deputy Chair: Mr Offer moves that clause 40b(2)(d) of the act, as set out in section 5 of the bill as reprinted, be struck out.

Mr Offer: This is a very important area of the legislation because it speaks to our roles and responsibilities as legislators. The amendment I am proposing would have the effect of moving any change in the amount of payment from regulation, which it now is in the bill, to legislation.

I believe all members of this assembly recognize what that means. By regulation, changes could be made in cabinet at the stroke of a pen whereby the amount which is indicated now as being $5,000 could be increased to $6,000, to $10,000, to $15,000, to anything the cabinet so desires, without the opportunity of debate in this Legislature, without the opportunity of members of this Legislature to vote.

I believe this is an extremely important amendment in that it speaks to our role as members. Clearly there is a concern out there that after the initial 18-month period the funding for this program may be by an employer's tax. Clearly one cannot dispute that concern. Clearly it is being read as a negative message to business. Clearly we know that any change in the dollar amount in an upwards fashion or any change in the breadth of protection will have an impact on the cost of doing business in this province, because as we all know in the event this bill passes -- I can count the members in the House -- insurance will have to be obtained for all businesses in this province, insurance to cover liability. When the scope of liability is increased, that must be measured in the premium paid, and that premium paid is going to be by the small business person.

We are saying we recognize the responsibility and the authority of government. We are asking government to recognize the responsibility on us, on this side of the Legislature, to be able to speak to changes in the liability of the fund. We do not think it is an amendment which should cause great concern to the government. The minister himself, in the drafting of this legislation, the minister and his cabinet in approving this legislation, the minister, cabinet and caucus in, I believe, supporting this legislation, saw no problem in inserting the figure $5,000 in the legislation. They did not see any problem in doing that.

What I am saying on this side and what this amendment is saying is that if they saw no problem in inserting the $5,000 figure in the legislation in the first instance, then surely they should not be concerned about any change in that particular dollar figure going through the legislation again. Surely they cannot have a concern about legislators talking about any change in the monetary amount of coverage of this bill. Certainly they must accept our role and responsibility and the opportunity we have to ensure, and in fact guarantee to the many people outside this Legislature who live their lives, who run their businesses, who might just want to share their opinions with us.

By not accepting this amendment the government is shutting the door on true committee consultation. It is shutting the door on anyone who wants to talk about any future or potential change to this legislation. It is shutting the door on the small business person and the large business person. It is shutting the door on the employees to come before a legislative committee to talk about any change and what it means to them.

This amendment speaks not only to the bill but in a very fundamental way to our roles and responsibilities. The minister has responded quite forthrightly to a question I initially posed, and that was, what was the average payout they could expect? The minister was very clear and said that on average it would be approximately $4,200. In a letter received by myself and probably all other committee members from the minister, the answer to the question as to how many people will be eligible on estimate to this fund was provided, and that was 55,000 people.

1710

It says here: "You have asked about the estimate takeup for the program. When the program was being designed, ministry estimates indicated that around 55,000 workers would be helped during its first 18 months of operation."

Let's just take those two figures, 55,000 people estimated with an estimated takeup of $4,200. What happens when we multiply those figures together? Members should help me out on this. When we multiply these figures out, it may be an estimated monetary takeup rate of over $200 million, $231 million to be exact.

We have to ask questions as to where they are going to get the extra dollars. This fund has been budgeted for $175 million. In committee it was clear that the $175 million, as budgeted for the first 18 months, included not only the takeup rate, but also the staff required to process these applications. We asked what the staffing would be. If memory serves me correctly, the response was 107 new people, so 107 new people must be employed as a result of this bill. I do not know what that result in dollars and cents is, but on a quick calculation over 18 months I think $5 million is not out of the question. We have to keep that in mind and recognize that it does not include desks, tables, chairs, telephones and all the operations around. Now we have new staff of approximately $5 million or $6 million. Those are my figures. The 107 is by ministry staff.

We know from the minister's own statements that there are going to be about 55,000 people taking up this program. We know, again by ministry statistics, that it is going to be about $4,200 and we also know that the chance of recovery of these dollars from directors is minimal indeed, and we will get into the enforcement aspect later on.

In the letter the minister provided, we have also known there is going to be a communications budget of $500,000. I add these figures together and I say we are away over budget; we are into $250,000,000. So the question is, if that is the case, what will be the problem in any change of liability being moved into this Legislature? What is the concern, the problem, the fear, the consternation of the government in saying: "We don't want the Legislature to talk about increasing the dollar amounts. We don't want the Legislature to discuss broadening out the protection. We want to do that at the cabinet table on Wednesday mornings behind closed doors."

That is not good enough, because there are many people, employees and business owners out there, who say: "If you change liability, if you propose change, we want to have a say in this. We want to share with you what the implications are for change. We want to tell you what it means to us in terms of jobs, investing in this province and expanding in this province," and we in this assembly should not be afraid of having changes of this nature taken out to committee.

I may oppose it but I do not dispute their right to do that, but I believe that if they do it, they as a government have an obligation, if not to the opposition parties then to the people of this province, to the people who have lost jobs, to the businesses that are trying to create jobs and to the existing establishments that are trying to expand to create wealth, to say, "We'll listen to you." The way in which we can do that is by making certain that any change is done in this chamber through legislation and not through regulation.

To many people this might not sound like a very important aspect -- regulation, legislation; legislation, regulation -- but to us here and to the many people who do care about this particular aspect it is important. It is important to send out a message that they will be able to speak to government and to the opposition parties. They will be able to share what is important to them.

By voting against this amendment, the government closes the door to those people who want to tell them what it means to the future growth of this province and of any change to this legislation. They close the door to people who think they may want the changes altered. They close the door to the business entrepreneurs, those people who are investing capital either in terms of money or intelligence and trying to make a go of it in this province.

They have an obligation and an opportunity right here and now to say: "Our speeches about a new climate of co-ordination and consultation are more than words on a piece of paper. They are going to be backed up by substance."

By voting in favour of this amendment, they put substance behind those words. By saying no to this amendment, their speeches ring hollow. They will never be more than words on a piece of paper which the people out there will know mean absolutely nothing because today and right here they had the opportunity to say yes to this amendment.

Mrs Witmer: I would like to speak to the motion and indicate that I share some of the concerns that have been expressed by the member for Mississauga North. I would like to preface my comments by saying I am very surprised to see that additional payments are indeed going to be prescribed by regulation as opposed to amendments to the act, which would allow for a full and complete public debate.

I am surprised because I heard the Premier's words on Monday. I have heard the Premier's words since he took office. He has certainly talked repeatedly about the need for consultation and co-operation, the need for public input, and I am surprised that these additional payments are going to be prescribed by regulation and that the cabinet is being given considerable power, a totally unchecked power. They do not have to answer to this House in any way. I believe it is extremely important that there be consultation with the public and an opportunity for public scrutiny into all program spending increases, and that is certainly what is being suggested here: additional payments above and beyond what is included in Bill 70 at the present time.

I am concerned that additional components to the compensation package can be made by regulation. One of the reasons we had the public hearings this summer was to hear from the different groups throughout the province. All the employer groups mentioned to us that they were very opposed to and were very concerned about the ability of the government to increase not only the program's ceiling, but to add additional components to the compensation package by regulation.

1720

I would like to ask the members opposite, why is it not fair to consult with the public? Why do they not want to be accountable to the taxpayers? Why do they not want to subject any increases to public scrutiny? I feel the elected members of this House need to be fiscally responsible and accountable to the taxpayers. If we are going to start making changes and additional payments by regulation, there will not be any opportunity to engage in any dialogue with the taxpayers and we will not be demonstrating fiscal responsibility.

I am also very concerned because the 18-month period will soon elapse, as will happen in April 1992.

We also heard in committee hearings from many of the union representatives who felt the ceiling was not high enough, so I can see that additional payments will be made in the future and I can see the cost of this fund increasing rapidly. This is simply going to increase the cost of doing business in this province and it is going to have a very negative impact on the business climate.

I would add, and I think sometimes the government forgets, that it is business that creates the jobs. If it creates further hardships for business, there will not be jobs for employees. We are hearing repeatedly about companies moving south. We are hearing about companies not expanding. We are hearing about companies that are downsizing. Just this week I heard about one company that could have increased the number of employees who are working for it, but in this uncertain economic climate it simply cannot afford to expand, and it will be going south of the border when further expansion does take place.

I say to this government that it should be very careful about the legislation, and I would ask it to very carefully consider supporting this amendment; that is, that any changes be made by amendment to the act, by the members of this House, as opposed to by regulation.

Mr Carr: I want to add my comments to this particular amendment; essentially, withdrawal of "such additional amounts as may be prescribed by regulation." I guess I am one of those people who believe that when you put something in that can so fundamentally change the bill, it should be done after public input and public debate. It was interesting to see that some of the members opposite felt that way.

I know the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale and the member for Welland-Thorold, who just passed by a few moments ago, day in and day out during the Police Services Act championed the cause that some of the changes should not be put into the regulations. As a matter of fact --

Mr Kormos: I still champion that.

Mr Carr: The member says he still champions that, so hopefully he will be here for the vote. In fact, during the hearings on Sunday shopping, he did also make that known and did champion it. He also, to his credit, did speak up against the government and had the courage to do so. Of course he has the whip marks to prove it, but he did definitely make some comments. I think when you look at it, that is what people are looking for: somebody who is consistent and says something regardless of how much hot water it gets him in with the Premier. Although he said that, he is in so much hot water now that I guess it really did not matter too much anyway.

The First Deputy Chair: You will help the debate if you keep on topic. We were very generous already in our interpretation. I would remind the member for Oakville South that he will help the process of the debate if he can focus his comments.

Mr Carr: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. Getting back to the regulations that were championed by so many people in this House -- I think we may know one reason the Chair is a wee bit sensitive, because what I am getting at with the Police Services Act, through the regulations, is that is how the oath to the Queen got eliminated. I think the Chair might have wished that his colleagues the members for Welland-Thorold and Etobicoke-Rexdale had been a little bit stronger in some of their debates, so it did not come out.

Mr Kormos: How could I have been stronger, Gary? You weren't there. How do you know?

Mr Carr: That is true. It is difficult to get stronger, because of course he received all the public outcry about that. It shows very clearly what happens when there are good intentions. We say: "Oh, the good intentions are there. We'll just add additional payments as may be prescribed by regulation." Then poor people are left to carry the bag, like the present Chair when he was Solicitor General. They changed the oath to the Queen and then the public outcry comes out.

I think that carves very clearly in the minds of the members opposite what happens when we leave the regulations and the changes to some of the people who are not elected. Essentially what happens is there are no checks and balances. The system we have now is such that there can be public debate regardless of whether you agree on it, disagree on it, whether it is good debate, bad debate, and we have seen all that. We have seen good proposals, good debates, good amendments made. But when you put it in regulations, things get signed in the dead of night when the regulations are approved. Oops, I should not use that with the present Chair.

We presently have a situation where payments can be changed as prescribed by the regulations, and I say that is not the proper way to do it. There should be public dialogue. I used the example of the oath to the Queen that was so sensitive. Had there been public dialogue, had people had a chance to have their fair say, just like we could have over the payments here, whatever they may be changed to -- whether they go up, whether they go down, whether the amounts go sideways -- the public has to realize that there is public input.

I think that is why there is a little bit of cynicism towards the whole process, because what happens when you do it in the regulations, very clearly, is things get changed that the public does not want, because some bureaucrat somewhere says: "Let's slide this thing through. The cabinet isn't looking. They're too busy with everything else on the agenda. Let's get this thing pushed through."

I say that the people who should be making fundamental changes, which I think this change in the amount is, should be the elected people. Then if the public does not like it, it can toss them out next time and say, "You shouldn't have changed that amount; it should have remained the same," or, "It should have gone higher," or, "It should have gone lower."

When it is done through regulations, the characters who do it in the night and make some of these changes cannot be thrown out based on their actions. The elected people in this House can. I would encourage the members opposite to reflect on some of the things the member for Welland-Thorold says, who will probably get up and speak about these regulations as passionately as he does. I will not be able to say it nearly as well as the member opposite, but the fundamental principle of changing things in regulations is undemocratic. I would encourage other members to speak up like the member for Welland-Thorold, who has done so in the past, because that is what the people want.

Just as a wee bit of an aside, if the Chair will allow me, I do not think it is a little bit of a coincidence that before the last election, when they held the poll, the two members, if I remember correctly, my friend the member for Scarborough North and also the member for Welland-Thorold, were the two members who had the highest percentage that they were going to win by. It is because of the fact that, regardless of what side they are on, they speak out on bad amendments, regulations like this. Members like the member for Welland-Thorold say it when they are in opposition and they say it when they are in government, even sometimes to their detriment.

So I say to the people out there, regulations and the changes that we are talking about here under clause 40b(2)(d) should not be, and the amendment to take that out is a good one. I say, get the pen out and take it out.

1730

Mr Mahoney: I must admit I have talked to our critic, my colleague the member for Mississauga North, about what went on in committee, because I was not at the committee, and I am quite astounded to find out that the government members defeated this amendment in committee, I am informed. I find that disconcerting, particularly coming from this government, because the current Labour minister and all of his colleagues, when they sat over here, were somewhat effusive about putting their viewpoints forward about openness and honesty in government. How can something be open when it is clearly a blank cheque?

My first concern, if something like this is not deleted, is that I would have thought this particular clause, "such additional payments as may be prescribed by regulation," would have been written by the bureaucrats somewhere and perhaps put in. I could accept that the minister or his personal staff might have missed it, but to find out that it was indeed supported by the committee would suggest that there was a whip on the vote and the whip of the committee informed the members that they were to vote against the amendment put forward by my colleague the member for Mississauga North.

Is that not true? Everyone thought for themselves? There is something new happening over there? I would be surprised to hear that. I am sure they were told that the government's decision was to vote against this. Clearly, that would seem to fly in the face of the Minister of Labour's comments when he was in opposition, which would have been for open, accessible government, and suggests that decisions regarding the amount of the payments to be agreed upon should be decided by regulation.

I think it is important that the public understand the difference. If this is deleted and there is a desire on the part of the government of the day, of whatever party, to amend the legislation to allow for the amount of the claim moneys available on a per-case basis to be increased, then they would simply come back into this Legislature and have to introduce an amendment and have to introduce perhaps new, changed legislation, revised legislation, which would allow for public comment.

Even if it did not go out to committee, if it only went in to committee of the whole, it would at the very least allow those of us who are elected to represent our constituents to have input and comment and it would allow the process and the proper opportunity for us to confer with those people affected, to talk to the taxpayers about how their taxpayers' dollars are being used and to have a proper democratic dialogue.

I will be delighted to hear the Minister of Labour rise in his place and announce to this Legislature and to the province that he is prepared to agree with this amendment and thinks that indeed there should be full public disclosure and public debate on amending the amount. I find it frankly incredible that the minister would not be prepared to accept that kind of amendment, knowing his track record and his background and his party's desire for openness in government.

Nobody should be given a blank cheque. No ministry should be given a blank cheque, and when you take a look at the serious problems we are facing in this province, and we have already heard that the $9.7-billion catastrophic deficit -- unheard of in the history of this province or even this country for a provincial government to run such a deficit -- how in goodness --

Hon Mr Allen: It depends how you measure it.

Mr Mahoney: It does not depend how you measure it. That is the problem with NDP logic and thinking. The people at home know how to measure $9.7 billion. It has got so many zeroes I cannot count that high. They understand a deficit is a deficit is a deficit. It does not matter how you measure it, I say to the Minister of Colleges and Universities. He of all people, with his educational background, should be able to measure a $9.7-billion deficit.

Hon Mr Allen: Go back and do that. Do some arithmetic.

Mr Mahoney: Maybe the minister would like the floor, Mr Chairman. Would he like the floor? I am quite prepared to sit down if he would like the floor.

The First Deputy Chair: Order, please. Will the member for Mississauga West please sit down.

Mr Mahoney: I was trying not to be provocative.

The First Deputy Chair: Would the member please take his chair. The member should not be surprised that he would cause some aggravation. The tenor of his comments was perhaps of an order that would call for some response. The member would do well to address the issue before the committee and to get on with the discussion that is relevant to this debate. Please continue.

Mr Mahoney: Mr Chairman, I am quite surprised at your comments, and I would hope that you are not showing a bias here, because frankly my comments were clearly directed to this amendment.

The First Deputy Chair: Would the member please take his chair. The member has the floor. You may continue to focus on the debate and your comments are out of order.

Mr Mahoney: As I was saying, Mr Chair, I was focusing and will continue to focus on this amendment. I was being, I think, somewhat rudely interrupted by the Minister of Colleges and Universities.

The point of the matter is that if you are talking about this amendment, if this is deleted, then the government would not indeed be given a blank cheque. With due respect, that is my point and that is my concern and I think it is clearly focused.

How can we stand here and entrust these people, who run up $9.7-billion deficits that we hear could go substantially higher, with a blank cheque where they can simply in a back room write up an amendment, call up the bureaucrats and say: "Folks, we want to double the amount of money that's going to be allowed here, so just write up some regulation. We'll post it in some book somewhere that we stick in a drawer. Nobody has to talk to the public. Nobody has to bring it on the floor of the Legislature"?

Are you suggesting, Mr Chairman -- I am sure you are not -- that those comments are off topic? They are not off topic, they are bang on. Those are the concerns that the taxpayers expect the members of the opposition to hold this government accountable on.

Instead the Minister of Colleges and Universities tries to get excited about how you measure a $9.7-billion deficit. How high is high? How high is the water, mama? Let me tell him how high it is. We are close to going under, and these people expect us, in a bill as important as this, dealing with --

Interjection.

Mr Mahoney: He is being told to be quiet so he does not distract me.

-- dealing with a bill that I agree is extremely important for the workers of this province and there is some real merit to this bill, if the Minister of Labour would come to his senses and realize that he has no right to demand of this Legislature or this province or the taxpayers that we should give him or his band of spending spendthrifts any kind of a blank cheque.

It is absolutely absurd. In fact, I really hope that the minister will accept my colleague's amendment and recognize that the responsible way to bring in an amendment to increase the amount of money that would be allotted on a per-claim basis -- which may be necessary. I have no doubt that there should be a requirement down the road. Times change. It may be necessary for us to increase this amount, but they should be accountable.

When we form the next government and I have the opportunity to be the Premier, I should be accountable? Without a doubt. We should all be accountable as elected officials in this House, and under no circumstances will I go along, nor will my colleagues go along, with a blank cheque. I would hope that the Minister of Labour would recognize that and accept this very sensible and very progressive amendment.

Mr Offer: I think we have spoken about this amendment and some crucial elements to the amendment and what it very much means in terms of the ongoing examination of the bill. At the outset I posed a series of numerical types of assertions: first, that the average claim would be approximately $4,200; second, that there is a takeup of approximately 55,000; third, that there are 107 people to be employed to process the claims; fourth, that the communications budget is in the area of $500,000.

1740

As an addendum to the employment of 107, I think we can agree that is something in the area of $5 million or $6 million. When one does a little bit of calculation, it looks like we are close to a quarter of a billion dollars. I am wondering if the minister or his staff can respond to these particular numerical concerns I am expressing.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: First, just two or three comments to the member for Mississauga North: The retroactive applications through the transitional period clearly have a $4,000 limit on them. As well as that, closed files in the employment standards backlog will actually cost less than forecast. The estimated value of these files is $70 million to $80 million. The initial rush has some of the major claims in it. We think the figures that have been used are certainly defensible and accurate in the figuring we have done.

I want to deal also with the comments made about the influence this could have, for example, on the ceiling. I think the member knows, if he stops and thinks for a minute, that we are dealing in this amendment he has moved with the definition of "wages" alone. I think the reason for it is the government's intention to include unpaid benefit contributions in the definition of "wages" for the purpose of compensating workers in the construction industry. Construction workers are excluded from severance and termination requirements under the Employment Standards Act at present.

That is all we have looked at here, but there is also an additional group that has talked to us and it might very well be something we want to take a look at. I am talking about the garment workers who have raised the issue of whether or not the piecework pay they get could be included in the definition of "wages." It is something you might have to take a look at.

With respect to the arguments made by both of the parties in opposition about the regulatory adjustments being unfair or opening the door to thousands of blank cheques, as somebody said, I suggest to the members of both parties that they take a look at the number of pieces of legislation they have passed. It would be interesting, even in the period the Liberals were in power, to take a look at the legislation they passed that had the ability, through regulation, to make changes. Drivers' licences are one example. We could go down the list with many more. I am simply saying this is not something new. This is in fact practice in many of the pieces of legislation we have in the province today.

Mr Offer: The minister responded, talking about an amendment to clause 40b(2)(b) -- "amounts that are deemed to be wages." In fact, that is not my amendment. My amendment is to clause 40b(2)(d), which has nothing to do with the question as to what is or is not and what may or may not be defined as "wages." It has to do with "such additional payments as may be prescribed by regulation."

We are talking about controlling, through this Legislature, any change to the payments. I hope the government recognizes this has a major impact. It is not enough for the minister to say, "I can change a licence by regulation." We are talking about the creation of business in this province, about the creation of jobs in this province, about the implications to the cost of doing business in this province and about whether a government is prepared to say to the people of this province, "We are ready to listen to any change that we may make under this legislation."

By saying no to this amendment, the government is shutting this door. They know, I know and everyone here knows those changes will be made without any consultation whatsoever. The people of this province will know of changes only after they read them in a news release or in a media report. It just is not good enough talking about implications of changes to that piece of legislation without knowing what it means to the people out there.

The Premier spoke today in this Legislature on the federal government's constitutional proposal. On page 3 of that statement, he said, "The economy is the real constitution of this country." Let us put some substance behind those words. When so many people are hurting, do we in this Legislature not think we can say to them, "We're ready to listen to you"? When so many people have lost jobs, when so many people feel the distance they have between them and this place is so great, when they really feel they cannot input into what is going on here, do members not think that by not agreeing to an amendment like this, we increase that distance, we do not put substance behind the words of the Premier today, we do not put substance behind the words of so many people who have spoken about the importance of small business in this province?

By allowing changes to be made without knowing the implications -- and the government will not. They are sitting there now thinking, "Oh, but we will." They will not know the implications. They cannot know the implications. I say that not as a criticism; I say that as a matter of reality. Nobody can unless you talk to the people. The government does not know what it is going to mean to that small business with three employees that now there is a wage protection plan increased to $10,000. They do not know what it means to that person. They do not know what it means to the carrying on of the business. They cannot know unless they talk to the person and, more important, listen to the person.

By moving these to regulation and keeping them in regulation, the government does not have any opportunity of doing that. That is what committees in this Legislature are all about. That is why we travel. That is why we reach out and try to tell people, "Be a part of this place." Regulation says, "This place is closed."

This is an important area of the bill. This is the area that talks about the liability under the bill. This is an area that talks about the impact on small business carrying on in this province. The government cannot just shut the door on them. They just cannot shut the door on people who want to talk to them. They are not going to know the implications. They may as well recognize it now, because if that was the case, then there is no need for committees in this Legislature.

If they know what all of the responses will be to all of the legislation, then they do not need committees. But the government does not know; we do not know. That is why we have committees. That is why we have long hearings. That is why we travel to different parts of the province: The impacts are different. Regulation says no committee, no travel, no understanding of impact.

1750

In this province, we all know we are trying to send out a message that we can compete. We are trying to send out a message that we can do business in this province; that we can create jobs in this province; that business should be looking at this as a place to establish itself, to expand, to create wealth. We all know the ripple effect of that.

Why can we not say we are ready to listen? Why can we not say a regulation which has as its impact changing the monetary amount, the heart and soul of the legislation, is one that must go through this Legislature? What do government members say to their constituents? What do the members on the government side say to constituents who come to their offices and say, "Well, the government has made this change; I want to tell you what it means to me."

What do they do? With it being legislation, they can say: "Well, we're going to debate this. Thank you. I want to bring your point home. I want to bring your point home to committees." What do they say to their constituents who knock on their doors and say, "Listen, I can't compete any more; you've now just upped the amount to a degree that we can't compete"?

What do they then say to the minister? I will tell the government members something: It is already announced, it is already part of the legislation. Not only have we closed the doors here, not only have we closed the doors in the committee rooms, but the government members have closed their constituency office doors on this issue. They all know and have heard, as I have heard, what a recession means to our ridings, what it means in terms of people's confidence, what it means in terms of people being able to continue to have that broad sense of options for themselves and their children. They are shutting the door of their constituency office on this issue.

I must say it will come back to haunt them, because when those changes are made, the government members will have nothing to say to their constituents. We will have something to say to their constituents. We will say that today, at this time in this place, they had the opportunity to open the doors. The choice is theirs.

I can count the number of members in this Legislature, but this is a fundamental basis for where we are and what we are and why we are here. We are here to listen to concerns. We are here to open up constituency office doors, Queen's Park offices, legislative debates, committee rooms. We are here to listen and to respond. In the 1990s, with the competition out there, it is not a time to shut doors, to close our ears to those types of implications. Now is the time to open them. Now is the time to send out a message to business that we are ready to respond, that we have a loud response.

I know the government has its right to change and to introduce legislation of whatever kind, but we also have rights and responsibilities, and one is to be receptive and responsive to implications of legislation, to what it means.

My goodness gracious, if we cannot feel secure, if the government is not feeling secure that the heart and soul of its legislation is not above legislative scrutiny, then maybe there is something drastically wrong with this legislation. Maybe there is something there that I have not yet seen.

Why would the government members be so afraid of being able to do the job they have been elected to do, to bring concerns of constituents, to bring implications of legislation to this place? Why? What is it that prompts them to vote against what is a balanced, fair amendment? I do not speak critically of the legislation in this amendment. I do speak about making this legislation better, sensitive, responsive not only to the issues today but to those tomorrow and the next day. That is what we are talking about.

We are talking about us. We are talking about our roles. We are talking about our responsibilities. If we cannot vote in favour of an amendment of this nature, then the government members are creating a distance between themselves and their constituents, for which cynicism is its end product -- cynicism, distrust, mistrust about what we do. Let's open the doors. Let's be responsive. Let's take the opportunity we have now. Let's vote in favour of this amendment.

The First Deputy Chair: Mr Offer has moved that clause 40b(2)(d) of the act as set out in section 5 of the bill, as reprinted, be struck out. All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote deferred.

Le vote est différé.

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

A la suite d'une motion présentée par M. Mackenzie, l'étude du projet de loi en comité plénier de la Chambre est ajournée.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon Mr Cooke: Pursuant to standing order 53, I would like to indicate the business of the House for the coming week.

On Monday, September 30, there will be an opposition day.

On Tuesday, October 1, we will be continuing with committee of the whole consideration of Bill 70, the Employment Standards Amendment Act (Employee Wage Protection Program), followed by the adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 118, the Power Corporation Amendment Act.

On Wednesday, October 2, we will continue with Bill 118.

On Thursday, October 3, in the morning we will deal with private members' business, ballot items 31, standing in the name of Ms Harrington, and 32, standing in the name of Mr Kwinter.

In the afternoon, we will continue with the adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 118, followed by Bills 83, 84, 85, 86 and 130.

The House adjourned at 1800.