role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

November 16, 1995

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L024 - Thu 16 Nov 1995 / Jeu 16 Nov 1995

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'AMÉNAGEMENT DES VOIES PUBLIQUES ET DES TRANSPORTS EN COMMUN

FRANCHISES ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR LES FRANCHISES

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'AMÉNAGEMENT DES VOIES PUBLIQUES ET DES TRANSPORTS EN COMMUN

FRANCHISES ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR LES FRANCHISES

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'AMÉNAGEMENT DES VOIES PUBLIQUES ET DES TRANSPORTS EN COMMUN

FRANCHISES ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR LES FRANCHISES

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TOURISM

VOLUNTEERS

HENRY OLIVERIA

MINISTER OF TRANSPORTATION

FAMILY RESOURCE PROGRAMS

PETERBOROUGH FESTIVAL OF TREES

FIRE SAFETY AWARDS

HIGHWAY SAFETY

FIRE SAFETY AWARDS

CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

MUNICIPAL PLANNING

ORAL QUESTIONS

MINISTRY ADVISER

TAX EVASION

BUS TRANSPORTATION

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

TAXATION

PORK INDUSTRY

BERNARDO HOUSE

HIGHWAY SAFETY

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

CONTAMINATED SOIL

EMPLOYMENT LEGISLATION

ELEVATOR INSPECTIONS

MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

ESTIMATES

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

ECONOMIC STATEMENT

PETITIONS

QUEEN STREET MENTAL HEALTH CENTRE

LABOUR LEGISLATION

RUNNYMEDE CHRONIC CARE HOSPITAL

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

COMMON SENSE REVOLUTION

COMMUNITY-BASED JUSTICE OPTIONS

HIGHWAY SAFETY

ST STEPHEN'S SECONDARY SCHOOL

AMALGAMATION OF SCHOOL BOARDS

HIGHWAY SAFETY

PORNOGRAPHY

HIGHWAY SAFETY

EGLINTON WEST SUBWAY

HIGHWAY SAFETY

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LAND USE PLANNING AND PROTECTION ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR LA PROTECTION ET L'AMÉNAGEMENT DU TERRITOIRE

PUBLIC HOSPITAL FOUNDATIONS ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR LES FONDATIONS POUR LES HÔPITAUX PUBLICS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WORKERS' COMPENSATION AND OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY AMENDMENT ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL ET LA

LOI SUR LA SANTÉ ET LA SÉCURITÉ AU TRAVAIL

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

SERVICES FOR ABUSED WOMEN

The House met at 1002.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'AMÉNAGEMENT DES VOIES PUBLIQUES ET DES TRANSPORTS EN COMMUN

Mr Gravelle moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 16,

An Act to amend the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act with respect to the removal of snow and ice from roads / Projet de loi 16, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'aménagement des voies publiques et des transports en commun en ce qui concerne le déneigement et le déglacement des routes.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The member has up to 10 minutes for his opening remarks.

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I'm pleased to rise in the House today to discuss a move that I consider a crucial safety initiative for the 6.7 million drivers of this province as the winter months set in. I look forward to discussion on Bill 16,

An Act to amend the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act with respect to the removal of snow and ice from roads.

Why do we need this bill? It's a very clear issue and it's a very simple equation: Quantities of snow plus ice on our highways equal danger to drivers. Unless this snow and ice are removed quickly, the danger persists and can multiply as more snow and ice accumulate. This is clearly a public safety issue.

The depth of the concern and the rumours that the Ministry of Transportation will be introducing cuts to its winter road maintenance budget first came to my attention during a tour of northwestern Ontario communities in late September. The fact is, winter comes to northern Ontario before it arrives in most other parts of the province. My constituents in Port Arthur have been shovelling snow since the first snowfall in mid-October.

As a northerner and as the representative of Port Arthur, I understand the fears that cuts to winter road maintenance engender. Even the most cursory glance at a map illustrates that the distances between northern communities is much greater than that usually experienced in other parts of the province. Northern drivers do not enjoy the luxury of four lanes on their highways.

To put that in perspective, given the issue we're discussing, if highways in the north are maintained only to centre-bare conditions, clearing really only one lane down the centre of the highway, that can mean head-on accidents. In many cases, there are no paved shoulders. This makes travel particularly dangerous, and skids due to ice will not end on a neatly paved surface. Certainly in light of the auditor's report of a day or so ago, where 60% of our highways were deemed substandard, many of those were in the northern parts of our province.

Notwithstanding that, I think it's important to know that this is not an issue for only those of us in northern Ontario. Certainly my colleagues in Prescott and Russell in eastern Ontario and colleagues all across -- Mike Colle for Oakwood -- would urge me to make it clear to most people that this is a province-wide issue. Our storm in Toronto the other day certainly illustrates that, and everybody is concerned, including those people on the other side of the House.

We should take a moment to remember that all these conditions are also heightened when one considers that emergency services and school buses also rely on these highways to transport their precious cargo, and they rely on the fact that the longer distances they need to travel must be safe. Firefighters need to be able to get to a burning home or business so that they can do their job. Someone needing medical attention needs to be able to get to facilities which may take them from Nakina to Nipigon, a distance of well over 200 kilometres.

On October 23, my colleagues and I in the northern Liberal caucus distributed petitions across northern Ontario. We felt, and we still feel, that the people who live and drive on our highways should have some input in the discussion. We believe they should be able to send a clear and direct message to this government regarding the cuts to road maintenance. The document petitioned the House to disallow these cuts, as such downgrading increases already hazardous driving conditions and places the lives of all Ontario residents at undue risk. None of us was surprised with the response.

I personally have received from petitions sent to my riding in Port Arthur well in excess of 3,000 signatures, with more pouring in daily.

But, you know, it's not just Michael Gravelle in Port Arthur. It's Mike Brown in Algoma-Manitoulin, Rick Bartolucci in Sudbury, Frank Miclash in Kenora, David Ramsay in Timiskaming and Lyn McLeod in Fort William, Jean-Marc Lalonde in Prescott and Russell, Mike Colle in Oakwood, my colleagues in the NDP. Our constituents have spoken in volumes and we have the petitions to prove it.

It's not just private individuals either. I've received support from OPSEU and the Canadian Automobile Association. The mayors of Walden and Sault Ste Marie have received council resolutions urging the minister to rescind the then proposed reductions. The communities of Terrace Bay and Red Rock passed resolutions supporting our position. Even the town of North Bay, whence our Premier comes, has responded to our concerns.

For months now my colleagues and I have risen to implore the minister to rescind what were then proposed and have now been implemented: cuts to winter road maintenance in this province. Our appeals for common sense have gone unheard. The minister has continually assured this House that the ministry will continue to maintain the roads in a safely adequate fashion. Now what exactly does that mean? In total, there have been more than 10 occasions where members of this House have raised the issue. The minister's reply has remained constant: "We're committed to maintaining our standards."

The problem is that these are empty words and empty promises, with no real assurances. Public safety is not an issue that has a right to be in the arena of this government's "We can do more for less" credo. My bill will go a long way to provide reassurance to the people of this province that the government will maintain our highways to a clearly stated and openly communicated set of standards.

The winter road maintenance budget has been consistently reduced since 1992. I realize that technology and advances in weather predictions make it easier to respond to the weather. But there is one unalienable truth in Canada: Winter is a force to be reckoned with and it will defy our attempts to control, modify and often to predict it.

As a result, the hard-working staff in our MTO offices across the province need the support and the facilities necessary to fulfil their commitment to keep our roads and highways safe. The sad irony here is that while this government proudly flaunts new measures this fall to improve safety on our highways -- restrictions on transport trucks, stiffer penalties for drunk drivers -- it adamantly refuses to acknowledge the very real hazards that will surely come from these irresponsible cuts.

My bill, entitled

An Act to amend the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act with respect to the removal of snow and ice from roads, takes current ministry standards and entrenches them legislatively. It does not make outlandish demands that the government cannot fulfil. We're not asking for an increase in the budget. We will continue to implore the minister that he rescind the latest round of cuts, but we're well aware at this point that he has remained oblivious to such appeals.

The standards that we seek to entrench are the ones currently in use by the Ministry of Transportation. They are in no way to reflect a ceiling on the degree to which the roads should be cleared. What they represent is the minimum, the standard for winter maintenance of roads and highways in this province. This bill would take existing ministry guidelines and move them into the sphere of public legislation. The benefits are clear and I think they're twofold.

First of all, the inclusion of these standards would fill a gap in the existing legislation. At this point there is no provision in the legislation that outlines the standards by which roads and highways in this province must be maintained. Imagine, there is no legislative provision guaranteeing the people of this province that their roads will be maintained to clearly defined and safe standards.

Secondly, entrenchment of these standards would ensure that any amendments or changes would involve public debate in the Legislature -- there's a nice thought -- as any amendment to legislation currently requires. Given the reductions that have occurred over the past three years, such a guarantee is important.

The recurring nature of these cuts and the statement by one senior ministry official that reductions in future years are also anticipated lead to a fear that there will come a point at which the ministry will no longer be able to maintain the roads to the basic standards outlined in this bill. The erosion of these standards represents an increased risk to drivers across the province, a risk we can never in good conscience ask drivers to take.

Surely, seeking all-party support to simply guarantee that ministry standards already in place are legislatively entrenched cannot be denied. That's the essence of this bill. While the minister maintains that these standards will be maintained this year, the fear of drivers in this province is illustrated by the volumes of petitions that have been returned and speak to the sense that the public does not believe the minister's assurances.

The tragic fact is that accidents will happen in winter. This is as much a fact of Ontario life as winter itself, but by reducing the capacity of our dedicated ministry workers to maintain the roads of this province by reducing the number of sanders and plows, by cutting the number of patrols, the minister unnecessarily increases the risk. His own ministry officials recognize this.

We cannot gamble on public safety. The minister has steadfastly refused to rescind the cuts for this year, regardless of entreaties from both opposition parties. I ask that we guarantee that our roads will be the safest possible this year and next year and the year after that by legally entrenching the standards that are included in my bill and by assuring the people of this province that the government of Ontario and all of us here at Queen's Park are truly standing on guard for them.

The government is risking public safety for the sake of $6.5 million. There are some gains in highway safety. They should not be discredited. Supporting this bill means only supporting provincial standards as they are. This is not a matter of ideological debate, nor one of party affiliation.

When I was in Geraldton a couple of months ago, a question was asked of me which I will now in turn ask each and every member of this House: If it is not the role of government to ensure safety on provincial highways, what is their role? What is their role indeed?

I ask all members to support this bill. Let's all send a message of reassurance to the people of this province by supporting a move that will guarantee safer roads and highways for all of us.

The Speaker: Each party will now have 15 minutes, and the honourable member will have two minutes to wrap up at the end.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): In terms of timing, the venue, the opportunity that a private member's ballot item offers -- and in the case of my colleague from Port Arthur, M. Gravelle -- couldn't be more timely and appropriate. It's so tempting this morning, for the issue is so real, to say, "Don't blame the weather; blame Al Palladini, the current Minister of Transportation." I will not do this. I will resist, and you will wish, as a point of interest, to know why.

Here you have an administration which is ideologically driven. They're on a sort of bender or binge when it comes to ideology. They wish to not only reduce but eliminate the deficit at all costs.

Now we'll take you on the legislative trip. Oh, it won't last too long.

The order comes from treasury board. You see, a group of people meet. That's the cabinet, 16 or 17 of the fortunate ones on whose shoulders the future of the province will rest for the next four years, so they think. The man sitting there, the Premier of the province, with respect, is a close associate with the man sitting next to him, the Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance, House leader; very close in the political context indeed, a very close associate. They've known one another for years. They trust one another implicitly. They govern, they and the Premier's office, make no mistake about it.

Not P and P, not the few select ministers, priorities and planning. No, no. They have a stranglehold on caucus.

The directive comes from treasury. Every minister gets the marching order: "You must reduce the deficit. You at Transportation must find so many millions of dollars. We know, Al, that you're a team player. We know that you will work in the collective." So the minister takes the marching orders under his arm and goes back to the ministry. He has a few political associates, political staff, six or seven. Now, you have the deputy minister. You have six ADMs, assistant deputy ministers. Those people have been around since Confederation. They know the ropes. There's a pecking order there. And you have to find so many millions of dollars.

In the food chain at Transportation, Mr Speaker, I have a question for you: Who do you think went -- the district engineer or Harry Smith, the grader operator? There's a lot of anxiety nowadays around the coffee machine and the water fountain because the word's out: Some will be terminated. Will it be you? Will it be me? Will it be the fellow behind the tree? But someone's going to go. So people are looking over their shoulders, pink slip on the one hand, brown envelope as you exit on the other hand, with something in it.

It's the oldest trick in the world. We must cut. Well, I'm going to cut something and it's going to blow right up in your face, Mr Minister. For I don't believe that when it comes to standards, I don't believe that when you have a budget of more than $2 billion, I don't believe that when you have a choice between summer maintenance and winter maintenance, inevitably you will choose summer maintenance. Aesthetically, it's damaging, but in terms of safety it is certainly not as hazardous as winter.

I know the minister would not wish to jeopardize anyone's life. No one does that; no one. No one is deliberate nor systematic when it comes to public safety. But the perception out there, and it's important, is that we will see fewer plows, and we have the documentation: unsolicited minister's briefing notes, reduction in the number of plows and sanders. For it is written; it tells me who to call. I know that I have immunity in this House, but I will not divulge the name. But those people are very high in the pecking order at Transportation. They're the ones who told our friend the Minister of Transportation where to cut.

They've tried it with me, and I'm no different from Mr Palladini, but having lived in Manitouwadge for 30 years, maybe a little more sensitive when it comes to winter maintenance. Maybe our colleague didn't have much of a chance. For a few dollars? For six and a half million dollars? You're spending $1 billion on the 407. I signed the contract, $928 million, plus the gadgetry, the toll fee.

Politically, even if it were only in the political context, these issues come back to haunt you big time. You don't have three question periods without someone getting up and saying: "What gives here? What gives?"

People are scared. People leave Terrace Bay to go to Marathon, 78 kilometres, and if you have an evening like last evening or the one before, snow, precipitation, the two-lane Trans-Canada Highway, winding road, you're in your car with your family, visiting a friend, and there's a transport, and you pull to the left and you begin to pass; hopefully, you'll make it before the next curve. But the snowplow hasn't been out for the last eight hours because of cutbacks. Then you step on it a little more and you see lights in the distance, another transport coming, and you begin to die. Will you or will you not make it? The alternative is to ditch the vehicle.

Why chance it? Safety should not be a game of chance. The minister should keep his fingers crossed, hoping that it won't snow. For as long as the river flows and the sun shines, there will be snowstorms, and in northern Ontario, we are more impacted than anyplace else.

What my friend the member there says is: "Hey, no money; no money attached to this. Just guarantee the standards so we can have peace of mind." He's not asking for something that is irrational, that is unreasonable, that is parochial, that is politically motivated. He's asking for the very same thing that we all care for in terms of value for money. You don't question when there's a forest fire how much money you have in the budget. You go. The situation calls, so you don't question. You go and you find the dollars someplace else. The same thing applies.

The validity of the analogy, of the parallel, is flawless when it comes to nature and having the tools to defend ourselves and to deal with the elements.

Six and a half million dollars. A $57-billion budget for the overall in the province. It's a mere bagatelle. It's a pittance. They should see the Minister of Education and Training. We're graced with your presence. I'm sure when he looks at the $14 billion spent on schools and universities, he must be very thankful that he doesn't live in a remote northern municipality. Six and a half million dollars. Look at the damage that is being done.

I will be supporting the bill. There's no other choice, for the bill addresses and tells us what everybody knows really. It's commonsensical. It is not an arm and a leg in terms of the government. It's not a departing from their ideology. It's common sense.

I thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the member for presenting the bill.

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): I'm pleased to speak to this bill today. I know the member for Port Arthur is concerned about winter maintenance standards, but knowing Thunder Bay and the north as I do, I feel that he does not have all the facts.

The standards he proposes to legislate are already the Ministry of Transportation's current standards. I happen to know that the Ministry of Transportation is where he got the background information for the bill in the first place. But what he may not know is that the ministry is continually exceeding his standards as set out in his bill when it comes to clearing roads in the winter.

A class 1 road is defined in southern Ontario as a road that has greater than 2,000 vehicles a day travelling on it, but in northern Ontario a class 1 road is any road that has greater than 1,500 vehicles travelling on it. So it is the current policy of the Ministry of Transportation that the standard for winter maintenance in northern Ontario is higher than for the highways in southern Ontario. In other words, northern Ontario has to have less traffic to qualify for the same standard of service. I think it shows that the Ministry of Transportation is very well aware of the conditions in northern Ontario.

I might add that all this time the member for Port Arthur has been alarming people in the north about winter maintenance standards, he has already known that this is the case.

I mentioned earlier that the member, as anyone can, obtained the background information for his bill from the Ministry of Transportation itself. But there was one aspect, for one reason or another, that did not make it into this bill. The ministry standard for class 1 highways says that a divided highway and other highways with average traffic of over 10,000 vehicles a day should be cleared as soon as reasonably possible, but that's not in this bill. In putting forth this bill, he is proposing to lower standards for our divided highways and more heavily travelled highways. What about the 401, with 450,000 vehicles passing over its centre

section every single day? In fact, the Ministry of Transportation usually clears the major highways in the greater Toronto area within four to six hours of a storm or, as in yesterday's case -- without any accidents, I might add -- even sooner.

If the member's bill were to become law, the standard for our major highways would be reduced to bare pavement within 24 hours after a storm. Tell that to the people shipping goods or who, as I do, commute within the Golden Horseshoe. Our strategic highways provide much more than just personal transportation for workers, students and other citizens. They are the coronary arteries of Ontario, moving the lifeblood of our economy to and from its heart. So while the member thinks he is legislating a minimum standard, he is in fact legislating a maximum. I hope that he does not want to do that.

If the technological changes allow us to increase standards or change the categories, we will have to go back to the Legislature and amend the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act. I know that we in the Legislature come from all walks of life and have a great deal of knowledge and experience in these areas. However, who among us can predict the weather or call themselves an expert on winter maintenance?

These standards were developed by professionals and experts with many years of experience and knowledge of snow and ice removal from highways. That expertise is the basis of our winter maintenance in Ontario. We have the best people in the world working to maintain our highways. We have implemented private sector management strategies to make the most of our dollars. We have excellent equipment and modern weather forecasting. All these add up to the best service at the best price.

I think maybe what the member is really trying to address here is money. He is concerned that because the ministry has done some restructuring in this area, our standards will suffer. That is simply not the case.

I would like to echo some of the minister's comments of yesterday. The ministry will use its knowledge and expertise to put people and equipment on the roads where and when needed. When it snows, our people and equipment will be on the roads. They won't be where it's not.

What that means is that we have the flexibility to react to severe conditions. That is the very reason we have implemented these efficiencies. In winter maintenance, like in any other business, you have your fixed costs and your variable costs. You keep your fixed costs to a minimum so you can stay in business in good and bad times. In winter maintenance, we have minimized the fixed costs of things like patrolling, but we have not capped the costs of extra people and equipment we will be bringing in when they are needed.

We have the flexibility to react to severe winter conditions, and at the same time we are reducing fixed costs to help ensure that we will have the money to pay for the extra service if and when it is needed.

Of course everyone asks: "What if we really have a bad winter? How will you save the money?" The answer is, we can't. If it's a severe winter, we may not save any money, and we are prepared for that eventuality. Because the Ministry of Transportation is committed to ensuring the people of Ontario have the safest highways in North America, that's why we are going to refocus our capital dollars on highway repairs and maintenance: to fix the deterioration of the highways that is the result of 10 years of neglect by the former Liberal and NDP governments.

Just prior to closing, it's time that it's told that this year's total winter maintenance budget is in fact substantially higher than the total required budget for last year's winter maintenance.

In closing, the next time the member comes up short for a private member's bill and grabs at snowflakes, it's best he passes, exchanges places or gets to work and puts together some legislation with some meaning and responsibility to the people of Ontario rather than to attempt to legislate that which is already a standard.

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I'm pleased to enter this debate this morning in support of the efforts of my colleague the member for Port Arthur and the efforts of the entire northern Liberal caucus and, as a matter of fact, our entire caucus. I think there are some things we have to understand. Northerners are particularly concerned about the direction of this government, because northerners rely on the roads to a far greater extent.

In the north we don't have counties; we have districts. Much of what would be in southern Ontario a county responsibility is done directly by the Ministry of Transportation in northern Ontario. Therefore, of our secondary roads, what might be a county road in the southern part of the province is a road that is necessary to commerce, to emergency vehicles. It's necessary for our very way of life. Yes, we won't have the kinds of numbers going over those roads that you will in southern Ontario, but you cannot write an entire

section of the province off just because our population in rural areas is slightly smaller. We don't meet those kinds of standards, and that's what this debate's all about and that's why it's got us on this side so exercised to hear the rather stupid statements that we're hearing from the ministry.

What we're saying is that it does make a difference. My constituents are telling me it makes a difference. I drive these roads weekly. My constituents drive them daily and they want to know they can get to work. In western Manitoulin you are cutting service. In Silver Water, Meldrum Bay, Evansville, the plows are going to go down the road less. It is not going to snow less. It doesn't take rocket science. On Highway 542, the school buses going to the Gore Bay public school are likely not going to get there a lot more often than they used to, and that just doesn't make sense to me or any of the members on this side.

To put it in context for those fine people on the government side, in the good old days of Tory regimes in this province and Liberal regimes in this province there used to be a rough correlation between the revenue produced by the Ministry of Transportation and the amount of money it spent on roads. In 1991, Mr Laughren increased the gas taxes by 3.4 cents and reduced spending on transportation, and it's been happening ever since. Now the Ministry of Transportation's fees and gas taxes are just gravy train money for you guys over there.

We want that money. We told the New Democrats and we're telling you we want it spent on the roads. We want them safe and we want people to be able to know they can get to work and get back, get to school and get back, have a fire truck come when it's necessary, have an ambulance get there. That's what this is all about.

It's not just me; I have had hundreds of constituents sign petitions asking this government to reconsider this abhorrent decision. We want that to happen now. I've had letters from Sault Ste Marie, from Dubreuilville, from many municipalities in my riding, and I want to tell you, the minister better reconsider this decision.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I rise in support of this private member's bill as well. The minister, in his new business context, is using for winter maintenance a business model known as the outcomes-based management model, and it's a good idea. It becomes an effective business model when he couples that with standards. That's all that this private member's bill is asking for: that you legislate standards to the bill so that your outcomes can be based on objective targets and not on subjective ones.

All this bill is asking is that we establish and legislate a set of standards to ensure maximum safety for all people using the highways whether they live in northern Ontario, eastern Ontario, western Ontario or southern Ontario. It makes no difference; there's no preference. We just want a legislated set of standards to base our outcomes on, so that the minister can base his outcomes on a set of standards, proving to everyone in Ontario that his new business model, the outcomes-based management model, is a workable one.

Let me give you an idea and an example why we need a set of standards: Yesterday in Sudbury there was a snowfall. It started at 4 o'clock in the morning and it snowed for most of the day, but it was a moderate snowfall; it wasn't a heavy snowfall. This morning, the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario issued the following releases with regard to highways.

Highway 69 south, snow-covered to snow-packed with icy sections; Highway 144 north, snow-covered with icy sections; Highway 17 east, snow-covered, slushy; Highway 17 west, bare to wet with snow strips; Highway 6, bare and wet with snow strips; Highway 11 north, centre-bare to snow-packed -- all secondary highways, snow-packed, snow-covered, icy sections.

You can see there is no standard being established. That's all this private member's bill is asking for: that the House, the people who are elected to represent the people of Ontario decide that a legislated set of standards is important. Clearly, if everyone has the courage to establish a legislated set of standards, there will be an objective that the minister can shoot for so that his new business model with regard to winter road maintenance is achievable.

I urge every member in this House to take the courage and support this very realistic private member's bill.

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this issue as well. I take a look at what the Conservative government is doing in this province at the present time and I must say that the Minister of Transportation is really going to have to take a look at this decision, because I've heard from a good number of my constituents, and a good number of constituents across the province, that this is possibly one of the most dangerous decisions that this government could be taking in terms of the cut to winter maintenance.

I brought this to the attention of the minister, who I wish would have been here this morning to listen to these concerns -- obviously he is not -- a good number of times, and at this time what I would like to do is go to some of the friends of the minister. The minister told us yesterday or the day before that he had friends in the north, and I want to just tell him what some of these people are saying. When I say, "friends," I say it very much off the cuff because I don't feel these people are friends, as they indicated in a petition yesterday.

The past president of the Progressive Conservative association in my riding, the riding of Kenora, signed a petition saying the minister was out to lunch in terms of cutbacks.

I'd just like to go to some of the letters. In a letter dated November 4, 1995, Mr Dave Roberts says, "May I emphasize that these accidents would never have happened if you had not tried to save a few bucks at the cost of human suffering and safety." He's referring to an accident that he attended as a volunteer fireman.

"I hold you and the Premier of the province solely responsible for these accidents. At what saving to the taxpayer? This involved police overtime, calling in a second ambulance crew, helicopter to Winnipeg, needless medical expenses, rescue and emergency response costs, and above all else human suffering and pain."

He goes on to say: "I hope you give your head a shake to try to put some common sense into it. No amount of money saved can replace unwanted human suffering or a precious life lost."

I go on to October 29, a letter to me from Alan and Cindy Brailsford from Sioux Lookout. They too were talking about an accident. "As a direct result of no snow removal or salting October 19-22 on Highway 72 to Sioux Lookout three people were killed and several others were seriously injured. Literally dozens of cars slid off the road during the three days that a wet snow built up on the highway causing sheer ice conditions." They go on to say, "We are hoping that you will act to reverse this intolerable decision as soon as possible before more people are killed." That from Sioux Lookout regarding Highway 72.

Another letter from Sioux Lookout regarding the same accident, Highway 72: "It has now been over a week since a tragic accident took place on Highway 72 at approximately 5 pm on Saturday, October 21." The person goes on, the person from Sioux Lookout, Patricia Uren, and she talks about: "I am told by someone at the scene of the accident that it took at least one and one half hours for the ambulances to reach the scene because of the road conditions -- perhaps someone could have been saved if the roads had been plowed.

Unfortunately, three people died in that accident, one at the scene waiting for an ambulance....How many lives will be lost because of Ministry of Transportation budget cuts? Is it worth it -- does the Minister of Transportation realize that reductions in winter road maintenance will put many drivers' lives at an incredible risk and already has?" Again, that comes from Sioux Lookout.

The final letter that I'd like to quote is from Red Lake, Mrs Janet Power. She goes on to write: "I am sure you are aware of the basic reality of life in the north -- the road is our lifeline. Since it is threatened, we are threatened! Possibly we should all just move south where there are cell phones and easy access to better services. We could greatly expand the welfare rolls there, rather than the tax rolls here!"

Again, that comes from Mrs Janet Power of Red Lake, and she has a true concern.

As I said, there have been a good number of things that have been said about this, the minister's plan. I must say that it is a plan which is wrong, it's lame, it's stupid and it's dangerous. I urge the minister not to cut these vital services to our roads in the north.

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I'm pleased to join in the debate today, but I want to say with all due respect to my colleague the member for Port Arthur, who I know will understand, I think it's ridiculous that we are in the House today as MPPs debating an amendment to the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act on this matter. I think it's ridiculous that opposition MPPs, particularly those from the north, who are represented here from both parties, have to be in here doing the job for the Minister of Transportation, who should himself be trying to protect the motoring public, not only in our special part of the province but right across Ontario.

I want to say that what we have here, at the end of the day, is the fact that you've got a Tory government which is so interested in trying to give a big tax break to the rich and famous that it is determined at any stretch and at any cost to put the public at risk. You've got a government that's interested in slashing and burning services and in cutting those essential public services that people need, particularly people in our special part of the province.

The service that's under attack today that we're trying to protect is in fact the highway maintenance budget of MTO. The minister has repeatedly said in this House that it doesn't matter what kind of cuts there are, that maintenance will be maintained, that standards will be maintained and that the public will be protected.

I ask you how that can happen when in fact we know that patrols are going to be cut from 24 hours to 16; that each patrol will now cover 190 kilometres instead of 115; that sand and salt spreaders are going to be reduced by 12.3%; that the number of plows to be reduced is in the order of 10%; and that 125 seasonal staff are going to lose their jobs. There is no way that standards can be maintained and that the public can be kept safe when driving on the roads this winter.

The problem is (

a) the minister doesn't understand this situation, and (

b) he really doesn't care about putting public safety at risk. It's very clear to us that the minister doesn't understand by his comments in this Legislature. Northerners need roads that are well maintained so they can go to work, so that our kids can go to school, so that people can access health care services. We don't have a public transportation system that you can use as you can use here in Metropolitan Toronto. We've got large geographic distances to cover, and we've got large distances between our communities.

You have a minister who says, "If you get in trouble on northern highways, you can pull out your cell phone and call for help." That shows how out of touch with reality he really is. Most people, common people, can't afford cell phones. Secondly, cell phones don't work in most of the special part of the province that we all represent from northern Ontario. So he's totally out of touch with reality and the driving conditions and the driving experiences that northerners have to face.

Secondly, he doesn't seem to understand that public safety is at risk. It's already been put at risk. We have already had two deaths just this last weekend because of poor road conditions. In my colleague's riding in Cochrane, we had a 65-year-old woman who was killed because of poor road conditions. In the riding of my colleague from Nickel Belt, we had a young woman from Blind River who was killed on Sunday morning, 15 hours after the snow had stopped, after the storm was over.

The OPP had this to say, "The roads were horrendous; it was slush and ice and open pavement," and that's after the salt trucks went over it. You have a situation where driver error was not the cause of this accident. The day was sunny. It was bright. It was clear. The problem was the roads hadn't been maintained some 15 hours after a storm, and that's before the cuts went into effect.

I want to say in conclusion it's a bloody shame that we're here debating this today, because this minister should assume his responsibility and make sure of public safety, that the driving public are protected.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I'd like to congratulate the member for Port Arthur for bringing this topic forward. It's obviously a topic that's been of great concern to particularly members from the north, and I notice that mainly the people who've been speaking today are members from the north, although I will say that I am from the south. I guess I'm from the mid area. I represent the town of Caledon and the county of Dufferin, and I will say that the concerns of weather aren't all in the north, although there's no doubt about it that for the people in the north the weather is far more severe than the weather in the south.

But you can't claim all the bad weather. I can tell you that the people in my area get bad weather. We have had in my riding, particularly in the town of Caledon and the county of Dufferin, some unbelievable tragedies of motor vehicle accidents. Some may have been caused by bad weather. Some may have been caused by road conditions. Some may have been caused by drunk driving.

Of course, our Attorney General is addressing that issue with some legislation that's now before the House -- we haven't started to debate it yet -- with respect to the automatic suspension by the motor vehicle registrar for 90 days if you're charged for drunk driving. So there are steps being made to alleviate some of the concerns.

I'm always interested in the member for Lake Nipigon with his comments, particularly on the process of how this place works. The problem is, for the member -- and I appreciate what he's trying to do -- you have to remember the debt in this province is $100 billion. It's $100 billion. Everybody says, "Don't cut us, cut the next guy." I don't know who your constituents are, who you're talking to, but most people are concerned about the tremendous expenditures that have gone on in this province by both the Liberal government and the Conservative government from the last 10 years. They've increased, and that's what we're about. We're about that issue.

I guess if we get to the crunch of your legislation, what you appear to be doing is, to use the word from one of your colleagues, legislating standards. You're codifying regulations. I think your intention is to put it in legislation so things can't change without coming back to this House, and you're trying to set a platform, minimum requirements. I believe that's what you're trying to do.

But if you look at your legislation, what in fact you're doing -- and this place doesn't just represent northern Ontario; it represents the entire province of Ontario, and you should never forget that -- what you're doing, member for Port Arthur, is you're in fact putting a ceiling on standards.

One of the advantages of having this type of legislation in the form of regulations is that it can change from time to time.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): We want a floor. The floor is sinking.

Mr Tilson: Well, there may be an emergency. The member is speaking from what's happening up in his area, the dump man. You know, there may be areas in his riding that may require certain emergencies. There may need to be more money spent there. I can't specifically think; it may have nothing to do with snow. It may be some other area.

The problem is, there's only so much money, and it's all gone. It's all spent. We're spending in this province $10 billion on interest alone -- $10 billion -- and that's the rationale as to why this government is making its cuts in all kinds of areas, and yes, that includes transportation.

The minister has stood up and answered very good questions from the opposition on the whole topic of cuts to certain areas in his budget. But he maintains, and I believe him, and if you look at what he's doing, he is maintaining a certain standard, a certain good standard. For the amount of money that's required, what we have -- that's all we've got. Where are we going to get the money to do what you want us to do?

Again, don't just look at northern Ontario. You do represent a riding in northern Ontario, but you're going to have to look at all the other ridings in this province. All of these ridings have problems.

By putting these standards into legislation rather than regulation, I would submit to the members of this House that it makes it more difficult to have the standard changed in the event of an emergency or some other matter. Quite often the ministry exceeds its standards, depending on what area of the province you're in. During the past few years, the ministry has normally carried out its winter maintenance in some areas above these standards.

Mr Gravelle: As well it should.

Mr Tilson: Well, I'm just telling you that when you put forward rigid legislation such as this, you're going to box the ministry in. They won't be able to do the many things that are required around this province. Using standards as a guideline rather than a rule allows the flexibility to change them when it's appropriate. Many factors affect it, like the amounts of snowfall, wind conditions, temperatures, traffic. All of these things affect road conditions.

I'll be quite honest. I find it unfair when members stand up and ask the Minister of Transportation a question and say, "You caused these deaths." What a horrible approach.

Accidents are caused by all kinds of things, and they're tragedies, they're unbelievable tragedies, in all areas of this province, and don't say the government caused those tragedies. There may have been conditions of the road; there may have been all kinds of reasons.

How do I know? Every member in this House has tragedies in their ridings caused by motor vehicle accidents. In my riding, and I suspect most members in this House could stand up and say the same thing, there are more deaths caused by motor vehicle accidents than anything else.

I congratulate you in that respect in at least bringing this topic forward. It's a topic that needs to be dealt with, but quite frankly, I think it would be more appropriate, member, to bring it forward in the form of a resolution rather than this type of bill. I think it's something that we need to canvass. We need to figure out how to solve some of these problems.

The Attorney General is bringing forward, as is the Minister of Transportation, a road safety plan. There are three ministers bringing forward a plan with respect to road safety, and there may be other things. But the fact of the matter is, you people -- when I say "you," I mean Liberals and NDP -- have spent all the money. It's all gone.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Why don't you blame yourself too? If you want to be fair, blame everybody.

Mr Tilson: The member said I should blame everybody. You're quite right. We've all spent money, but not to the extent that your two governments have.

When you're asking the Minister of Transportation to spend more money, just remember what the debt of this province is; it's $100 billion. Don't ever forget that figure. That's why all members of the cabinet are making certain cuts to their budgets. Why? Because they said they were going to do so in the last election. Don't ever forget that. We're honouring what we said we were going to do. Don't ever forget that.

I simply say, member, that although I congratulate you, I'm not going to be supporting this legislation. I believe it's inappropriate to deal with winter maintenance standards through legislation. I think it's more appropriate to deal with that through regulations, because you have to be flexible on these sorts of things, and I believe you're creating a very, very dangerous precedent of rigid standards that are going to cause the province of Ontario severe problems if this House allows this legislation to pass. Codifying standards will not give the government the flexibility to implement reductions in services that may be necessarily due to lack of financial resources.

Mr Ramsay: I wish I had more time today. I would like to congratulate the member for Port Arthur for bringing this bill forward, and because I have only a minute or so, I'm going very plain and blunt.

The member for Dufferin-Peel is saying that these cuts are necessary because of the budget deficit. That's not true. The reason these cuts are being made is so that well-off people, primarily in the southern area of this province are going to be able to receive a tax cut. You're going to borrow for that money, and so what you're doing is jeopardizing the lives of people in rural and northern Ontario to pay for that tax cut.

I'm going to be more blunt, Mr Speaker, because if you look at the cuts of this government, it's the people who didn't support the Progressive Conservative Party, and northern Ontario is being punished because we didn't elect a member north of North Bay. That's what's going on here, and it's time that this government started to look to serve all the people of this province and make sure that the lives and safety of the people of Ontario are not put in jeopardy because of a tax cut to the rich.

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell): I'm pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this bill today in support of my colleague from Port Arthur. I too am concerned with the new standard of winter maintenance. In my riding, we have two main highways, the 17 and the 417. One of them used to be known as the killer strip in Ontario, Highway 17. I just want to make sure that this word, "killer," doesn't come back in our region. There used to be a lot of deaths on that road.

Every morning 70% to 75% of the labour force of my riding have to travel to Ottawa to get to their place of work. We have a distance of 120 kilometres from Ottawa down to la belle province, and if this highway is not maintained every morning, you can rest assured that it's going to be tough for our people to get to work in Ottawa. As I said, 70% to 75% of our labour force have to travel to Ottawa.

I'm also concerned about the tourism effect this new maintenance standard would have in the Ottawa area. As we all know, Ottawa has a major activity every year, which is the Winterlude. Winterlude attracts over 250,000 visitors every year. If we are not to continue the standard that we used to have in the past, we are definitely going to be affected economywise.

I have to say, though, yesterday I made a few phone calls in my riding, and I have to congratulate the MTO people for the good maintenance of Highways 17 and 417 yesterday. I just want to make sure we continue maintaining the standard that we have at the present time.

I'm also concerned about the hospital emergencies. Most of our people have to travel to Ottawa whenever it comes to an emergency to visit a hospital. If we are not maintaining the highways like we used to in the past, it could have a major effect in our riding.

I'm sure that this government will take into consideration that in the areas where we don't have public transportation, maintaining of highways is very, very important for those who have to travel a distance to gain their living.

Mr Gravelle: This is an extraordinarily important issue. I'm very pleased that we've had such a good discussion in the Legislature today and I want to certainly thank my colleagues from Algoma-Manitoulin, Sudbury, Kenora, Timiskaming, Prescott and Russell on my side and all our colleagues in the Liberal caucus for supporting us in this bill, and my colleagues also from Lake Nipigon and Sudbury East for their support.

There's no question this is an issue that has certainly galvanized everybody in northern Ontario, but as has been acknowledged over there, this is not an issue that simply affects those in northern Ontario. It's equally important in all parts of the province, as my colleague from Prescott and Russell was trying to say as well.

I think there's been a clear misunderstanding by the members of the government and those who are representing the government today, and I regret that the minister is not here to listen to my remarks. Obviously he doesn't think it's important, but it's clear that he gave some remarks for at least one of the other members to speak from in terms of the position they were taking, and I regret they are not able to speak on their own behalf.

As for the comments by the member for Dufferin-Peel, the most frightening part for me, quite frankly, were the last comments you made, which were that it's better to keep it in regulations than legislation in order to have the flexibility to make reductions, which to me is an acknowledgement that this is going to continue, that the reason you can't support this bill or the government can't support this bill is because you need to have the flexibility to make further reductions.

That's exactly why we put this bill forward, so that we could guarantee -- we aren't asking for more money. We're asking that the job be done to standards the minister has day by day said he was going to maintain. "We'll maintain the standards." So we said: "Fine, Minister. We want you to rescind, but if you say you'll maintain standards, these are the standards. Let's put them in the legislation." I find it astonishing that we cannot get full support from the House. I still urge it from all the private members. It's a private member's bill.

FRANCHISES ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR LES FRANCHISES

Mr Martin moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 13,

An Act to regulate Franchise Agreements / Projet de loi 13, Loi visant à réglementer les contrats de franchisage.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): The member has 10 minutes.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I rise today in this House to share a very difficult story that has been unfolding, a relationship story that has been unfolding in this province over the last few years that has indeed some national repercussions.

It's a story that was told by a colleague of mine in the spring of 1994, Mr Jim Wiseman, who brought forth a bill concerning the relationship between franchisers and franchisees in this province. It's a story that pits small business in many significant ways against large business, and the imbalances that are in that relationship and the agreements that are signed, and in the end, the devastation and destruction that happens to many small, well-intentioned entrepreneurs who live and work and operate and contribute in more ways than simply being a businessman or a businessperson in a community across this province.

It wasn't long after I got elected to this place that I received a letter in the mail from some folks who were representing the franchisee industry or organization or community in the province, sharing with me their very genuine and sincere concern re the conditions within which they have to operate and make a living and try and do business in this province, given that, as they said, there was no legislative context within which agreements were signed, information was disclosed, resolutions were had etc.

They told me some very disturbing stories, particularly in subsequent meetings that I had with them, stories of people like your friends and neighbours, perhaps somebody in your family, who, well-intentioned, got into a business by way of a franchise opportunity, invested all of their money, all the money they had made over a number of years, in some instances mortgaged their homes, in some instances borrowed money from other family members and got into debt situations with banks, and then found three, four, five or 10 years down the road, for reasons unknown to themselves -- or even if the reasons were known to themselves, there was no provision for challenging those reasons -- they lost their business.

They lost their franchise. The rug was pulled from under them. They found themselves flat on their face with no recourse to any resolution mechanism and lost their livelihood, and lost their opportunity to contribute in the ways they very genuinely wanted to, to the community in which they lived, to the community that actually brought them up, gave them their education, gave them their start in life. That was all gone.

In one instance, we had a fellow take over a business that was in his family, that was his father's business. He worked very hard to make a go of it, invested a lot of money, borrowed a lot of money to do the renovations that were required in that store by the franchiser, and then one day -- now, today, in fact -- finds that he has no more business.

Not only does he not have the business that was giving him his livelihood, that was actually going to be that place or that thing that would give him some comfort in his retirement years, but he now found himself in debt up to his eyeballs, and speaking to me in a way that certainly shared with me that he wasn't sure how he was going to resolve this.

Another couple in northern Ontario actually moved from another city to take over a franchise, and worked very hard. They took over a franchise that was struggling, worked very hard, mortgaged their home, bought a new home in the new community, put in, as most small businessmen do, we know -- and franchisees particularly, in this instance -- 50, 60, 80 hours a week, just every waking moment, worrying about the business, and just recently now have been given a notice that their agreement is not going to be renewed.

So having moved their family, having sold their house, having invested all their money and put in all that time and energy that was required to make a go of this business, they're told, for no reason that's been given to them or presented to them, that their agreement is not going to be renewed. They're in debt and they're in terrible shape.

In going through the material that Mr Wiseman, the previous member for Durham West, shared with me as he put together the bill that he presented to this House, which actually got through second reading and was before the House, still active, when the election was called, some of the information that I read in there as well is quite disconcerting and actually tragic. I'm just going to share a couple of paragraphs for you so that you understand the human suffering that is being caused simply because there is no legislative framework within which this type of business operates so that resolutions can be resolved in a way that's just and fair and equitable.

Here's one. It says:

"In the meantime, I have been unable to find steady employment, have lost our home, savings and pension plans. I will be filing for personal bankruptcy later this month as there really is no point escaping the fact that even if I win my action" -- against the company that they're taking action against -- "there would not be sufficient moneys, funds left over to clear my indebtedness completely."

Here's another one, a letter to Mr Wiseman:

"The result of this takeover was, and still is, devastating. My immediate family, comprised of my wife, two sisters and brother-in-law, are all affected through total loss of income, mortgages recently placed on our homes, capital injected into business, personal guarantees on equipment purchases, as well as personal guarantees on job performance bonding. We have literally watched our futures disappear and we are striving day to day to put our futures back together again."

This is the story I tell this morning, and the legislation I bring forward today will go a long way, in the opinion of both franchisers and franchisees who have worked with this, through a report that was given to the minister on August 30 that they developed on the initiative of the previous Minister and Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, who have recommended that one way of resolving this problem -- in fact, however you resolve this problem, in the end, there will be some legislation required. So the legislation that I present this morning will go a way to resolving at least three of the issues that have been shared with me as problematic in this interesting relationship.

This act provides a comprehensive scheme to regulate the entering into of franchise agreements and the ongoing relationship between the franchiser and the franchisee. It doesn't give anything special to any one side or the other. It doesn't tip the playing field in anybody's direction. All it does is try to set a level playing field to which both parties can come and share information and have some resolution to their disagreements.

This act calls for disclosure of information at the beginning of the agreement. It acts for more control over the workplace and the investment that's made, and calls for dispute resolution, something that I think we all would see as reasonable and not out of sorts.

What is it specifically that the franchisees are having difficulty with? What is the cause of all of this? Let me just share with you a couple of the concerns they have raised with me.

Most disputes with franchisees involve allegations of improper disclosure. This act will answer that.

Problems arise when a contract does not allow sufficient time to recover the initial investment and provide a reasonable return for the franchisee's hard work and money.

Lack of support can be a breach of contract. Some franchisees have sued franchisers for failing to provide the level of pre- and post-opening support they were led to expect.

The list goes on and on of ways the franchisee feels he doesn't have a fair shake or get a fair shake in trying to make a go of this business he has invested all of his money, all of his effort, all of his energy in so that he can contribute in the ways that he wants to, to his own livelihood, to the livelihood of the community in which he belongs, not to speak of the livelihood of his family, and to put something in place that will be there for him ultimately when he retires or decides to move on, or will have something to pass on perhaps to his children.

In the context we have today, there is no legislative framework to ensure this will happen. So I ask all the members of the House to listen carefully to the discussion and the argument this morning and hopefully find it in your wisdom to support it.

Mr Jim Flaherty (Durham Centre): It gives me great pleasure to rise for the first time in this place as the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

First of all, I would like to say that the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations appreciates the intent of Bill 13 to promote fair dealing between franchisers and franchisees in Ontario. Our government is aware of some problems that currently exist between franchisees and franchisers in Ontario. This is important to me because a thriving franchise sector means more jobs in Ontario and contributes to the government's objective of increased economic growth. The franchise sector alone accounts for about $45 billion in sales annually in Ontario.

In 1994, a highly publicized dispute between a Toronto-based franchiser and its franchisees was one of the factors that prompted the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations to establish a team called the Franchise Sector Working Team, comprised of representatives from both franchisers and franchisees. Ministry representatives took part as facilitators.

This Franchise Sector Working Team's Report on Franchising, which is what the report was called, was presented to the minister last August; that is, August of this year. The report is a good first step towards a sound relationship between franchisees and franchisers. The report identifies several areas of consensus reached by both franchisers and franchisees, including pre-sale disclosure information by all franchisers and franchisees; secondly, a code of ethics; and thirdly, provision for alternative dispute resolution.

Very importantly, the team has agreed that problems associated with franchising can best be dealt with in an industry self-managed environment, rather than through full-scale government regulation. The fact that agreement could be reached on such important areas is an achievement in itself.

We believe that more time is needed to assess the recommendations contained in the report. Although it is agreed that there is a need to address the problems associated with the franchise sector, we are not convinced this bill is the most effective way of doing so.

The bottom line is that this government will not support the passing of a bill that will increase onerous government regulations and red tape. The bill before the House, while well intended, will first of all inhibit job creation; secondly, it will inflict an onerous regulatory regime not only on the government but also on the private sector; and thirdly, it will produce reams of red tape. It is for these reasons that this bill is opposed.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this private member's bill this morning, and I do so because I think for all those things that we do in the Legislature, one of the more important things is the opportunity for private members to present their own bills. It were only my wish that these private members' bills were more successful, but perhaps we'll see that in the future.

To add to the comments of the introduction of the bill and to the speaker from the government side, franchising, as we all know, is big business in Ontario. Certainly in Canada, as a matter of fact, half of the franchising is done in the province of Ontario. We too recognize the need for franchise legislation. Carman McClelland, the predecessor of mine as the Consumer and Commercial Relations critic, also had prepared some work in this area.

It was interesting to me that the member for Sault Ste Marie who introduced this bill wanted to emphasize this morning the sad stories that there have been in the franchise industry, and I agree. That's one of the areas where we should be very careful, that we protect the franchisee because more often than not they have less expertise, they have less money, less resources when they're entering into these agreements.

On the other side, I think we have to uphold that long-standing tradition of buyer beware, and that we have to give the opportunity for the franchiser and the franchisee to reach their agreements and to have an understanding of how they're going to conduct business. But like the previous speaker, I don't feel that we can be too intrusive, because we do like to see the free market system operate as best it can.

We do know as well that there is franchise legislation in other jurisdictions in the Dominion of Canada, most recently I guess would be in the province of Alberta, and to some extent I suspect that this piece of legislation was patterned to some degree after that.

As was mentioned, this actually is much the same as a bill that was introduced in, I think it was, the third session of the previous Parliament, and that unfortunately didn't even pass first reading. So at least we're able to discuss this at some length.

Also was mentioned -- and I guess that's the problem when you're the third person to speak on something like this. We all put our notes together separately and some of us come up with the same information, but I too have the franchise sector working team's report that was given to the minister in August 1995. There was a previous report, The Need for Franchise Legislation in Ontario, that was prepared for the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations by the Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers, and that was back in November 1993.

I think there has been good work done in both of these reports. I expect that the government will be coming forward with some legislation because, with all due respect to my friend from Sault Ste Marie, as has been said, they're not going to support it, so I think we've already been told we're out of luck. But in any case, perhaps we can give them some good advice.

In concluding my remarks, I would like to say that I too agree that this bill as it's presented today is a bit onerous. It's heavily weighted on the side of using the regulatory powers of the Ontario Securities Commission and is onerous in the areas of its compliance and enforcement mechanisms.

I would suggest, as I think the government speaker has, that what we need is a balance of legislation that protects the interests of the franchisees, who in most cases are small business people, and yet that is not too regulatory and has too much red tape, so that in the end I suppose what we would all like is some sort of legislation that would be in a sense self-regulatory. I hope when we come to vote on this that those who feel that we need some sort of legislation in this area -- if this is the bill that satisfies their need -- support it.

But further to that, as we've already been warned by the government that it's not supporting it and in all likelihood it won't pass second reading, I would hope that the government then will come forward with that balanced legislation that's not too intrusive but still gives protection for the smaller franchisees.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): It's a pleasure for me to stand today to support the bill presented by my colleague from Sault Ste Marie. I think it's a good bill and I think it's an important bill that should pass. I want to remind the Conservative members on the other side that we passed 16 private members' bills during the last government session. That was important because it recognized the fact that individuals bring forward private members' bills that often are good and should be supported. We hope that what we did will be continued by the other side.

I hope that they will not take what we did too lightly and that they will pursue the same goals as they did in opposition this time around as we introduce private members' bills.

I want to say with respect to this that we have created a Fort York Small Business Working Group for the last three years and we have had ongoing meetings almost biweekly talking about the problems that small business face. One of the biggest things that they face that we have talked about that we're trying to tackle is the fact that they face continually a problem with banks and that banks are the ones who are stifling growth because as they go to them for credit, they often don't get it.

And 85% of all the jobs are created by small business people and they get a disproportionate share from the banks in order to be able to create wealth in this society. It's a tragedy, but it's something that we continue to work on in a small way in Fort York. But that is one of the biggest problems.

One of the other matters that was raised while we dealt with some of the problems that they face was the issue of franchisees and all of the multitude of barriers that they face in dealing with the franchisers. So we dealt with that and we talked to member Jim Wilson who introduced this bill prior to the member for Sault Ste Marie. I think what he introduced was good then and it's still good now.

Part of the problem that the franchisee faces is having to deal with a very powerful franchiser. It's a case of small versus big. It's a case of the little guy against the big guy. But these are the people who work hard -- this is a big industry -- and these are the people who are trying to create in their own way wealth not just for themselves but for our society, and they need, in my view, protection that they don't have at the moment. They're seeking a dream. So you can picture these people sitting down with the franchiser saying: "Well, I want to get into this.

I want to be able to make a living doing this and it seems good," and the franchiser saying: "Yes, of course it is. We want you to do well and if you don't do well we won't do well. We want you to operate that business. We wouldn't put you in a position where you would fail because if you fail we, the franchiser, will fail."

Now imagine that kind of talk. People submit to that. You listen to that as a franchisee getting into the business and you say: "He doesn't want me to fail. He wants me to succeed because if he fails I fail." Therefore, it all sounds rosy. And it does sound rosy in the beginning, but it gets very complicated as you go along. That's why this bill was introduced before and is being reintroduced now, because we know there are predatory practices that are being practised by the franchiser that need to be dealt with.

The former Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, Marilyn Churley, attempted to deal with this by bringing forward a group of stakeholders to attempt to give answers to this question. Having done that, we would have been ready as a government to have moved on that, because I feel that we need to move on this. So they have the report. They hopefully, in my view, will act on the report. Not to act on it would be a tragedy.

Alberta has it. It's a Reform Party that we've got there, much similar to this one. They've done it. If Alberta can do it, Ontario can do it. If Alberta, of all places, feels that franchisees need protection, surely the same party here with the same reform-minded politics can do the same. Surely this party will support small business in the same way that Alberta has done; and if it doesn't, you need to question why. Who are they supporting? Are they supporting the small business person, or are they supporting the big business person, because that's the way it seems from what I hear from the member for Essex South who has spoken.

We have many, many problems here to deal with. We have uncompetitive pricing, products that are supplied at terms or prices which place the franchisee at a competitive disadvantage to others in the industry. We have breach of territory. If a franchiser reduces or oversells exclusive marketing areas, the franchisees' sales may be affected. We have unnecessary renovations and unreasonable costs which the franchisees are subjected to. We have unreasonable payments that they have to meet. Royalty rates may be set low deliberately, but they're accompanied by a requirement that supplies must be purchased from the franchiser at inflated prices.

This is a small list of complaints that I bring, but I know that my friend from Sault Ste Marie has brought other complaints and problems and barriers they face in order to make a living. These people work night and day, 60, 70, 80 hours trying to make a living, but then they face the difficulties of having to deal with a franchiser that can pull the plug at any moment.

The letter that my colleague the member for Sault Ste Marie was reading earlier on -- and it's not here in front of me -- the plug was pulled away from them. They said, "You no longer have the franchise." How do you deal with that? Nine years of work -- he, his wife and other family members -- and all of a sudden the franchiser said, "We're sorry, we're pulling the plug." How do you deal with that? We need protections.

The Liberal member and the Conservative member say: "Oh, we don't need to inflict a regulatory regime on these people. We don't need reams of red tape; we need self-management. It cannot be too intrusive." "It's too onerous in compliance mechanism," the Liberal member says.

If that is true, what you are doing is, you're abandoning the small franchisee. You're abandoning the little guy, and you're saying this: "Self-compliance; we'll need to find different ways to deal with it. Let them in their own way deal with this. Yes, we know it's painful but eventually they will come up with a system without the onerous regulation to deal with it."

I argue, you can't do it. It hasn't worked, and what you're proposing is not a solution. What we need is regulation to protect the little guy, the small business person who works 70, 80 hours a week. The regulations we're proposing are by no means a complete solution, but they move towards it; they move towards responding to the problems that little guy has.

If you don't do it, you're abandoning thousands and thousands of people in Ontario who operate these small franchisees and are at the mercy of the franchiser. I plead with the members to look at this. I plead with the members who are looking at this not to simply get a response from the minister that says, "This is your response in the House," but to look at this bill carefully, because you will find that what's here is very reasonable.

I hope the members will support the member for Sault Ste Marie, who has introduced this bill today.

Mr Rob Sampson (Mississauga West): First of all, I want to congratulate the member for Sault Ste Marie for the considerable amount of work that he's put in putting this issue and this bill to the House today. It certainly reflects my honourable friend's commitment to his constituents and his belief that small businesses are a very crucial factor of the Ontario economy.

I too wish to speak to this particular bill, not only as the parliamentary assistant for financial institutions to the Minister of Finance, but as a member of this House who is also concerned about small business in Ontario and how we must rely upon the small business sector to generate the economic growth this province truly needs and deserves.

I'd like to first of all focus on my concerns with Bill 13 as it relates to the reference to the Ontario Securities Commission, which of course reports to the Minister of Finance, and then I'll go on and address the other pieces of legislation I think are relevant.

Part II of Bill 13 would require companies selling franchises in Ontario not only to file a prospectus but to register the salespersons with the Ontario Securities Commission. Now, this is an added responsibility to be placed on the Ontario Securities Commission, which by the way is principally involved in the regulation of public stock transfers and capital market transactions, not joint ventures between business partners, which is truly what a franchiser-franchisee relationship is; it's a business transaction, a joint venture business transaction that has been agreed to by two parties.

The bill does not speak to the resources or the skill sets that would be required of the commission in order to deal with the paper flow and information flow that is proposed by the bill. Frankly, as an additional concern, it doesn't mention the time and expense -- more importantly, the expense -- required by the commission in order to deal with this activity. Now, in times of serious economic constraint I think that is a fairly serious omission that must be dealt with.

In general terms, Bill 13 appears to be modelled after the Alberta Franchises Act of 1980. After several years of experience in that province, and a number of reviews, it was found that the rules in the legislation, the Alberta Franchises Act of 1980, were in fact too intrusive and curtailed investment, investment that was designed, supposedly, to create jobs in the crucial small business sector of that province. So Alberta put together a working group of franchisers, franchisees and government representatives, and agreed through a series of meetings that some changes needed to be made.

On November 1, 1995, I'm led to believe, the filing of prospectuses and the registration of salespeople was no longer required in Alberta, and a large degree of the governance relationship between the franchiser and the franchisee was delegated under the new Alberta legislation to a self-regulating entity, not the Alberta Securities Commission but a self-regulating entity.

So, indeed, Alberta has tried the experiment, as my friend the member for Fork York has suggested. They indeed did try the experiment, and it didn't work, so they had to change it. They had to change it to return the regulation of the industry, the regulation of the business relationship between the franchiser and the franchisee, to the industry.

In the Common Sense Revolution this government committed to removing unnecessary regulation that hindered the growth of business. That's a crucial component of our plan to get this province working again.

As a former employee of a provider of leveraged capital to the small business sector in Ontario, I am concerned that the attempts to regulate the franchiser-franchisee relationship may in fact hinder both parties in getting access to the needed capital to do business. Indeed, much of the information required by the bill is unlikely to be meaningful data to any one of the parties. I know; I've asked for it. What we need to do is let investors decide the information flow that's required to reach an investment decision.

What investors want, frankly, are the factors to be determined on their own accord, not by some government regulation, not by some government legislation. We in this House must be extremely careful not to become party to these investment decisions determined by this Legislature but in fact having application upon two people who are deciding to get into business together.

I should draw the House's attention to the fact that even the business community in Ontario itself is uncertain that regulation as proposed by this particular bill is needed. I understand that the Canadian Federation of Independent Business has conducted a survey of its many thousands of members and found, of those who responded, 59% do not support the regulation of the franchiser-franchisee relationship.

For these reasons, the impact upon the Ontario Securities Commission being one that affects the Ministry of Finance, but more specifically, coming from the private sector, coming from the sector that provided and does continue to provide a significant amount of capital to the franchising business in this province, I'm unable to support this bill as it is currently tabled. I would go so far as to say I think certain provisions of it would injure the development of the franchising business in this province.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I suppose the first matter that could be raised this morning -- and we heard from both of the parliamentary assistants that the ministry is looking at bringing in potential legislation in this area -- is the question, when is it coming?

Having dealt with people in my business over the years that were both franchisers and franchisees, I can tell you that there is a problem in this area. Certainly, I too have to congratulate the member for Sault Ste Marie in bringing this matter forward. All one has to do is walk around the downtowns of the province of Ontario, walk through various malls, and you very quickly get the impression that a significant amount, if not the majority, of the retail business going on in this province is being done on a franchise basis, and there are some significant problems in the area.

It seems to me from the debate that we've heard this morning we're either talking about intrusive government intervention on the one side, which is certainly what this bill recommends, and the much slower self-regulatory approach as has been advocated by the Conservatives.

First of all, let me say that I wish that I could support this particular bill, but I cannot. There are few enough of us on this side of the House to realize that we do have to support one another from time to time. However, this is, once again, a situation where I believe we have to find a balance in between the rights of the franchisers and the rights of the franchisees.

Most of the matters that the member for Sault Ste Marie has referred to this morning are very sad situations where people lose their life's investment after maybe having spent five or 10 years in trying to build up a business etc. But when we get into the details, on most of the items that he refers to one could very easily take the position that in a lot of these situations people just made bad business decisions. I'm not sure whether government should be involved in protecting people from making bad business decisions. That's number one.

They're talking about improper disclosure. I would say that if a proper contract was drawn up at the outset, if there was improper disclosure then that's a cause of action right there. Why doesn't the person take the matter to the courts? After all, that's what they're there for.

Also, the comment was made that in a number of situations there's no time for the franchisee to recover the initial investment that they may have made. I assume that's because the franchise agreements are for too short a duration. That is a decision, quite frankly, that those people who are going into that business have to take into account -- the length of the franchise agreement that's offered to them -- when they make that investment decision.

If they have miscalculated that somehow and they haven't calculated in the amount of time that's required in order to pay back the initial investment, I'm not so sure whether the government should necessarily step in and protect them in cases like that.

On the last matter that he mentioned, about there not being support there that quite often is contained in these franchise agreements, in opening up, in promotional matters etc, I will totally agree. These are usually matters that arise almost in the heat of the moment, immediately before a franchise is opened, and all sorts of support has either been promised and may even have been contractually signed for and quite often is not there.

Quite often the independent businessperson is left with the position that, having invested as much as they do, they go ahead or they somehow back out of it and in effect walk away from their investment. Certainly there ought to be a mechanism in place to ensure that the small investor -- and most franchisees are, initially -- is protected from usually the much larger multinational franchiser.

I'm a new member to this House, and I maybe approached this bill a little bit differently. When I got a copy of it the other day, I went through it and I thought, "Well, what makes sense, and what doesn't make sense?" I must admit that having the Ontario Securities Commission deal with this matter didn't seem to make sense to me. Having this 14-day filing requirement or disclosure requirement seems to me, in most situations, almost an extraordinary length of time, because usually people want to make a quick decision.

They ought to have all the information in front of them, there's no question about it, but on the other hand, to wait 14 days, during that period of time there may have been two or three other people who have come forward and want to get involved in that particular line of business as well. It seems to me that that's kind of an onerous requirement.

I'm not so sure that the mediation process that is described in the bill is necessarily a good one. Mediation does work in certain areas, but in a situation where usually the franchiser has the greater ability to wait the situation out, I'm not sure whether the mediation process in effect doesn't help the wrong party in situations like this.

Perhaps the much better way is to have the matter resolved either within a court of competent jurisdiction or through some mandatory arbitration, compulsory arbitration, so that the matter can be dealt with immediately, particularly the smaller items about which usually there may be quite a bit of dispute that arises from time to time in these franchise situations.

The member for Durham Centre mentioned the fact that this bill would inhibit job creation. It reminds me of some of the other comments that have been made in this House that have been freely thrown out etc. I'm not sure whether the bill will do anything, either inhibit job creation or create jobs, for that matter. It has just been a phrase that has been thrown out there to go along with the other rhetoric, I suppose.

It's true that there have been some changes proposed in Alberta, as the member for Mississauga West has mentioned, which obviously indicates that the bill as proposed, which I understand to be the Alberta bill, didn't work there to the satisfaction level that people were looking for and that perhaps those kind of amendments ought to be placed in any Ontario legislation that may come along.

I think where the legislation should ultimately end up is to recognize the fact that in situations like this there ought to be full public disclosure, no question about it. But there also has to be built in a "buyer beware" component. That is, after all, what made this province great, as far as I'm concerned --

Interjection.

Mr Gerretsen: Oh, look, it's true that there are many people out there, many small business people who have made, particularly in the last little while, bad business decisions. The economy has been against them etc, but on the other hand it is the idea that somebody can start with nothing and still become something in this province that I think is something we should hold on to. With too much government regulation and too much government interference, that simply will not happen.

My question again is, as I wind up my dissertation, to the members from the government who have spoken this morning: Could they give us some clear indication as to when exactly we can expect to see some government-proposed legislation on this matter?

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I've listened, obviously, with great care to the discussion of this Bill 13 presented by my colleague and friend Tony Martin, the member for Sault Ste Marie, who shows his typical commitment to the little person, the small people, the vulnerable people in his presentation of this bill.

I'm going to tell you right now that I'm going to be supporting this bill, and I'll tell you as well, notwithstanding the views that have been expressed around this forum, I exhort my colleagues to support this bill. This is second reading. That means you support the concept in principle.

Everybody, notwithstanding their bias for or against a stronger or weaker regulatory regime, seems to be consistent with each other in suggesting that the franchisees in this province deserve some type of protection, some type of process whereby they can be guaranteed a full disclosure, because "caveat emptor" can only take effect when there is full disclosure, when there's a right to full disclosure, when it's a legislated requirement that there be full disclosure. Otherwise "caveat emptor" is a defence for every bunko artist and perpetrator of fraud that wants to walk the continent, never mind the country or the province.

Let's face it, most franchisers are responsible franchisers. When you go down to the University Avenue courthouse and take a look at who's involved in litigation, you don't see names like Tim Horton. You don't see some of the stable, responsible franchisers, but you see Pizza Pizza, Jumbo Video, Petro-Canada Certigard, Coffee Time, Baker's Dozen, Second Cup, Mister C's, Yogen Früz. It's these franchisers that franchisees have to be protected from.

Let's understand who the franchisees are, especially in this economic climate. The franchisees, to a large extent -- and this is a new phenomenon, a post-1980s phenomenon -- have a tendency to be new Canadians, also tend to be people in their more mature years, their late 40s, early 50s, who have been displaced from industry or the business world because of the downsizing that's occurring there, and who take their last paycheque, that golden handshake if they're fortunate enough to have one, to invest in a business endeavour, people who are not entrepreneurs per se, people who never anticipated having to enter the somewhat risky world of free enterprise.

Let's clear up another myth, and Bates addressed that in a study some time ago, and that's the 90% myth. The fact is that all the relevant studies, including that of Bates, indicate that there's a higher failure rate among franchises and franchisees than there is among non-franchised business starts.

Let's also understand that this issue -- although I give Jim Wiseman, a member in the last government, credit, along with Tony Martin, for bringing the bill forward again -- did not commence with Jim Wiseman. Indeed, it's very much a Conservative issue. It was back in 1970 that then-Minister Allan Lawrence, recognizing this new phenomenon, this new relationship -- and you see, the problem is that there's a real vacuum in our legislative regime to deal with franchisers and franchisees. They're neither fish nor fowl.

The franchisee is not an employee; the franchisee is not a consumer such that he or she is entitled to protection of however modest our consumer protection legislation is in this province. The franchisee, as well, is not an investor. The franchisee is a unique legal entity that justifies the implementation of appropriate legislation.

Allan Lawrence recognized that back in 1970 when he established the Grange commission, the Grange inquiry, Mr Justice Grange as you'll recall. Mr Justice Grange in his report made some 14 very tough recommendations, recommendations to a large part replicated in this bill. And Arthur Wishart, who replaced Allan Lawrence as the Minister of Financial and Commercial Affairs -- and not inappropriately from the same riding as my friend Tony Martin -- Arthur Wishart, a good member of this Legislature, a real Tory concerned about the little guy, promised that there would be legislation in response to the 14 tough recommendations of the Grange report.

Notwithstanding the Kleining of Alberta under the regulation of franchiser-franchisee relationships and the requirement of full disclosure and registry, the fact is, Pizza Pizza with a scumbag like Lorn Austin, a convicted fraud artist described by a Florida prosecutor as "one of the most prolific white-collar criminals I have prosecuted in my career, Lorn Austin," a senior management person for Pizza Pizza -- why, that bit of slime who has victimized so many young families, young investors, young new Canadians, through the unconscionable actions of Pizza Pizza -- the Alberta Securities Commission indicated that Pizza Pizza could never have registered in Alberta with a character like Lorn Austin, a bunco artist, a thief, in a senior management position.

This government talks about protecting small business people and, by God, promoting them and sustaining them and supporting them and giving them the assistance they need. Well, the victims of the unconscionable franchiser scams are those very people.

So I say this, Speaker, and I know you'll agree because you've been around here for a good chunk of time: Let this bill go to second reading. The Tories have enough numbers to kill the bill on third reading if they wish. Let it go to second reading. Let it be dealt with in committee so we can hear from the public, so we can hear from the victims and, by God -- I doubt if we'll hear from the perpetrators -- so we can hear from the real small business people of this province.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): The member for Sault Ste Marie has brought forward a bill that was introduced by Mr Wiseman. Certainly all you have to do is look at the proceedings in the courts, the amount of litigation that's been going on. The former speaker just spoke about a certain amount of litigation that's been going on in the province of Ontario. You talk to the average lawyer in this province who advises people, franchisees, on signing agreements, and most of them say: "Don't sign it because they're so awful. Just don't sign it." Of course, they want to get into the business and what are they going to do? So they sign these things and they get into terrible amounts of trouble.

I understand the initiative of the bill, and this is not the first time this has been tried. Bill 45, I believe, was introduced in the province of Alberta and that's been mentioned by some other speakers. As I understand it, Bill 13 appears to follow the format of Bill 45, the Alberta bill. You hear news reports from the province of Alberta and it appeared that a number of franchises did not start in that province because they were concerned about that piece of legislation. It never did pass -- I don't think it ever passed -- but they were nervous about it and business stayed away.

So the province of Alberta introduced a new bill, which did not follow Bill 45 and certainly isn't going to follow Bill 13. It was introduced in 1995 and this is certainly a strong departure from the existing legislation of the province of Alberta. I believe the member should be looking at the Alberta legislation. You look where other provinces have made errors before you create some of our own.

Registration and review of the disclosure of documents by the Alberta Securities Commission were removed. The new act also includes a requirement for fair dealing and the establishment of a body for industry self-regulation. Alberta's 1980 Franchises Act was repealed when the new franchises act came into effect. I could stand corrected; perhaps Bill 45 was never enacted.

In any event, the point that I'm trying to make for the member for Sault Ste Marie is that Bill 45 was proven in Alberta to be ineffective. It wasn't what they wanted. The member from Kingston, I believe, spoke about how he was a little nervous about the principle of self-regulation. I think you've got to look at that.

We've just gone through five years when every time the government passed a piece of legislation, we had a commission; we created a bureaucracy. We can't afford these bureaucracies, and of course this piece of legislation, Bill 13, will require the Ontario Securities Commission to administer the new act.

That's going to need more bureaucracy for them, although, interestingly, the Ontario Securities Commission has advised that since the bill doesn't involve the trading of public stock in a capital market, it does not meet the criteria of the Ontario Securities Commission and, as such, would not be considered as falling under the purview of the Ontario Securities Commission. So we have a problem there.

I will say that I agree with some of the comments made by the other speakers and I'm not going to repeat them, other than to say that it is intrusive. It is going to create more of an expense for the people of Ontario. Hopefully the legislation, whether it passes or whether it doesn't pass second reading, will encourage the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations to introduce government legislation, and perhaps some of his principles can be incorporated. But I simply will say to him that it was tried in Alberta. It didn't work, and I'm not going to support a bill that didn't work there when it appears that it's not going to work in the province of Ontario either.

Mr Martin: In bringing this bill forward this morning, I hoped to achieve a couple of things. Obviously, I wanted to see it pass so that we could have that table around which all of us could gather in the process that follows second reading before we had third reading to have the discussion.

If there are changes that you suggest need to be made, then let's make them, but let's make them now, let's make it happen now, because there are people out there who have been hurt, who are waiting for some resolution, who are being hurt as we speak, who are into major disputes with their franchiser over issues that they have a difficult time understanding. There are people out there who are going to be sucked into this vortex in the next year -- six months to a year -- that we should be concerned about and wanting to put something in place that will provide some protection.

So I would hope, first of all, that in the spirit of private members' hour, and trying to give it some oomph and some meaning in this place that you would see fit to support this and, as my colleague from Welland-Thorold said, in principle at least, allow it to be discussed further, in third reading. If you don't like it at that point, you can defeat it.

The other thing that I wanted to achieve this morning was the raising of this issue again, to let the people in this House and across Ontario who are listening and who may hear of it via the reports the press will print, that this issue has not gone away, that it's still a difficulty out there for small business, for little people who enter into franchise agreements, and they need help. They need some support. They need some protection.

I want to thank the members who participated in the discussion and took time to prepare and to participate and contribute -- the Conservatives, the Liberals and my own colleagues -- this morning. I again exhort you to please help me with this and support it when it comes to a vote.

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'AMÉNAGEMENT DES VOIES PUBLIQUES ET DES TRANSPORTS EN COMMUN

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): We will deal with ballot item number 5, standing in the name of Mr Gravelle. If there's any member opposed to a vote taking place, would they please rise.

Seeing none, all those in favour of second reading of Mr Gravelle's bill, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

FRANCHISES ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR LES FRANCHISES

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): We'll deal with ballot item number 6, standing in the name of Mr Martin. If there's any member opposed to a vote taking place on that ballot item, would they rise?

Seeing none, all those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Call in the members. A five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1201 to 1206.

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'AMÉNAGEMENT DES VOIES PUBLIQUES ET DES TRANSPORTS EN COMMUN

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): All those in favour of Mr Gravelle's bill will please rise and remain standing.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Gerretsen, John

Miclash, Frank

Bartolucci, Rick

Grandmaître, Bernard

Patten, Richard

Bisson, Gilles

Gravelle, Michael

Phillips, Gerry

Boyd, Marion

Hampton, Howard

Pouliot, Gilles

Bradley, James J.

Kormos, Peter

Pupatello, Sandra

Caplan, Elinor

Kwinter, Monte

Ramsay, David

Castrilli, Annamarie

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Silipo, Tony

Churley, Marilyn

Lankin, Frances

Wildman, Bud

Colle, Mike

Marchese, Rosario

Wood, Len

Cordiano, Joseph

Martel, Shelley

Crozier, Bruce

Martin, Tony

The Speaker: All those opposed will please rise.

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Fox, Gary

Munro, Julia

Baird, John R.

Galt, Doug

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Barrett, Toby

Gilchrist, Steve

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Bassett, Isabel

Grimmett, Bill

Sampson, Rob

Brown, Jim

Guzzo, Garry J.

Shea, Derwyn

Carroll, Jack

Hastings, John

Sheehan, Frank

Chudleigh, Ted

Johnson, Bert

Tilson, David

Danford, Harry

Johnson, Ron

Turnbull, David

Doyle, Ed

Klees, Frank

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Fisher, Barbara

Martiniuk, Gerry

Wood, Bob

Flaherty, Jim

Maves, Bart

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 31; the nays 32.

The Speaker: I declare the motion lost.

FRANCHISES ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR LES FRANCHISES

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): We will now vote on ballot item number 6 standing in the name of Mr Martin.

All those in favour of Mr Martin's bill will please rise and remaining standing.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Grandmaître, Bernard

Patten, Richard

Bartolucci, Rick

Gravelle, Michael

Phillips, Gerry

Bisson, Gilles

Hampton, Howard

Pouliot, Gilles

Boyd, Marion

Kormos, Peter

Pupatello, Sandra

Bradley, James J.

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Ramsay, David

Churley, Marilyn

Lankin, Frances

Silipo, Tony

Colle, Mike

Marchese, Rosario

Wildman, Bud

Cordiano, Joseph

Martel, Shelley

Wood, Len

Crozier, Bruce

Martin, Tony

The Speaker: All those opposed will please rise and remain standing.

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Fox, Gary

Miclash, Frank

Baird, John R.

Galt, Doug

Munro, Julia

Barrett, Toby

Gerretsen, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Bassett, Isabel

Gilchrist, Steve

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Brown, Jim

Grimmett, Bill

Sampson, Rob

Caplan, Elinor

Guzzo, Garry J.

Shea, Derwyn

Carroll, Jack

Hastings, John

Sheehan, Frank

Castrilli, Annamarie

Johnson, Bert

Tilson, David

Chudleigh, Ted

Johnson, Ron

Turnbull, David

Danford, Harry

Klees, Frank

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Doyle, Ed

Kwinter, Monte

Wood, Bob

Fisher, Barbara

Martiniuk, Gerry

Flaherty, Jim

Maves, Bart

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 26; the nays 37.

The Speaker: I declare the motion lost. It being past 12 o'clock, this House recesses until 1:30 of the clock this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1212 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TOURISM

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): Tourism in northern Ontario is a year-round business, with boating, camping, snowmobiling, hunting, fishing and seasonal cottaging, among others, being extremely important activities. The economic stimulation that tourism creates in northern Ontario is significant in every community throughout the north, and the economic spinoffs of tourism in our region affect all northerners.

I had the opportunity to attend the Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association convention in Kenora this past weekend, and their discussions reinforced my thoughts that there is a great deal of work that needs to be done to fully recognize the potential that the tourism sector has as an economic development tool in the north.

While most of the work has to be done by the private sector, it is obvious that several critical actions must first be taken by government. Government must get out of the way of private businesses. It must clear the path by reducing government-mandated costs and paperwork. Our highways and airports must be maintained and improved so that visitors can get to our region. Consumer costs, including costs for gasoline and gasoline taxes in the north, must be reduced to make our region more attractive for tourists.

Government must take a more proactive role in promoting the north as a tourist destination as well as promoting the expansion of new tourism initiatives such as snowmobile tourism, eco-tourism, video lottery terminals and casinos.

While this list is not exhaustive, it sets out the right direction government must follow in order to allow the tourism industry in the north to live up to its potential.

VOLUNTEERS

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): In the throne speech the government went on at some length about how volunteers had to assume a greater role in communities across Ontario, how volunteer organizations at the community level would have to pick up the pieces after funding was cut to education, to community services, to women's centres, to family and children's services.

People in my part of the province were willing to take up the challenge, but then they found in the three largest communities in northwestern Ontario, principally Dryden, Kenora and Fort Frances, that the funding was also cut for the volunteer centres, those centres that work in terms of providing literacy training, that do the work in terms of working with senior citizens to make sure they have access to services that aren't provided by some sort of organized institution. All three community volunteer centres, in Fort Frances, in Kenora and in Dryden, had all of their funding cut.

People in those communities are wondering: They're willing to go out and work with the private sector, but how do you work with the private sector when you can't afford to pay the rent at your volunteer centre? How do you work with the private sector when you can't afford to have a telephone? How do you work with the private sector to raise community money to organize a volunteer effort when you can't have somebody to answer that telephone?

There is a bit of a cruel hoax going on here. The government says, "Let volunteers do it," and then takes away the money that would allow volunteer centres to operate.

HENRY OLIVERIA

Mr Carl DeFaria (Mississauga East): It is my privilege to congratulate two exceptional individuals from the city of Mississauga. Early in October, Henry Oliveria, operator of O'Henry Janitorial Services, and his assistant, Paulo Vargas, noticed a mislaid Loomis bag near the automated teller machine at the bank they were cleaning. They immediately returned the bag containing $54,000 in cash to the appropriate authorities. The outstanding honesty that these two men displayed in this situation deserves to be publicly commended.

This is the second time in his cleaning career that Henry found and returned a bag of money to his employer. The first time was seven years ago when Henry found and returned $160,000 to the bank. The Toronto Star has dubbed him "Honest Henry."

As a community, Mississauga East is also proud. Acts such as this that demonstrate an honourable character and high moral standard unite the community of Mississauga in the spirit of togetherness. The government recognizes that such expressions of honesty and integrity inspire a feeling of goodwill that brings individuals in our communities across Ontario closer together.

I ask this House to acknowledge Henry and Paul, who are in the members' gallery. To paraphrase the caption which appeared in the Mississauga News relating to this exceptional act, Canada can bank on these guys.

MINISTER OF TRANSPORTATION

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): In light of our friend the Transportation minister's lack of interest, in not showing up this morning when we were debating the very important private member's bill regarding legislated standards for winter road maintenance, and given his insistence on slashing budgets to snowplows and sand trucks in northern Ontario, and given the fact that this minister has no idea what it's like to drive to work in adverse northern winter conditions, I thought I might give the minister an update of the road conditions in the north around Sudbury provided to us from his ministry as of 8:45 this morning.

Highway 69 south -- snow-covered to snow-packed with icy sections; Highway 11 south -- centre bare with snow-packed sections; Highway 144 north -- snow-covered to snow-packed, slushy with icy sections; Highway 17 east -- snow-covered to snow-packed with slushy, icy sections. Minister, these were the conditions at 8:45 this morning.

There is a new jingle being used in the north and in Sudbury for our pal Al:

Sometimes you'll plow and sometimes you won't

Sometimes we make it and sometimes we don't.

We can't see the street for the snow at our feet, but

We'll proudly go forth to help Al's friends in the north.

In all seriousness, Mr Minister, I urge you to reconsider your drastic cuts to winter road maintenance. Your business model of outcomes-based management systems is ill conceived and ill advised --

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Time has expired.

FAMILY RESOURCE PROGRAMS

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): In Mike Harris's Ontario, the range of child care services available to young working families is under attack. Today I'd like to focus on one group in my riding of Riverdale that is part of the range of services available.

The Metro Association of Family Resource Programmes provides cost-effective multiservice programs available to 90% of those caring for young children. They support parents choosing to care for their own children and they seek to improve the quality of private-home child care providers and ensure employment and opportunities.

Caregiver training, parenting and toy libraries, emergency child care and parent relief are some of the additional supports to families they provide. These programs are cost-effective, receiving only 3% of the ministry's child care budget. They have a 20-year history of promoting healthy, sustainable communities while maintaining quality and standards in child care.

These programs are based on common sense in the true meaning of the term. The recent slash-and-burn approach of this government shows it has much to learn from organizations such as the Metro Association of Family Resource Programmes which practise common sense as a matter of commitment and necessity.

I urge this government to continue supporting the family resources programs, as they are doing exactly what this government has asked people to do.

PETERBOROUGH FESTIVAL OF TREES

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I rise to invite all members of this House to the fifth annual Peterborough Festival of Trees being held November 23 to November 26 at the Peterborough Memorial Community Centre.

This event is a four-day community celebration and fund-raising event for three benefiting organizations: the St Joseph's Hospital Foundation, the Peterborough Civic Hospital Foundation and Hospice Peterborough, a non-profit community-based group that provides compassionate care to help those with illnesses that have progressed beyond the traditional medical treatment aimed at curing.

Local businesses purchase floor space and provide the festive decorative wonder of their choice as an exhibit for viewing and sale. All proceeds from sales and purchases go to the three health groups to assist in capital projects and to provide front-line health services. Proceeds have now totalled in excess of $700,000 over the last four years.

The spirit and enthusiasm of this festival demonstrates how committed the people of Peterborough riding are to making a difference in their community, a difference which not only benefits the users of health services but also unites and strengthens the entire community through friendship, hard work and volunteerism. I am proud to stand here and invite all members to the Festival of Trees in Peterborough, November 23. It will make a difference.

FIRE SAFETY AWARDS

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): I rise today to recognize the courage and quick thinking of one young man in my riding, James LaMarsh, who received an Ontario Fire Prevention and Public Fire Safety Education Award from the Solicitor General in a special ceremony today.

When he was only five years old, James awoke to the smell of smoke in his home and crawled on his hands and knees to wake up his three-year-old brother, his cousin and his parents. Firefighters said his bravery and cool thinking probably saved the lives of his family and averted a terrible tragedy. James learned to crawl below the smoke in a Learn Not to Burn program he attended in grade 1.

At the same time, I would like to salute firefighters, both volunteer and professional, in my riding and across the great province in acknowledgement of their dedication in protecting and saving lives in communities across Ontario and for promoting programs like Learn Not to Burn in our schools.

James is sitting in the gallery with his parents, Debra and Joe LaMarsh, and fire chief Jim Anderson from Chatham, who were with him today for this special occasion. I'm very proud to introduce them to the members of this House.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I'd like to direct my statement today to the Minister of Transportation. The first fatal accident of the winter involving a resident in my riding of Cochrane North occurred last Saturday when Mrs Jeanne Mitchell, 65, of Cochrane was travelling northbound on Highway 11 in Coleman township, north of Latchford.

This accident occurred two days after a 25% to 30% reduction by your government to the winter maintenance program. Mrs Mitchell lost control of her vehicle, sliding into the southbound lane, striking an ongoing tractor-trailer, causing the car to roll into the ditch. According to the police, freezing rain, snow and icy road conditions caused the accident.

On October 2, I raised the issue of the cuts to the use of snowplows and sanders in the north with the minister in the House and his response at that time was, "Our roads in the wintertime are going to be up to safety standards." You need to improve your standards, Mr Minister.

On Tuesday of this week, my colleague Floyd Laughren called for a coroner's inquest into an accident which occurred on Highway 17 in his riding of Nickel Belt last Sunday. You refused to reconsider your decision to cut the highway snow removal budget and dodged questions on the issue.

We need coroner's inquests into these accidents in northern Ontario to determine the level of maintenance that was carried out. Essential front-line emergency snow removal of salt and sanding is required for public safety. Essential services are not being maintained and the safety of citizens in the north is being severely threatened. A coroner's inquest is needed into the highway deaths in the north.

FIRE SAFETY AWARDS

Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): I would also like to draw the attention of the members to this distinguished group of visitors in the gallery this afternoon, the winners of the 1995 fire safety awards. In total, 16 groups and individuals have won the award this year.

Fire prevention and public education are essential to saving lives and protecting property, and the award winners this year have given generously of their time, energy and resources to promote fire safety. In addition, the winners this year include six young people who have used the fire safety information they were taught to save lives or prevent serious injuries.

One of those young people is 12-year-old Amber Ann Maltese of Niagara-on-the-Lake, in my riding of St Catharines-Brock. Amber Ann helped guide her younger brother and sister to safety after a fire started in her house. The fire and safety program organized by the local school board and the local fire department taught her what to do in this emergency.

All of the 1995 award winners have helped to change public attitudes towards fire safety.

On behalf of the government and the people of Ontario, I am pleased to draw the attention of the members to their presence here today and I ask Amber and her parents to stand, please.

CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES

Mr Peter North (Elgin): My statement today is with regard to conservation authorities. Conservation authorities in Ontario deliver many valuable services, from water quality measurements to flood control, to stream bank erosion, to tree planting, to many forms of land planning. Our lives would be much poorer without them.

Education put forward by conservation authorities with regard to the environment has been recognized across the province as having made a substantial difference to many communities. Conservation authorities partner with many community resources such as municipalities, provincial and federal government ministries, agricultural associations and environmental organizations. These partnerships are invaluable in our communities, with the resulting economic returns and opportunities too numerous to mention.

Another of the economic benefits of conservation authorities is the local employment they create. Most specific is the student employment created at a time when student unemployment in rural Ontario is quite substantial. The experien