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

November 5, 1986

33rd Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L060 - Wed 5 Nov 1986 / Mer 5 nov 1986

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION

EXTRA BILLING

ROBERT P. BATEMAN AWARD

GUY FAWKES DAY

SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT

CONFERENCE ON NORTHERN COMPETITIVENESS

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

ORAL QUESTIONS

CONFERENCE ON NORTHERN COMPETITIVENESS

NURSING HOMES

ALGOMA CENTRAL RAILWAY

NURSING HOMES

TARIFFS ON SOFTWOOD LUMBER

RESIDENTIAL RENT REGULATION LEGISLATION

LAYOFFS IN SUDBURY

EMERGENCY HOUSING

EXTRA BILLING

MINISTRY REGIONAL OFFICE

TOURISM IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

GASOLINE PRICES

PETITION

RESIDENTIAL RENT REGULATION LEGISLATION

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

MOTION

COMMITTEE BUSINESS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

POWERS OF ATTORNEY AMENDMENT ACT

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF TREASURY AND ECONOMICS (CONTINUED)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 1:31 p.m.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I would like to remind the members of this Legislature that the government and the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) made the decision last year to phase out the Ontario Land Corp. and dispose of its land holdings by transferring ownership to the appropriate ministries or selling the land as market conditions permit.

The Ontario Land Corp. has until next August to dispose of 63,000 acres of land, much of it farm land. My concern is that if the government decides to sell the land, thousands of acres of farm land will be thrown on to the market, which will have the effect of further depressing the already low price of farm land.

This government and the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) have made a commitment to preserve Ontario's agricultural land. Why then would the government not set an example by holding the approximately 30,000 acres of farm land it now owns instead of releasing them for sale, thereby forcing our financially depressed farmers to maintain all the farm land in this province as well as having to suffer the effects of further decreases in land values? This agricultural land could be leased to farmers with long-term options to purchase when economic conditions improve.

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I rise to speak on the statement made yesterday by the Ontario Medical Association and the press release that was issued by the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston), to remind the members that this matter has been discussed in the Legislature and in public for several months.

The first meeting the Minister of Health had on this matter with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario was on July 2 -- I gather he has had one subsequent meeting as well as meetings with the OMA -- yet as of today, the matter remains unresolved.

In an

article on July 23, after the meeting with the college, the Toronto Star reported: "Elston said later he expected the college would soon issue a `pretty plain statement' that there should not be charges deterring people from seeking doctors' care."

That statement never went out from the college, yet some of the charges that doctors, most obviously the obstetricians in the city of Toronto, were initiating with their patients were completely outrageous and were deterring people from accessing the health care system.

Yesterday, the Minister of Health stated, "While it is true that billing for uninsured services is not a new practice, I have some reservations about the Ontario Medical Association's guidelines as contained in its letters."

Are standby fees going to be allowed, are some of these other uninsured fees going to be allowed, or is the government going to put its legislation where its mouth is and end this practice, which deters people from using the health care system?

ROBERT P. BATEMAN AWARD

Mr. Offer: I rise to inform the House that the first Robert P. Bateman Award has been given to Grace Jull. Mrs. Jull has worked as a child care counsellor for emotionally disturbed children at the Mississauga Hospital's child and family clinic.

The Robert P. Bateman Award is given to individuals who have made an outstanding contribution to the physical and emotional welfare of children. It is through the contribution of people such as Grace Jull that the needs of our children are more fully met.

Mrs. Jull not only counsels at the clinic three days a week but also operates a hotline service for teachers, parents and public health nurses. In addition, she runs a drop-in centre in the Meadowvale area of Mississauga for parents to discuss child management problems.

Grace Jull has been working in this field for more than 20 years. She is 69 years old, a mother of four and a grandmother of nine. I wish publicly to congratulate Grace Jull for her effort, dedication and commitment in her work with our children for many years.

GUY FAWKES DAY

Despite all the recent renovations to this chamber, I do not believe the construction crews uncovered any kegs of gunpowder in the cellar; yet we hear threats of another kind, related to the longevity of this parliament. Peter, son of the wolf, has been doing some huffing and puffing of late, and now we hear the government House leader may be planting a few bombs of his own to bring about what he refers to as the final solution.

I remind the government House leader that the Guy Fawkes plot was uncovered. Fawkes was tortured to reveal the names of his co-conspirators, and on January 31, 1606, they were duly executed in front of Westminster.

I caution the House leader to remember, remember the fifth of November.

SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT

Mr. Hayes: In 1971, the Ministry of the Environment issued a certificate of approval for the operation of a landfill site in the township of Maidstone; it then turned its back, walked away and ignored the operation of that site.

The dump in Maidstone has been operating illegally for a long time. The wells, the ground water and the streams are being polluted. The people are still waiting for the government to assure them that their health is not affected by the contaminants in this dump.

No doubt the workers in the Windsor sewage treatment plant have a good reason for refusing to work; they felt their health was affected. However, I feel the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) and the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) have shirked their duties by not resolving the problem at the source. What good is legislation if it is circumvented by an uncaring government willing to issue endless temporary permits to dumps?

The lack of action by the Minister of the Environment is not acceptable to the people of Maidstone township. The minister has not taken this concern as seriously as he should. Every time he is asked a question on this issue, he takes us on a trip around the world. Why does he not get out of the environment and start a travel agency?

CONFERENCE ON NORTHERN COMPETITIVENESS

Mr. Gordon: In Sault Ste. Marie yesterday the Premier (Mr. Peterson) spoke of "ruthless realism" and the need for northerners to become self-reliant, and insinuated that northerners are complainers looking for someone else to blame for our problems. At times he sounds very much like a Social Darwinian. What I find particularly galling is that he can say such things in northern Ontario after travelling direct, if you can believe it, from a new auto plant in southern Ontario.

This Premier spoke of a new reality for northern Ontario. The reality of northern Ontario is an unemployment rate that is nearly double that of the south. Does his new reality for northern Ontario include the type of incentives and moral suasion that is necessary and that only the government can provide and that will see auto plants locating in the north?

In northern Ontario now, we have the skills and infrastructure such industries require. In Thunder Bay, we have Can-Car; in Sudbury, we manufacture all-terrain vehicles; at various locations in the north, mining machinery is manufactured. All we lack is the government's political will to put in place a program of incentives and to apply pressures at the right points to get these kinds of industries locating in the north. Another gabfest in Thunder Bay is not the answer to northern Ontario's problems or its unemployment problems.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Martel: I have before me a copy of a letter written by Rae Erskine, co-chairman of the joint health and safety committee at Domtar in Hamilton, to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye). Mr. Erskine writes to say, and I quote:

"I feel that some person or persons in your ministry must have been misinforming you. Since what has been stated -- that I asked you not to intervene -- " which Mr. Erskine says is totally untrue, "is so out of accord with the real situation, I feel it is my duty to respond."

Mr. Erskine says he never asked that the report be rewritten, nor did the joint health and safety committee request Dr. Muir to rewrite or revise the report. The joint health and safety committee asked for clarification on the severity of the health effects on workers.

He also says he spoke to the minister personally in early August. The ministry officials were in the plant, and in September he insisted the inspectors record his complaint that the internal responsibility system at Domtar had failed. In 72 per cent of the cases involved, the internal responsibility system had failed. Further, Mr. Erskine says, and I quote, "We have achieved some improvement to date, but this has been done without assistance or sympathy from the Ministry of Labour."

I am not quoting now. Let me say that the minister has not responded in any way, shape or form to the facts that Muir, McCalla and company are out to get those two doctors and are out to downplay the seriousness of those problems at Domtar.

13:43

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The administration of the Occupational Health and Safety Act is one of my most important responsibilities as Minister of Labour.

As honourable members know, the act requires both management and labour to assume the primary responsibility for worker health and safety in the work place. If that responsibility is exercised with discipline, determination and care, illness and injury on the job will be prevented and worker health and safety will be protected. If it is not, the Ministry of Labour must exercise its responsibility, which is to bring the full force of the law to bear upon the work place -- swiftly, surely and fairly -- so that things may be set right.

To exercise that responsibility fully, the Ministry of Labour must have at its disposal the appropriate resources, both human and financial. It is my judgement that the ministry has not had such resources since the act took effect in 1979. While every enforcement area has suffered from some degree of neglect, none has suffered to the extent of the construction health and safety branch.

In 1981, when the construction industry was considerably less active than it is today, there were 92 construction safety inspectors in Ontario. In 1985, when this government came to power, there were only 66. In four short years, almost one third of the construction health and safety inspectorate left the job and was not replaced.

Today, it gives me great satisfaction to announce that we are beginning the full and formal reversal of that sorry trend. I would also like to stress that the measures I am announcing today are interim measures only.

The external review of the effectiveness and efficiency of the occupational health and safety program that is now being conducted will provide blueprints for comprehensive resource enhancement in all areas of the ministry's occupational health and safety mandate.

The government has granted the Ministry of Labour the resources to hire 13 new construction health and safety inspectors just as soon as competitions can be conducted and candidates selected.

In addition, the government has granted resources to hire three new lawyers, two new articling students, an office manager and three support staff for the ministry's legal services branch. These new people will help ease the burden on the ministry's legal staff, a burden that has increased dramatically in the past year since the government came to power and since a new enforcement policy was implemented.

Permit me to provide one statistical comparison to underscore the impact that this new enforcement policy has had. Between April and August of 1986, the number of cases referred to the legal branch for possible prosecution was 296; that represents a 155 per cent increase over the 116 cases referred during the similar period of 1985.

In making this announcement, I would like to thank specifically the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) for his interest and support. It reflects the understanding and commitment of the government to work places for all workers in Ontario in which illness and injury can be prevented and health and safety will be protected.

Mr. Gillies: A year and a half after this government took office, the Minister of Labour suddenly realizes that construction activity in the province is well up and that monitoring and inspection of that activity has to be increased.

I am surprised the minister does not realize that during the years 1981 to 1984, we had something going on in the province called a recession. To use my riding as an example, building permits worth a total of $6 million were issued in the city of Brantford in 1981; more than $55 million worth of building permits will be issued in 1986. The need for increased monitoring and inspection is obvious, and the minister will have to concede that it is an increase in construction activity that necessitates this.

The minister is not going to get any disagreement in this House that there is a need for additional staff to process the case load he has. In that regard, I welcome his announcement and I am glad he is getting the staff he needs.

However, the statement did not speak to the real problem, which is that in the first full year for which he has had responsibility, the incidence of work place deaths and accidents in the construction industry in this province is way up. I know this concerns the minister as much as it does all other members of the House. I concede to the minister that in

part it is because of the increase in construction activity itself, but the need is pressing.

If the minister can take all necessary steps to improve inspection and compliance with orders in the province, he will have the goodwill and support of every member of this House. I hope he can do it. In his statement, the minister alluded to the external review that is under way on the activities of his ministry in this regard. We look forward to seeing that review, but let us not lose sight of the major problem, that the construction industry in Ontario today is a much less safe place to be than it was even one year ago. The minister has an obligation to do something about it.

Mr. Martel: I am amazed by the comments of my friend to the right, since it was his party that allowed the start of this downhill slide. What amazes me about the minister's statement is that while he pretends he is getting more staff, it is my understanding he will have fewer staff when he is finished hiring than there was in 1981, when there were 235 or 236 inspectors. I believe we are now down to 221, and he is going to get 13 more; so the total figure will not be substantially altered.

The real issue is not whether the ministry has enough inspectors. One of the key problems is that the minister has not cleaned up the swamp. No one knows what anyone is doing, and everyone is contradicting everyone else. The minister has not been able to straighten that out in 17 months. In fact, he has not even been able to make a dent in the type of reporting that goes on in the ministry.

The minister talked about orders and said there was an increase of 155 per cent in prosecutions. The number of orders issued in the industrial sector alone was 50,000, and 10 per cent had to be repeated. They were all a violation of the act to start with. Those people who did not conform to the orders written were contravening the act a second time. While he talks about a paltry 200, we are talking about 50,000 or 60,000 orders, if we consider all three sectors, and he wants to blame everyone.

Lack of numbers is just a smokescreen for inactivity. The biggest inactivity he could have performed in this Legislature was to have an inquiry that cannot get to the bottom of his problems. I do not know where the agreement came from. The minister goes into the type of inquiry where witnesses cannot be called, subpoenaed if need be and documents subpoenaed. He has this little in-house inquiry that will get to the bottom of nothing, as hard as Laskin and McKenzie work. There is so much collusion going on in this field that it is not even funny. The minister knows it and I know it. Why he ever got taken in by the group which decided he needed a little in-house, private inquiry is beyond me.

One only has to look at the Domtar situation. The chairman of the Advisory Council on Occupational Health and Occupational Safety is the same Dr. McCalla who is sitting at McMaster, threatening to fire a couple of doctors who are too intimately involved with an occupational health centre. There is collusion. Then he has Dr. Muir, who happens to be the vice-chairman of one of the minister's committees, who admits he rewrote a report without anybody asking for it. What the minister is trying to do is shift the blame to Erskine and the two doctors.

The minister says to me that the doctors will not come forward. Quite naturally, they will not come forward. Their jobs are being threatened. I raised this a year ago during the minister's estimates and he told the press he could not recall any of that. I suggest he look in Hansard. I also called him in September about the same sort of situation.

I cannot understand why the minister did not ask for an open and full inquiry. He had no allegiance to the cesspool at 400 University Avenue, none at all. If he had had any courage, he would have cleaned it up. He would have had an open and full inquiry and would have had credit for it. As it is now, the minister is seen as part of the problem. For the life of me, I cannot understand why he did that. I cannot understand why he comes in here day after day with answers that are half-truths prepared by his staff. I have said that to my friend in public and I have said it to him privately.

He will not get to the bottom of that cesspool. That will only occur when he has the courage to have an open inquiry.

Let the minister not tell me about inspection. I can show him 100 cases where the inspectors' orders have been countermanded by their superiors. I can name the people who countermanded the orders when the inspectors gave them out there. How can the minister have any willingness to force anything to work when his own staff at the top continues to skewer those people who are doing their jobs? The minister has to have an inquiry so this nonsense will not carry on.

13:54

ORAL QUESTIONS

CONFERENCE ON NORTHERN COMPETITIVENESS

Mr. Gordon: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. Yesterday the Premier (Mr. Peterson) was in Saint Ste. Marie talking about the new "ruthless realism" that we in the north have to accept and, with his Trudeauesque expressions, talked about northerners being complainers. What I find particularly galling is that he did this after coming from the opening of an auto plant in Alliston.

Is this government and is the minister prepared to bring forth very definite incentives that will help to provide auto parts plants in northern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: If the member had been to Saint Ste. Marie and seen the reception that the Premier and the ministers received there, I do not believe he would be making comments like that. We were very well received.

In the past year and a half, this government has done more for the problems of the north than the Conservative government did in 42 years. The suggestion the member made is one of the things we were discussing when we were there. We will be working with the communities of the north to try to assist them in whatever way we can.

Mr. Gordon: Now that we have seen that the attitude of this government is that northerners should be obsequious and should bow and scrape and kiss the hem of the minister's gown, perhaps he can tell us how he expects us to act, especially since his Premier called us complainers.

I would like an answer to this question. Is it not true that in the north right now in Thunder Bay we have Can-Car, which is manufacturing, in the Sault we have steel parts manufacturing and in Sudbury we have companies that produce all-terrain vehicles and mining machinery? Is it not true that the infrastructure for manufacturing in the north is there now? Will he not give us a commitment that it is going to happen in the future?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: As I mentioned, that was one of the topics discussed not only in some of the seminars but also in private meetings I and other ministers had with people in the north. It is something we will be working very hard towards. I repeat, the Progressive Conservative Party had 42 years to put that structure into place, and what did it do? We are working on the problems.

Mr. Gordon: Not being 42 yet, that type of answer is not what we are looking for in the north. We want some definite commitments. When we hear that all this government is planning is another gabfest in Thunder Bay, it does not provide us with much confidence about his plans for northerners.

Our unemployment rate in the north is double, we have more and more people going on the welfare rolls all the time and this government has been in power for 17 months. Yet the only thing they can do is go up north, hold a gabfest and promise another one in Thunder Bay. That is hardly any kind of strategy. Can we count on a strategy from this government for the development of manufacturing in northern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: The people of the north, especially those who were at the conference, would be very offended by the member saying it was a gabfest. I remind the member of the comment of the mayor of the Sault about halfway through the second morning's meeting. He said: "We are very pleased that you are here in the Sault and having this conference here. We hope you have more of them throughout the north because they are of high regard."

Not only in that meeting but also in other things we have held throughout the north, we are working on problems the Conservative government left for this government to deal with.

Mr. Gordon: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I feel the minister has cast aspersions on the mayors of this province. Mayors always make those kinds of remarks.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Laughren: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: You may wish to reclassify this as a point of information, but I think I heard the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon) say he was not yet 42. I wonder whether he would be prepared to table his birth certificate.

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, it is question period. New question.

Mr. Harris: I was 39 once.

I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. Northerners in this province are faced with a government which lacks both the ideas and the intestinal fortitude needed to help secure their place in the sun and their future. On another occasion, the minister told us his position is the Premier's position. Does he agree with the Premier's view that the people of the north are looking for someone else to blame for their problems, with the insinuation that our northern citizens are nothing but whiners and complainers?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: If the member, as a northern member, had been at that conference, I think he would have got something out of it, because the people who were there appreciated us being there. The dialogue that went back and forth will help to solve some of those problems of the north.

14:00

Mr. Harris: The minister will know that the Premier has said he is trying to get rid of the notion that everywhere he goes he is dripping with cheques. He also knows that just two days ago the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) told this House that, as we predicted, he has found himself dripping with about $400 million to spend.

The government loses credibility in northern Ontario when the Premier is prepared to drip $17.3 million on Abe Schwartz for a project at Toronto's Harbourfront, hardly an economically depressed area the last time I looked. He shrugged his shoulders up there. He said he was there to listen. Northerners have told him how he can help. He has heard this over the past year and a half. He heard it when he was up there.

Why will he not implement some of the ideas the member for Sudbury gave him today? Why will not correct unfair gas prices? Why will he not stop the tax introduction on the trucking industry? Why will he not work on four-laning Highways 17, 11 and 69 to access the north? Why will he not eliminate the mining tax? Why will he not establish flow-through shares?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: Some of those matters were discussed. Perhaps we have heard them for the last year and a half, but the members opposite heard them for many more years than we ever did. Perhaps we should be telling them about the $25.3 million we put in through the Northern Ontario Development Corp. Perhaps we should be telling them about the millions of dollars we poured in through the northern development fund. Perhaps we should tell them about some of the things the Treasurer mentioned yesterday. We have been working hard for the north and will continue to do so.

Mr. Harris: Perhaps the minister should; they were all good programs brought in by the previous government. They were all good in their day but times have changed in the past year and a half, and not for the better in the north.

The government has said the people of the north should not expect made-in-Toronto solutions. Apparently, they can expect made-in-Toronto reports, made-in-Toronto conferences, made-in-Toronto press releases and made-in-Toronto printers. Can the minister explain to us why his ministry was unable to find a northern Ontario consultant to write his report or a northern Ontario printer to print it? Why does he still expect the people of the north to live with made-in-Toronto problems and, I might add, to live with a made-in-Toronto government?

[Failure of sound system]

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: The report itself has generated some comments. Some of those comments were good and some of them were bad. The firm was very highly qualified and came to us in that regard. Some of the things the member mentioned, though, are things we will look into.

Mr. Wildman: We are not going to get directly involved in a debate between the Liberals and the Tories about who has less policy for northern Ontario. I will ask a question directly related to what the Premier said yesterday in northern Ontario. Yesterday the Premier gave a wrapup speech to the conference in which he told delegates he could not find a consensus, he did not know the solution of how to deal with the weaknesses of the northern economy and northerners would have to provide their own solutions and find their own way to become competitive.

Can the Premier and Minister of Northern Development and Mines explain to the House what steps specifically this government is prepared to take to stimulate investment in northern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I know my honourable friend was at the conference and I appreciate his attendance. I wish my colleagues opposite had availed themselves of the opportunity to share their very positive views of the situation and their specific situations.

I am delighted the member was there to share the air time and to squawk and fuss. We invited him and we invited our colleagues opposite and the federal members of Parliament. We wanted a full and frank dialogue and we were very happy to have him make his contributions, whether people will listen or not.

That being said, I have a number of suggestions. He will know, for example, of the new ventures small business program.

Mr. Villeneuve: That is working really well.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: It has been working well. My friend is critical, and he is entitled to be so, but he is very much aware of a number of programs that have been implemented in the last year. I am talking about major infusions into the post-secondary institutions there. It is a substantial upgrading in a number of areas. He will be aware of a dramatic improvement in the northern development fund. He will be aware of major increases in tourism and plans in those particular areas. I am sure my friend would be the first to stand in this House, knowledgeable as he is of these things, and say this is a government that is working hard to solve the problems of northern Ontario.

Let me take him back a moment. I ask my friend not to oversimplify some of the complex problems we are facing. We have started to establish a significant dialogue. We announced a very significant new approach with respect to timber management, the allocation of wood resources and land policy. As he will be aware, we have started that dialogue with the northern development councils and we are looking forward to working with the people of the north.

Let me make just one other point, if I may, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Very briefly.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I will do it on the supplementary. Thank you.

Mr. Wildman: The announcement of the ventures program was the only positive press the Premier got out of the conference.

Since the Premier made such a to-do about the need for an entrepreneurial spirit to assist the northern economy to thrive, can he indicate what he is doing to respond specifically to the demand of the entrepreneurs at the conference for government leadership to provide the capital and the infrastructure needed in the north so that we can have results such as the results he found in Alliston before he went to Sault Ste. Marie?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I hope the member will not be against what took place in Alliston the other day. He suggests he is somewhat resentful about the press. I know my friend flew into town, made a few nasty noises and then flew out of town. His whole object there, I guess, was to control the airwaves. I do not judge my life with regard to positive press or negative press. I do not have that preoccupation, as my friend has. If you do the right thing, life will take care of itself. I just pass that on to my friend opposite.

There was wide consultation there. We heard from a number of very thoughtful spokesmen, who came from a wide variety of experiences and backgrounds, that we have to develop more entrepreneurialism in northern Ontario. We heard it from the education groups; we heard it from the small business groups; we even heard it from a number of labour leaders who are looking to develop the spirit to solve some of their own problems.

The member cannot have it both ways. He cannot come down here and say, "You cannot have direction from Toronto," "You cannot have direction from Queen's Park," and, on the other hand, go back there and say, "We do not want solutions from the south."

We have taken a very co-operative view. I am sure my honourable friend does not share this view. I believe the links we have established and the faith we have established in the past little while have been very constructive. I know the member does not agree, but his whole object was to go there, cause a fuss, get his face on television and then get out of there. That is okay, and I am going to invite him next year and the year after and the year after that to do the very same thing. We are thinking positively.

14:10

Mr. Wildman: It was the New Democrats who proposed a program for development in the north. There was nothing from this government. I am afraid that all we are going to get is invitations to conferences next year and the year after and the year after that and that nothing will ever happen in northern Ontario.

At the conference, the Premier was chastised by the tourist outfitters as well as by organized labour. He said there was a need for more consultative mechanisms, and he promised a meeting again next year in Thunder Bay. When is this government going to show real leadership and provide the financial resources from the so-called Treasury surplus that was announced in the House on Monday so we can have some real development in northern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member says I was chastised by some of his friends, and he is right; l get chastised by everybody, including him. He says he put forward a program. I saw the program he put forward. There were 10 skinny little points, recycled stuff that had gone through many reincarnations around here. There was nothing particularly new in what he had. We have seen it all before, and we have heard the member's speeches on many occasions.

Any time the member has a positive or constructive idea, I will be delighted to have him share it with this House, and I will be delighted to implement it. One of the differences between opposition and government is that government has responsibility; sometimes we see that this is not the case with the opposition.

We have implemented a number of funds. The member knows already that the northern development fund has been doubled for the past year and that significant new programs have been put in place. He should look at what has happened at Searchmont. Why does he not stand up and give this government credit for the co-operative effort we have had with the citizens of Sault Ste. Marie in building a major new destination resort? I am giving just one example of many things that have happened.

There are new programs for tourism, for roads and for a lot of other things. As much as the gentlemen opposite would like to stand up and be nasty and negative about these things -- I understand all that -- my sense is that the people in northern Ontario are manifesting some faith in this government to work together with them to solve their problems.

I have been in northern Ontario a substantial amount, although perhaps not as much as my honourable friend, and I am in the process of learning a great deal. He may judge me inaccurate in that assessment, but I do not think it is inaccurate.

Mr. Foulds: I would like to place a question to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. Every time there was a substantial criticism or a substantive suggestion by someone at the conference in Sault Ste. Marie, whether it was Leo Gerard from the Steelworkers, a New Democrat, a tourist operator or a town councillor, the minister turned it aside with a quip or a joke, just as he did today. The north's economy is not a joke. Exactly how are he and his government willing to help northerners rebuild and control their own economy?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I say to my honourable friend, who usually does not indulge in that kind of remark, I think the remark he just made was completely inappropriate and inaccurate, and if he were a gentleman he would stand up and apologize. It was completely inaccurate. We were gathering a number of ideas.

As I said, and I think the member answered his own question, we have shown a genuine partnership in working together with the people of northern Ontario. He has seen that good faith in the past. We have responded in very specific ways to suggestions that have come from there as well as putting forward a number of suggestions and real programs from here.

Apart from my friend's program to assist northern travel and for the Ontario health insurance plan, which came a year or so ago, he should look at what has happened with respect to the universities, the colleges and the infrastructure. I am sure my honourable friend, in fairness, wants to stand up and recognize some of the progress made in the last little while and does not want to put this on a personal level.

Mr. Foulds: It is the responsibility of the Minister of Northern Development and Mines to show the leadership that is necessary to help northerners rebuild their economy. Today, yesterday and the day before, he did not say one substantial thing that would help them rebuild their economy. His economic ambassador in northern Ontario, Bob Rosehart, said: "One thing is clear: There is a central role of leadership for the government to play in the development of the north."

Is the minister willing to establish a true northern Ontario diversification fund for the economy, managed by northerners, so they can control their economic destiny and rebuild a future for their children?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I say to my honourable friend opposite that I would disagree fundamentally with his analysis. There are many people there, perhaps a little more objective than the member, who think this government is providing that leadership in a particular way. We are soliciting the advice and consultation of the people in northern Ontario.

On the one hand, if we do things from here, the member criticizes us for that. If we consult people in the north, he criticizes us for that. He wants it both ways. I think my friend owes it to this House and to the people of the north to be very frank and forthcoming about the things that have actually happened and the things that are happening at present, and he above all should know those facts.

Mr. Foulds: I say to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, who happens also to be the Premier, all northerners want and ask for is a fair share of the buoyancy of the economy of the province as a whole. That is all we are asking. We are asking for the provincial government to show the leadership by giving us the tools to do the job so we can rebuild the economy that he and his predecessors have allowed to be destroyed.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Foulds: Would the minister be willing to sit down with workers, company executives and community leaders in every single-industry town that is vulnerable to the shifts of the worldwide market so they can devise planning agreements, with his co-operation, to diversify their economies and to plan the future of those single-industry towns? Will he do that one thing?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We have been doing that, and we are in the process of doing that all along the way.

Mr. Foulds: Are you doing that in Terrace Bay?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Yes, I was in Terrace Bay, Longlac and Nakina, and we are working on development programs and on a variety of other things. A lot of things are going on, of which perhaps my honourable friend is unaware.

I understand his Churchillian intonation; give them the tools and they will do the job. He has been listening to some of my speeches. We have responded in every way. When we have been asked for assistance, we have tried to be forthcoming, and I think we have been. My friend will have to admit that.

He wants it both ways. He wants us to sit here and produce all the solutions and on the other hand give the people the tools to do the job. We are working with them in co-operative ways. We have created northern development councils, as the member will be aware. People are very enthusiastic about the input.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My honourable friend has his biases. He should listen to the mayors. My friend opposite does not have much respect for the mayors of northern Ontario, but I do. His worship Mayor Fratesi, talking on their behalf, was speaking optimistically about the new spirit of co-operation, the jobs that have gone north, the diversification of this government and its real commitment to northern Ontario. The remarks of my friend opposite today are born out of some personal insecurity.

14:20

Mr. Gordon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The Premier has made a remark, which imputed motives, about my references to the mayors. What I said was that whenever ministers do show up, the mayors of Ontario do come forward and they treat everybody politely.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I listened very carefully. There was some reference. I will ask the Premier whether he wishes to reconsider his reference.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Excuse me?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Stevenson: It is just the Premier's usual smear. He would not have noticed he said anything out of line anyway.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I was listening, trying to hear what was being said. I will have a look at it. New question.

Mr. Gillies: Don't worry, Mr. Speaker; it was just the Premier sneezing on somebody.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It would be very nice if we could hear what was taking place in the Legislature.

NURSING HOMES

Mr. Cousens: I have a question for the Attorney General on a matter raised yesterday by our leader. We have given the Attorney General 24 hours to think of an answer, because it is much the same question. The question has to do with the Birthe Jorgensen report on criminal abuse of the elderly, a report that has been in the hands of officials his ministry for more than six months. It has also been in the hands of the Ministry of Health for more than six months.

In the light of this mass of evidence and the massive lack of action by people within his ministry, will the Attorney General take action for an immediate review of the respective opportunity to do something to help the people of our province?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am grateful for this question. I have made inquiries. A press release issued by the Leader of the Opposition refers to the Jorgensen report as a secret report. It was a report that was made available to every student in the bar admission course and every person who attended the series of public lectures given by the Law Society of Upper Canada. A representative of my ministry, along with hundreds of other people in Toronto, received a copy at the time.

I have now read the report, which makes two points. The first point the report makes is Dr. Jorgensen's concern that if it comes to the attention of persons, relatives or others that criminal offences have been or may have been committed, these should be reported immediately to the police. We agree with that. There is no point of dispute with that.

She makes a second point with reference to some old cases, some of which are five years old. Those cases were reported to Concerned Friends of Ontario Citizens in Care Facilities on a confidential basis and did not go to the police as they should have. I agree with her comment on that. There is nothing in the report apart from that.

On Monday, the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) asked the Solicitor General (Mr. Keyes) whether he would direct the Ontario Provincial Police to conduct an investigation. The Solicitor General said he would, and my ministry offered any legal assistance that might be required in that exercise. That is the whole story. The report has been public for six months. We agree with the points it made.

[Interruption]

Mr. Speaker: I remind everybody in the galleries that demonstrations of any sort are out of order.

Mr. Cousens: The rating given the Attorney General's questioning is 2.2 from the Toronto Star and three from the Toronto Sun. Out of 100, that means he will not go far.

It has taken six months for the minister to come up with an answer to help our seniors and to show some concern. It would not have happened if our leader had not raised the question. It would not have happened unless this crisis had become real. Why does the minister not --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. New question.

Mr. Cousens: I was beginning the question. I asked, "Why does the minister not" --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cousens: -- and I just want to finish it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. No. New question.

Mr. Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: There may have been interjections, but I do not know why you feel interjections by others are a reason to cut off the question.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Harris: The member was about 15 seconds into the question --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

ALGOMA CENTRAL RAILWAY

Mr. Morin-Strom: I have a specific question for the Premier about the workers in Sault Ste. Marie and Wawa whose jobs are now threatened by the freight rate confrontation between Algoma Steel Corp. and the Algoma Central Railway. Those companies have asked for a $5-million government assistance program from both governments at the same time as they are asking for wage concessions and threatening closure of their operations.

In the past two days the Premier has had the opportunity in the Sault to discuss this issue, at least with the company officials. Can he give us his assurance that, as an essential condition of any provincial government financial assistance, he will insist on long-term job guarantees for the workers at the ACR and at the mines in Wawa? Is that not the kind of positive action we need?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Last week, the honourable member was proposing I buy the railway; so I am interested in this new idea he has.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member knows there are ongoing discussions among the various parties, including the federal government. I read the other day that it is prepared to participate in these discussions. I view that as a step forward. There are no conclusions as yet. As I understand it, there was an erroneous press report that Wawa was going to close down. To the best of my knowledge, that is not anyone's decision. We are going to do everything we can to keep that mine open, but I am not in a position to report to my honourable friend on the results of the ongoing discussions.

If I am talking too long, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can do it in a supplementary, but I did say to the people there -- I am sure the member heard me, unless he was one of those who came to the conference, complained it was not long enough and then left early. I am not sure whether he was one of them; if he was, I did say it is my view that we have to develop a more co-operative attitude in northern Ontario among the various players. I am hopeful the interested parties will get together and come up with proposals. We are prepared to --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Morin-Strom: Someone in the ministry should have informed the Premier that I was one of those who lasted. I stayed longer than he did at the conference. I certainly did not leave early. I do not know about his cabinet ministers, but I did not leave early.

My question was on the issue of job guarantees, one of the things we have to insist on when we provide government assistance to corporations asking for such assistance to keep their operations going. Workers should be assured that they have a long-term future with those operations. Is the Premier going to insist on job guarantees for the ACR workers and the Algoma Steel workers at Wawa before the provincial government participates in any program to assist with the freight rate problem facing those companies?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I apologize to my friend opposite. He is quite right. He was there. It was his leader who came into town, said the conference was not long enough and then left before it was over.

As the member knows, one of the things being suggested now, if some kind of agreement is not made, is that the mine could be closed down. I am not suggesting that is right, but there is some such discussion going on at the moment. Obviously, our concern is to guarantee the jobs at Algoma Steel in Wawa and at the ACR. There is a very serious interconnection between all of them.

I am not sure what my honourable friend is asking me to do in terms of the kind of job guarantees, for how long, for what period of time and at what levels, but that will be the principal concern of our involvement. There is no other point in getting involved in the discussions other than to protect those jobs on an ongoing basis.

That will be our concern, and I will discuss this with my honourable friend as it goes along. The discussions, as he knows, are at a somewhat tentative stage. It is something that concerns everyone who cares about the Sault, but there is not a resolution.

14:30

NURSING HOMES

Mr. Cousens: The Attorney General (Mr. Scott) has decided not to answer a question, for which we would give him a rating of next to nothing. I want the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens' affairs to have a try at it, because we are talking about an important report on criminal injustices, on abuses that are going on within seniors' institutions within our province. Nothing was done in the Attorney General's department. Nothing has been done by the Ministry of Health. What has the minister done about this in six months?

Hon. Mr. Van Horne: The member will realize that my role as the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens' affairs is that of a co-ordinator and developer of new plans and new activity, which are long overdue, I might add. Much of our work was presented to the House in the form of a white paper, A New Agenda, back in June. I am pleased to report to the member that we are now working on the implementation of that new agenda.

Mr. Cousens: I regret it would seem the minister has not even seen the report, let alone read it. What we are hearing now is just an example and proof that something should be done and has not been done. Will the minister support some kind of advocacy centre or support group to watch over the needs and cares of seniors, to start something real?

Hon. Mr. Van Horne: I made reference to the white paper, which is a policy paper, a very definite statement of the government's intention to act. If the honourable member had taken the time to read that, he would have seen that on page 17 there is a definite reference to a major piece of work that my colleagues and I are undertaking. Part of that piece of work will address itself to the theme of the rights of people in institutions, whether rest homes, nursing homes, homes for the aged or whatever.

TARIFFS ON SOFTWOOD LUMBER

Mr. Laughren: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology concerning the Conference on Northern Competitiveness. Will the minister tell us why he allowed that conference to go on without any reference to the 15 per cent duty that the United States is imposing on softwood lumber? Even the consultants admitted that forestry was a key component of the northern economy. How could the minister let that issue not be dealt with during that entire conference?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: The member should be aware, if he is not, that one of the writers of that report dealt with the lumber issue in quite some detail on the first afternoon.

Mr. Laughren: I am truly puzzled by the minister's response, because that issue was never dealt with at the entire conference. Did the minister allow that to happen because of the sense that he was a willing accomplice to the fact that the federal government admitted the 10 per cent deficiency and agreed to it ahead of time? Is that why the minister allowed a conference on northern competitiveness to happen without ever dealing with the 15 per cent tariff? When the minister is responding, will he also tell us what he intends to do now about that 15 per cent tariff?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: As I mentioned, one of the panelists dealt with the lumber issue in general. There were also questions in some of the workshops that dealt with the problem of the 15 per cent.

Meetings are going on concerning that 15 per cent levy. As late as yesterday, officials were meeting in Ottawa. The Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) will be going to Washington tomorrow on this same issue.

RESIDENTIAL RENT REGULATION LEGISLATION

Mr. Gordon: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. I would like to take him back to last Thursday's meeting of the standing committee on resources development. He told the committee that he had met with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and that it was satisfied with the arrangements he had made with regard to municipal enforcement of maintenance standards and so forth. When questioned by the member for Rainy River (Mr. Pierce), who is a member of that committee, as to whether he was happy and they were happy with it, he indicated yes.

We have talked to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and it refutes that. AMO says it has very serious reservations about sections 14 and 15. Will the minister tell the House how he attributes one reply to AMO and it attributes another reply that no, it is not happy?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I will refresh the honourable member's memory. When I was asked in the resources development committee whether I had met with AMO, I reported I had met with the AMO executive and that I had presented to it sections 14 and 15 of Bill 51. I also expressed to the member at that committee meeting that the AMO executive had raised concerns about some sections of it. I did not say to him that they were happy about it in its entirety.

Mr. Gordon: I have here the minutes of the resources development committee. I can send them over to the minister. I would like him to read them. His answer does not jive with the facts in this minute from the resources development committee. Will the minister tell the House what steps he is going to take to be better informed on matters such as this? Is he going to take certain steps to be more accurate? As the minister knows, in the committee it is a matter of trust and a matter of questions and answers. Is he going to be more accurate and better informed, and when?

Hon. Mr. Curling: To make the record clear, we need the co-operation of the opposition and all the members on the committee. We need the co-operation of all the mayors across the province. We will be promoting a very extensive campaign about our bill as soon as it is passed so as to make the law one of the most effective bills this house has ever seen. It is unfortunate if he got the impression I had full endorsement for sections 14 and 15 of the bill. I indicate again that I stated the sections of the bill to the AMO executive and it indicated some concerns. I told them we would take that into consideration and present it to the committee when we go through clause-by-clause.

LAYOFFS IN SUDBURY

Mr. Martel: I have a question for the Premier. I was at the conference. Does he realize that we in the north have been investigated, scrutinized, analysed, dissected and studied to death? There are enough studies to fill his office. What is lacking is the commitment. I have a question on jobs. The Premier talked to his friend Jesse James last week or the week before about the layoffs at Falconbridge. Can he tell us the results of the discussion he had with Mr. James about the loss of 275 jobs in Sudbury?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I did have a meeting with him. I believe his name is Bill James, president of Falconbridge.

Mr. Martel: Call him what you want.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I was just passing it on. My friend needed to be corrected. He was standing in this House saying he has been analysed. Is that what he was saying?

Mr. Martel: The north has been analysed, scrutinized and studied.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Oh, I am sorry. I apologize to my honourable friend. Sometimes I have problems hearing on this side of the House.

I had quite a discussion with Mr. James and he pointed out the price of nickel and some of the problems my friend will be aware of. I said to Mr. James that I believe the problem is serious in terms of the repercussions with the community. The member is aware, I am sure, of some of the plans that have been talked about publicly with Falconbridge. I told him those layoffs present a very serious problem to me.

14:40

He made the point that the Kidd Creek operation was independent of the Sudbury operation. I know my honourable friend will not agree with that. I am just reporting his conversation to me when we met last. I told him our obvious concern as a government is to see the employment levels maintained and, indeed, increased as much as possible.

As the member knows, he was not able to give me with absolute certainty what the employment levels will be, given the price of nickel and the marginal nature of some of the ore bodies being mined at the moment.

I am sure my friend has heard all of this. I am sure, at

the same time, he is not satisfied with some of it. What I did say to Mr. James was that he has a responsibility to explain that position to the community, to the workers particularly, so that they have a very clear view of what Falconbridge's plans are in long run in the Sudbury basin area.

Mr. Martel: Since the company intends to proceed with the layoffs anyway, those who took early retirement plus those it is going to let go anyway, what action is this government intending to take to make sure that does not occur? We have to get all the facts. What is this government prepared to do to make sure? Jesse can bamboozle anybody with words that are not necessarily always factual.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I have met Mr. James before. I have run into a lot of smooth talkers in my life. I consider the member one of them. I will say to my friend that he and Bill James are a real match for each other. I am not sure who I would bet on if you both went toe-to-toe.

I did say to Mr. James, and I say to the member, I believe the company owes a frank explanation to the community from which it has extracted so much in the past many years. I think he has taken my advice to heart. I am hoping that will be forthcoming in the very near future. He told me he was going somewhere for a week or so on a business trip. I hope it will result therefrom.

He told me he has had many conversations with the member. He happens to like the member very much, as a matter of fact.

Mr. Martel: Oh, I like James.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As I said, the member and Mr. James are two of a kind. I am hoping the member can arrange a forum where he can put in a very frank and open way his particular concerns to him and he can address them. The member is asking me if I am going to bring in legislation to prevent the layoffs from happening. I am not in a position to say that at the moment, but our job is to work with that company and with the workers to try to maintain those jobs.

EMERGENCY HOUSING

Mr. Cousens: I have a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services. The people of Ontario will not forget Drina Joubert and the plight of thousands like her.

In February 25, 1986, a coroner's jury investigating the death of this lady cited the reasons for death to be "exposure, accident caused by alcoholism, mental illness and homelessness, and failure of our support system to deal with these problems." How many more Drina Jouberts will become victims of an inadequate social service network this winter?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I remind the honourable member that Drina Joubert had available to her living accommodation on that night, not just in the hostel system but in an apartment of her own which was available to her. It was not the lack of availability.

Put that aside. One of the recommendations of the coroner's inquiry was that more permanent housing should be made available. A beginning has already been made on that. The member will probably be aware of the tact that Street Haven, run by Peggy Walpole, has now established a second home right next door to where it is now, for longer-term shelter accommodation.

The member will also be aware of the fact, because I responded to another question earlier, that the Habitat program -- a joint service of the municipality, the Ministry of Health and my ministry, which will provide longer-term shelter for ex-psychiatric patients with some of the same kinds of problems that Drina Joubert had -- has now been established and will be operational within a very short period of time.

People will then have a placement service, they will have an ongoing case management service and they will have an increase in their benefits from my ministry so that the operators of the homes can afford to provide a greater range of services. We have made a beginning.

Mr. Rowe: In addition to the woman in Barrie who last week gave her children to the children's aid society so that she could seek housing, I am now aware of a family with three children. The father and son are living in a house with no heat at this time of year and are facing eviction within 10 days. The mother and two children are living elsewhere.

The housing predicament for the needy is reaching a crisis in Barrie. Will the minister give us the assurance that his staff will at the very least investigate this crisis and attempt to offer some sort of solution to these people who are in so much need right now?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Most certainly. My office in Barrie is available at any time. The member well knows that because we have provided an information service both to him and to his staff about the services that are available. All that anyone in the member's community, including the member himself, has to do is to contact the office and have a case manager go out and take a look at the services. If there is a need that is met by my ministry, we will most certainly help.

In respect of shelter, as the member knows, my ministry is responsible for emergency shelter. It works very closely with the municipality. Most certainly, in response to the question, we will give whatever assistance we can immediately.

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. D. S. Cooke: In the absence of the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston), I will ask the Premier a question. In view of the statement released yesterday by the Ontario Medical Association and in view of comments by Dr. Peachey in the papers this morning, in which he says he considers it legitimate for a doctor to charge a patient for being available, whether or not the patient calls a doctor -- in other words, that standby fees are in line with the OMA statement of yesterday -- can the Premier indicate whether, in his opinion, it is legal to have the $500-standby fee that obstetricians have here in Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The honourable minister asked me to tell the honourable member he regrets he cannot be here today. I understand he is attending a meeting in Ottawa with his peers from across the country. He did issue a statement yesterday, as I understand it, expressing some concerns about what had transpired. I understand he will be meeting with the OMA on that issue, and I am sure he will be very happy to report back to the member.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: It has now been several months since the Minister of Health first met with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. He has met with the OMA in the past. Yesterday we were supposed to get clarification of what the OMA considered to be appropriate and what it did not. In the minister's statement yesterday, he said, "While it is true that billing for uninsured services is not a new practice, I have some reservations about the OMA's guidelines contained in its letter."

If the minister still has reservations after several months, when is the government going to pass legislation to give it the enabling power to control these types of ripoffs that doctors are instituting in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As I told the member just a moment ago, the minister will be discussing this matter, and the letter that was supposed to clarify the issue, with the OMA. It may have clarified it in some minds, but I know the minister has some concerns. As I said, he will report back to the member on that.

MINISTRY REGIONAL OFFICE

Mr. Barlow: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology with regard to the reorganization of the ministry's field office in the Kitchener area. I understand that the director of the Kitchener office and two business consultants are being moved to Hamilton and, further, that other staff are perhaps being moved to London, at a time when industrial expansion in the cities of Kitchener, Waterloo, Guelph, Cambridge and the entire area is literally booming.

Can the minister please explain why he is reducing the ministry's presence in our community and threatening the economic wellbeing of the fastest-growing region in all of Canada?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I discussed that same issue with my officials as late as last evening. I can assure the honourable member that no definite decision has been made. If a decision is made in that regard, I will make sure the same coverage, if not better coverage, is received by the people in that area.

14:50

Mr. Barlow: If change is necessary, or if change is even being discussed, can the minister tell me whether he has discussed it with the member for Kitchener (Mr. D. R. Cooke), the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney) or his own small business advocate, the member for Wellington South (Mr. Ferraro)? Has he discussed it with them prior to making a decision or perhaps advising the staff and the whole region that this is going to happen?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: Yes. Those concerns have been made known to me by the members mentioned by my friend. I will make sure the same coverage, if not better coverage, is maintained for that area. No definite decision has yet been made on the issue.

TOURISM IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr. Pouliot: I have a question for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. When I went to the Conference on Northern Competitiveness, I and other delegates heard nothing of the very important northern component that is his area of responsibility: tourism.

How can his ministry, or the government he represents, justify the spending of $164,000 of taxpayers' money directed for the benefit of high-priced consultants and yet omit the real possibility of tourism, the very important component of tourism, as it affects northern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I am pleased to reply to the honourable member, because in the past year there has been a renewed spirit in the tourism industry in northern Ontario. One thing I have found out about the people in northern Ontario is that they are so interested in the tourism industry now that they want to talk about it 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and I think that is wonderful.

One of the reasons for the meeting yesterday and the two days in Sault Ste. Marie was to discuss some of the problems of northern Ontario. The tourism industry was represented there. I am pleased that because of the work of our ministry and the co-operation of the people of northern Ontario, it has been a banner year for tourism. All the member has to do is to read the North Bay Nugget. It has been one of the best years ever for tourism because of the work of this government.

Mr. Pouliot: I am not interested in platitudes dealing with the ancien régime. I am more interested in having specifics with regard to co-ordinating efforts. What precise mechanism and specifics is the minister willing to offer the entrepreneurs of northern Ontario to give them the tools to deliver the real industry that tourism could be?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: Last April, we started with our series of roundtable conferences in northern Ontario. Six conferences were held in northern Ontario, and they were well attended. I believe all the members from the north were invited to attend those. As a result of the roundtable conferences, we announced in Sault Ste. Marie, in July, four initiatives for northern Ontario. They have been well received. The people in the north are enthused about those, and that is why we have seen a banner year for tourism in the north.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr. Morin-Strom: I have a question for the Minister of Energy about high gasoline prices in northern Ontario. This is one issue the consultants did get correct in their study when they reported that gasoline, on average, costs five cents a litre more in northern Ontario than in southern Ontario.

At the same time, northerners have to drive longer distances and, in so many instances, have to transport their goods and services from southern Ontario to the north. How can the north be competitive when it is saddled with that higher cost burden? When is the minister going to do something in reaction to his own study on this issue?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: It flows from the question that we are going to do everything we can to encourage and do things for northern Ontario that would relieve the pressures of transportation and distances travelled. However, we are not the only players in this game. The federal government plays a major role.

One of the things that happened with the federal government was that when it purchased Gulf, it reduced the amount of competition. It is about time, if the federal government wants to participate in a major way in refineries and in the whole issue of gasoline and gasoline prices, it has stations right across Canada. It appears to me that the outlets of Petro-Canada have higher gas prices than any other stations in Ontario. Therefore, the players down in Ottawa, the kissing cousins of the members across the way, have a very important role to play.

PETITION

RESIDENTIAL RENT REGULATION LEGISLATION

Mr. Hennessy: I have a petition for the Minister of Housing (Mr. Curling):

"Dear Mr. Minister:

"I'm enclosing for your information a copy of a petition I received that is signed by 15 tenants who are strongly opposed to any rent increase over four per cent.

"I support their request and hope you will give this matter your kindest and most serious consideration."

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Callahan from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill Pr23,

An Act respecting the Town of Markham.

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill Pr6,

An Act respecting the City of Windsor.

Mr. Speaker: Shall the report be received and adopted?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: On the report, I have been informed by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) that Bill Pr6,

An Act respecting the City of Windsor, deals with a matter involving the policy of the Ministry of Labour that is already before the House in the form of Bill 101. The Minister of Labour indicated that this matter was brought to the attention of the committee and that advice was available indicating there was a duplication of subject matter.

He asked me to bring this to your attention, sir, and since you have had no notice of this difficulty, I ask that you review the matter before we proceed further with Bill Pr6. We are not opposing the acceptance of the report, but before it goes a further step, perhaps we could have the benefit of your advice in this matter.

Mr. McClellan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Because of the high level of uproar in the chamber, I could not hear what the government House leader was saying. Could I ask him to repeat?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I simply indicated we were expressing a concern that Bill Pr6 dealt with a matter that was involved with public policy through the Ministry of Labour currently before the House in Bill 101. I asked the Speaker to review the matter, not that we should not accept this report at this time but that before it goes another step, he might provide his view.

Mr. McClellan: That is what I thought he said.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Thanks very much.

Mr. McClellan: No. I wanted to make sure I had understood. It was not entirely clear that I had understood the point that was being raised.

This is similar to a point of order the government House leader attempted to raise in vain last week having to do with business before committees. I believe the amendments the government House leader refers to were accepted as being in order by the chairman of the standing committee, and they were dealt with, as I understand it, without objection. I may be incorrect, but I do not believe any objections were raised, either by the Minister of Labour or by anybody else, when the amendments were put forward to Bill Pr6.

At any rate, whether or not objections were raised, the amendments were found to be in order by the chairman and the committee, and they have been dealt with by the committee. The bill will be coming back into the House as a properly amended bill, amended by amendments that were properly in order, if I may say, in exactly the same way Bill 105 will be coming back into this House in a few short weeks.

I do not believe anything is out of order, Mr. Speaker, and I submit to you there is nothing for you to review.

15:00

Mr. Speaker: Are there any other comments? The member for Nipissing?

Mr. Harris: I think it has all been said, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: There is a suggestion before the House that the report be received and that it can still be reconsidered. That is the way I understand it.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: If you want my assistance in this -- I know you are not asking for it -- we do not want to stop the acceptance of the report. Representing the government party, I want to point out that there is a problem with the amendments not being in order, since they deal with matters already before the House. I know this is a difficult matter for me to comprehend, although it appears to be very simple for spokesmen for the opposition parties to comprehend. I am asking you as Speaker to take whatever advice you choose and give us your opinion before that bill goes a stage further.

Mr. McClellan: I do not recall any procedure in standing orders for a bill to be reported back to the House for reconsideration. The report is that the bill be reported, without any qualifications. It was dealt with by the committee, and the committee's work was in order. There is nothing out of order, and there is nothing that allows or permits the government House leader to send this bill off the rails.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I am not suggesting the bill go off the rails. When it comes before the House for third reading, I will suggest to the honourable member, the Speaker and everybody else that it is out of order. It might be appropriate if the Speaker had a chance to look at it before that time.

Mr. Speaker: As I understand it, the report has been presented by the chairman of the committee. I placed the motion, "Shall the report be received?" and I will place that motion again. Is it agreed to?

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: I will look at that further.

Mr. Laughren: I wish to speak on a different matter. If the member for Nipissing has something to say on the same matter, I will stand down.

Mr. Harris: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker: I am not sure what the government House leader was putting before the chamber. He is talking about asking you to pre-rule on something he says he is going to raise at some time. I suggest the whole intervention by the government House leader is out of order. At such time as he has something he feels is out of order, he can request the Speaker to look at it.

Mr. Speaker: The report is before the House. It has been approved; it has been agreed upon.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I stand to correct the record. I will leave it up to you to decide which record needs to be corrected. In the assembly this afternoon, the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon) indicated he was not yet 42 years old, yet the Parliamentary Guide indicates he is 49 and flirting with 50. It seems to me we cannot allow that contradiction to remain on the record, and I ask that you rule on it.

Mr. Speaker: That is a very important subject. However, we have a means by which members can correct their own records. You cannot correct someone else's record.

MOTION

COMMITTEE BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that, in the standing committee on social development, further consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Skills Development be postponed until following the consideration of the estimates of the office responsible for seniors citizens' affairs.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

POWERS OF ATTORNEY AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Scott moved second reading of Bill 72,

An Act to amend the Powers of Attorney Act.

The Deputy Speaker: Does the minister have any opening comments?

Hon. Mr. Scott: The Speaker will remember I made opening remarks when the bill was introduced. I believe this bill will obtain the support of the House. It is designed to remedy a defect incorporated in the Powers of Attorney Act, which was passed in 1979 as

chapter

Section 5 of the act provides that "a provision in a power of attorney expressly stating that it may be exercised during any subsequent legal incapacity of the donor is valid and effectual," subject to the conditions in it.

Section 7 provides that "a power of attorney that contains a provision referred to in

section 5 may be revoked by the donor at any time while he has legal capacity."

Section 3 of the Powers of Attorney Act is designed to permit a person invited to act under the power of attorney to do so if he is acting in good faith and without knowledge of any actual termination of the power. Banks and a number of other commercial lenders that recognize powers of attorney from time to time take the position that

section 3 is inadequate to protect them. The result is that donees of the power of attorney and donors who may be responsible have been embarrassed by the failure of the bank to honour the power of attorney when it should be perfectly safe for the bank, which is without knowledge of termination, to do so.

The amendment, Mr. Speaker, with which I know you are thoroughly familiar, is put before the House to remedy that perceived defect and to make it possible for banks and other such institutions to accept powers of attorney in the way contemplated by the 1979 statute.

Mr. Eves: We certainly support this piece of legislation. As the Attorney General has quite properly pointed out, some very important legal questions have been raised about the adequacy of the legislation since the amendment to the act in 1979.

The purpose of this amendment is to clarify the protection offered by

section 3 of the present act and to ensure that it is available whenever the authority of the power has been terminated, revoked or become invalid. The person who has relied upon it or who has no knowledge of the termination, revocation or invalidation will be protected. We support the protection of innocent third parties, and we believe the legislation should be made consistent with the prior amendments to it.

Ms. Gigantes: It is always a pleasure for the New Democratic Party to provide support and a legal framework within which our banks and insurance companies can safely provide service to members of the public. We know our insurance companies and banks are most reluctant to put themselves in a position, for example, under family law legislation or the Powers of Attorney Act, where they might have to provide services to the public that they may feel they should not be providing. We know that institutions such as banks and insurance companies quake at the thought of being put in an invidious legal situation.

We are most pleased to be able to support this amendment.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I thank the honourable members for their support of this bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

15:10

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wrye moved second reading of Bill 128,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: It is my honour to rise and begin this assembly's debate on the principle of Bill 128,

An Act to amendment the Employment Standards Act.

In my view, this bill is concerned with no more and no less than the competence of this Legislative Assembly to pass and sustain law that is written in the public interest and for the benefit of workers in Ontario. Since it was first constituted in 1867, the Legislative Assembly of Ontario has enacted law to help ensure that working people are treated fairly by employers.

Over the years, one of this assembly's most important instruments for ensuring such fairness has been the Employment Standards Act. That act requires employers to provide pay, benefits and working conditions that at least meet minimum standards in 13 work place concerns, which include wages, hours of work, overtime pay, public holidays and vacation with pay. It has been to the great regret of this assembly that in recent years economic conditions have been such from time to time as to require significant use of the provisions of

part XII of the act.

As honourable members know, that part obliges employers to make special payments to employees if they lose their jobs. The key special payments

part XII prescribes are severance pay when a permanent closure, full or partial, involves at least 50 workers and pay in place of sufficient notice of job loss.

It is important for us in this Legislative Assembly to remind ourselves of when and why members voted to prescribe severance pay and pay in lieu of notice of termination to begin with. Those provisions were written into the act at a time when there were significant plant closures and employee layoffs. Most especially, they were written into the act at a time in which loyal, able employees of long-standing were losing their jobs because of economic circumstances.

They were written into the act because the Legislative Assembly of this province concluded that in our time and place it was right and just for employers to make special acknowledgement of what employees were about to lose and to make special provision to ease the adjustment those employees were being obliged to make.

I want to take a moment to go into this in a little more detail because a clear understanding of the principles that underpin this Legislature's thinking is important. Let us start with severance pay. As I have suggested, the principal intention of severance pay is to make special acknowledgement of what an employee, and most especially a long-term employee, loses when a closure occurs. When the employee loses his job, he loses the fruit of all that goes with it, that he has invested in it, such as special valuable knowledge, seniority, pension entitlements and so on. Those provisions are gone for ever. Once the doors of the enterprise close, he can never reclaim them.

The severance pay provision of the Employment Standards Act is designed to recognize this and to ensure compensation for it. The concept of severance compensation parallels the concept that underlies a person's legal entitlement to a lump sum payment in recognition of the loss of a spouse who has been killed on the job. In most respects, obviously it is not appropriate to compare the loss of a spouse with the loss of a job.

Having said that, it can be pointed out that in the case of a spouse killed on the job there is an acknowledgement, as prescribed by the community through the Workers' Compensation Act, of special and permanent loss and the provision of special compensation for that special loss. In the case of the loss of a job, there is an acknowledgement, as prescribed by the community through the Employment Standards Act, of special and permanent loss and the provision of special compensation for that special loss.

Let me deal with pay in lieu of notice of termination. The Employment Standards Act requires employers to give employees appropriate notice of layoff and job loss -- the longer the employee's term of service, the longer the notice in the case of an individual layoff, and the larger the group, the longer the notice in mass layoffs.

Notice itself is prescribed in the act, because the community has concluded that the employer has an obligation to provide the employee with a period in which the employee can digest the notion of impending job loss, organize his affairs and adjust his thinking, practically and emotionally. The notice period itself constitutes special compensation for special circumstances. If the notice period is not forthcoming, the community --

Mr. McClellan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Unless I have misunderstood something or I am dealing with the wrong statute, I have

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act here. It does not amend notice or deal with any of the things the minister is talking about. Is the minister planning to bring forward additional amendments?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: No. The nature of the debate I want to put forward to the House will become clear as my remarks continue.

Mr. McClellan: Is the minister trying to pretend he is doing something he is not doing?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: No.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The point is well taken. I was having some difficulty tying in the minister's remarks with the bill, but I am sure they will.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: They will. I want to make that clear to my friend. There are no amendments to the bill.

The notice period itself constitutes special compensation for special circumstances. If that period is not forthcoming, the community, through the Employment Standards Act, obliges the employer to provide special compensation, none the less. In short, both severance pay and pay in lieu of notice, as prescribed by

part XII of the act, constitute extraordinary payments to compensate for extraordinary events and circumstances.

They manifest the philosophy that recognizes that the relationship between an employer and an employee is not a relationship between master and servant. They recognize that in many cases, over many years, the employee in a very real sense has invested himself in the job and in the enterprise by virtue of his investment of time, energy, loyalty, commitment and plain hard work.

Through the act, the people of Ontario, as represented in their Legislative Assembly, have determined that it is right and just to compel an employer to acknowledge such an investment if it comes to pass that a person's employment must be ended. No one in this day and age, and most certainly no man or woman of goodwill and generous heart, would take genuine issue with the notions of equity and social justice in

part XII of the act.

Permit me a simple theoretical example of how this is working. Let us say for the sake of discussion that a person has worked for an employer for 25 years, has paid unemployment insurance premiums all the while, is now earning $300 a week and has been told that his job and the jobs of at least 49 of his co-workers will end next Monday morning when the plant is closed permanently.

Under the provisions of the Employment Standards Act, that person would be entitled to a severance payment of $7,500 and a notice payment of $2,400, for a total of $9,900 in special compensation. Under the provisions of the national Unemployment Insurance Act, the worker would be entitled to a UI payment of $180 per week, 60 per cent of his total weekly salary, for 52 weeks.

In the eyes of the unemployment insurance system, our theoretical employee's severance payment is deemed to be 25 weeks of ordinary income by another name and his notice payment is deemed to be another eight weeks of ordinary income by another name. As a result, our employee is, in effect, denied his rightfully earned special payments for special circumstances as mandated by the people of Ontario through their Legislative Assembly and its instrument, the Employment Standards Act.

15:20

Frankly, when the changes in the unemployment insurance regulations were first announced in November 1984, just two months after the current federal government took office, this assembly, the government of Ontario, other assemblies in Canada, the labour movement and other responsible voices concluded that the new government in Ottawa had not fully appreciated the prospective impact of its new rules on working men and women whose circumstances had just taken a desperate turn. Not surprisingly, my predecessor wrote to the federal government setting out his concern.

I deeply regret that we have not been able to settle this matter with the government at Ottawa. In that context, the government of Ontario and this Legislative Assembly obviously have no choice but to move by law to protect what the working men and women of this province have earned by the gift of their minds, the nimbleness of their hands and the strength of their backs. Bill 128 is designed uniquely to provide that protection.

This bill is in plain reality directed solely at upholding the severance and termination pay provisions of the Employment Standards Act. That there is a profound distinction between severance and insurance is clear when we consider the fundamental difference in their natures. In an insurance scheme, a person pays a premium to provide the financial protection against the risk of some specified loss. There is no similarity whatsoever between that system and the system of severance payments.

There is yet another aspect to the federal government's policy which deeply troubles the government of Ontario. It touches the very heart of the federal parliamentary system, by whose laws, customs and traditions we are all governed. The federated nature of this country and the weighty responsibilities of our respective governments should rule out unilateral measures of this sort, which carry with them such significant consequences. A government elected with whatever measure of public support, large or small, has the obligation to consult on measures of such magnitude, not only with provincial government whose statues they seek to negate but with the work place parties themselves.

In this instance, there was no consultation; there was only unilateral action. More than that, the government of Ontario is concerned that the thrust of its statutes can be thwarted by an undebated regulatory change in another jurisdiction. Only in the most extreme circumstances, if at all, should a nonlegislated federal regulation supersede a statute competently enacted within the jurisdiction of a provincial legislature. This situation is surely not one of those extreme circumstances in which competent and wholly valid provincial legislation should fall through federal regulations.

Thus, we have chosen to say through Bill 128 that our legislation will not fall and that the integrity of this Legislature will be upheld.

In concluding my remarks on the principle of Bill 128, I want to remind my colleagues in this Legislature of a speech made more than four decades ago, back in 1940. The speaker was Mackenzie King, then Prime Minister of Canada, and the occasion was the introduction of a new piece of legislation, then called the Unemployment Insurance Act.

In proposing the legislation Mr. King said: "The surest foundation on which to base democratic government is a happy and contented people. Nothing militates more against happiness and contentment than fear. By this measure, fear will be removed to some extent, from 4,660,000 of the Canadian people....

"This done, it will be recorded of the present generation that at a time when we were bending every effort and endeavour to overcome the enemy at our gate, we were not unconscious of our duty and our obligation to promote the welfare and happiness of our people."

We have our opportunity today, some 46 years later, to remove the fear faced by modern workers in Ontario, who are caught up in mass layoffs or closures and who, as a result, must confront substantial disruption and dislocation of their lives.

I ask this assembly to support Bill 128 and to send Ottawa a clear signal we will not stand idly by while others seek to diminish the integrity of our statutes and the benefits they provide to the people of this province.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there questions or comments? Does the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) have any questions or comments?

Mr. McClellan: No. I will have remarks to make in due course.

The Deputy Speaker: Is there any debate?

Mr. Gillies: I am pleased to join this debate. I know, Mr. Speaker, that you will allow me a similar degree of latitude to that given the minister in his remarks. I almost feel I could get up and give a speech on the thoughts of past Prime Ministers of Canada, the meaning of peace, order and good government, democracy and just about anything else, but as much as possible, l will try to restrict my comments to Bill 128.

The minister quoted Mackenzie King, who was one of our great Prime Ministers. The quote that comes to mind for me is from the great, late John Diefenbaker, who was once exhorted at a rally to give the Liberals hell -- excuse the word, but I am using it in context -- to which Prime Minister Diefenbaker responded, "I do not give them hell, I just tell the truth, and to a Liberal it sounds like hell."

That is my quote for the day, for what it is worth. My colleague the member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Pollock) remembers it well.

I and my caucus will be joining in support of Bill 128 for a number of very good reasons. I want to start with a couple of thoughts, inasmuch as I believe there are problems with the severance pay provisions of the Employment Standards Act in a number of areas.

The minister and I have had many occasions in the past year and a half to discuss these, but the one that irks me the most is the minimum of 50 persons in the layoff provisions of the bill. Members will know that when a company of any size undertakes a layoff of any magnitude, the workers are covered only by the severance pay provisions of the act if there is a minimum of 50 workers; the intent when the bill was originally drafted was, I suppose, to provide some sort of buffer. The minister is quite right in that it was our government that brought in the legislation.

The intent, I suppose, was to absent those small businesses that might on occasion have to let one or two or three employees at the corner store go. Personally, I think the provision was wrong from the day it was enacted. I also believe the

interpretation and the loophole that this provision has become are similarly wrong because of a conscious effort by what I hope is a minority of employers to thwart the intent of the legislation by staggering and downscaling their layoffs. As I have seen happen in my constituency -- the minister has in his, and I dare say all of us have -- a company will lay off 150 employees, let us say 49 at a time. It is not what the legislation was intended to allow and it is simply not fair.

15:30

I remember one instance in my own riding of a company that did precisely this, and I remember the workers coming in some numbers to my office to put their case before me. One or two of the employees in question had been with the company for more than 40 years, and they were getting not even the golden handshake; l doubt it was a silver handshake.

The very minimal provision in the legislation, the floor, if you will, that people in the province have come to expect as their due, is not going to many, if not most, of the workers who deserve it. One week's severance pay for every year of service with a minimum is not excessive. We, as members of the assembly, I may say, do much better. I see one or two of my colleagues saying, "Do not bring that up," but let us be honest here. Many people in executive capacities in the private sector do a heck of a lot better than we do.

People in the public sector, such as ourselves, do reasonably well under severance pay provisions that have either been bargained or legislated for us. Lord knows, I would not want to bring up matters of other public servants who are now under the scrutiny of various committees of this House with the severance packages they got.

The Deputy Speaker: That would be out of order and straying too far.

Mr. Gillies: It would indeed be out of order to do so, and I do not presume to do so. However, in saying this, I provide a context: We have to ensure that the very minimal standards that have been set for the benefit of all workers at least are met.

That brings us to Bill 128. The minister, in his statement, although with a fair degree of high-blown rhetoric -- but who am I to criticize the minister for that? -- has laid out the problem relatively succinctly. Under federal law, permanently laid-off workers must use up their severance pay before they can collect unemployment insurance. As the minister said, the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission has been treating lump sum severance payments as earnings spread out over a number of weeks according to the worker's average weekly pay before the layoff.

Severance pay is not a gift. It is not something given to workers through the munificence of an employer or anybody else and to which the employee is not entitled. He is entitled as a matter of law because it is the law of Ontario and as a matter of right and justice.

I have always thought of severance pay packages, duly negotiated or agreed to by employer and employee, in much the same sense as I think we have to regard benefits and pensions. They are, in a sense, a deferred wage. They can be regarded as something such that, if the employee were not benefiting from this feature of his employment contract or of the law, one might presume he would be benefiting somewhere else. As we said on the select committee on pension reform in 1981, it can be said in a sense to be a deferred wage. It is something due to the employee by right and entitlement.

What we saw in the 1984-85 period was that a worker could not collect unemployment insurance during the entire time period arising from the calculation of the severance pay, and during that period of time he lost, or could lose, credited weeks of unemployment entitlement.

I have a recent concrete event I can cite, which has a direct bearing on what this legislation tries to do. There was a recent ruling involving shipyard workers in Collingwood who are members of Locals 6320 and 8234 of the United Steelworkers of America. That ruling gave the workers both their severance and unemployment insurance benefits. The ruling is based on a federal regulation that allows an employer to attribute the severance settlement to one week after the layoff. Workers have to wait two more weeks to collect UI benefits, but they are then eligible for up to 51 weeks.

By my reading, Bill 128 -- and I believe the minister will concur in this -- is similar in its intent. By allocating the severance pay to the weeks immediately following layoff, the severance pay will not penalize laid-off workers by offsetting the severance pay against the worker's entitlement to UI benefits.

Severance packages are meant to ease difficult times for workers, their families and the people in their community when layoffs occur. Let us face it, nobody wishes to see a layoff occur, and nobody wishes to see people terminated from their employment for whatever reason -- adverse market conditions, the decision of a company to move or to close part of an operation or whatever. Nothing we can do by legislation in this area will ever replace a job, but on those occasions where employment is lost and workers have to rely on whatever provisions we as legislators can put forward for them, then we as a Legislature have the obligation to ensure those provisions are protected.

I expressed my concern as an individual member by way of letter to the previous federal minister, the Honourable Flora MacDonald, who is a good friend and who I believe is one of Canada's best and most dedicated public servants. On this issue, I expressed concern to her as a private member of this assembly. I will do so again if required to by the new minister, the Honourable Benoît Bouchard. In fact, I had an opportunity six weeks ago to sit down with the Minister of Labour for Canada. While the legislation in Ottawa regarding UI is not his responsibility, I did express my concern to him.

He indicated he had met recently with our provincial minister, who had similarly expressed his concern, and I believe that may be putting it lightly.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Modest displeasure.

15:40

Mr. McClellan: We in the New Democratic Party will be supporting Bill 128,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act. I was amazed to listen to that flowery speech from the Minister of Labour, which ended up with a little hymn of praise to Mackenzie King. It is entirely appropriate that the minister would take Mackenzie King for his role model when introducing this bill, because despite all the flowery rhetoric from the Minister of Labour, all this bill does is restore the status quo with respect to employment standards law in Ontario.

I do not think the minister explained clearly, and the previous Conservative speaker did not explain at all, that what the Mulroney government did in 1985 was to change the federal legislation so it is now possible for severance pay to be deducted from unemployment insurance benefits. Of all the stupid, obscene things a federal government has done in this country, this has to rank right up at the top.

For the Mulroney government literally to steal severance pay benefits from laid-off workers by deducting them from unemployment insurance has to rank with the most mindless, anti-worker legislation any federal government has ever indulged itself in. It is because of actions such as this that the Mulroney government is going to be a one-term government. I was amazed that none other than Flora MacDonald was left with the carriage of this ridiculous proposition.

All that Bill 128 does this afternoon is to put an end to the Tory ripoff of severance pay benefits and restore the Employment Standards Act to the same state of inadequacy it was at before the Tories intervened. I have to express amazement that this Minister of Labour's only initiative with respect to amendments to the Employment Standards Act is to try to restore the status quo to what it was before he took office.

Is this the best the minister can do? Is this the best the Swampmaster is able to do for employment standards? If it is, it matches his record perfectly with respect to occupational health and safety, reform of the Workers' Compensation Board and reform of labour relations law. In short, he is the pre-eminent example of do-nothingism in this new government. He deserves every bit of the criticism my colleague the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) has been ladling out on a daily basis. This bill is just more of the kind of irresponsible inactivity that has come to characterize this minister's stewardship of his ministry.

I remind the members of an exchange that took place in this assembly on February 7, 1986. I am referring to the Hansard of that date. Our Labour critic, the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie), asked the Minister of Labour when he intended to introduce reforms to our severance pay legislation. The minister said he had a number of concerns about the size of establishments and about what had happened at Dominion Stores.

He was asked specifically by the member for Hamilton East, "Is the minister prepared to change the law...so that every worker who was permanently laid off will receive severance pay?" The minister said it was a good point and he was going to review the law. "I hope it will be complete so that we may see some Legislation in the next session."

Here we are now in the next session, and all the Minister of Labour can do is bring in Bill 128 to restore the status quo ante. Well, well, well. Is that not a surprise? The incident that inspired the question in February 1986, was the closure of Dominion Stores by our good friend, the minister's good friend, Conrad Black -- author, apparently, of his pension policy. When he closed Dominion Stores to loot their pension plan, he also fired 400 workers.

This is the government that enabled Conrad Black to take $62 million out of the pension plan of Dominion Stores workers and to force the workers and their union to go to court to get their money back from a man who had taken it away from them illegally and who, at the same time, saw 400 Dominion Stores workers fired and thrown out on the street without a dime of severance pay.

When the Minister of Labour was asked back in February 1986 whether he did not have some concern, he wept his usual crocodile tears and promised legislation in this session. Here is the legislation, restoring the status quo ante. I do not intend to take very long. We certainly would not want not to restore the status quo ante. The major part of the Liberal reform program is to go back to square one.

I want to remind members of the extent of the severance pay ripoff under the existing Employment Standards Act. In 1981, there were 147,000 workers laid off in Ontario, of whom 1.1 per cent collected severance pay under this legislation; in 1982, 286,000 workers were laid off in Ontario, of whom 1.5 per cent collected severance pay; and in 1983, 313,000 workers were laid off in Ontario, of whom 0.7 per cent collected severance pay.

Yet this minister has the nerve and the gall to come before the House this afternoon to talk about his Employment Standards Act and its severance pay provisions as though they were meaningful and as though they did something for workers. The minister knows full well what the statistics are. In each of those three years of depression, 1981, 1982 and 1983, less than two per cent of almost a million workers who were laid off collected even a dime under this legislation, but he has the nerve to come in here today and talk about his concern and his reform initiatives and the fact that he is pretending to do something.

I would have thought he might have come here today to say very simply that he was correcting a major injustice, that he recognized the act as it stands constitutes a major injustice, that his review was now complete and that this was what he would do: change the notice and coverage provisions; change the amounts that are made available; guarantee that each and every worker in this province who is laid off receives some compensation for the loss of his job; ensure that companies are forbidden to engage in mass layoffs that devastate communities, companies with no responsibility and no accountability and no requirement to justify their economic plans to the broader community.

I would have thought he might have come here today to discuss plans for retraining and reemploying permanently laid-off workers. The fact is that this minister has learned nothing from the depression of 1981 to 1983, and he comes before us today with this bill to restore the status quo. That is all he seems to be able to come up with.

This minister's performance is pathetic, and it is seen to be pathetic. He has had 17 months of stewardship over one of the most important ministries in the government of Ontario, and no matter which corner you look into, the dust and cobwebs of the old regime are still there, the old ways are still there, the old officials are still there, the old attitudes are still there, the old complacency is still there, the old arrogance is still there. It is about time this minister made way for somebody who is prepared to do the job.

15:50

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Very briefly, I acknowledge first the comments made by my friend the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies). I appreciate his support and that of his party in this matter. I certainly appreciate the support of all parties in this Legislature for this action to restore the integrity of our legislation.

I acknowledge very quickly the additional point my friend the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) made about the legislation and all of its inadequacies. While I appreciate the support, at the same time I acknowledge that the effect of Bill 128 is limited.

In acknowledging the support of my friend the member for Bellwoods and that of his party, and also acknowledging that this legislation, important though it is, restores the status quo, I must express some surprise and amazement that my friend from Bellwoods seems to think it is of minimal importance.

He should try making that statement and that kind of claim in the city of Collingwood, where the initiative taken by this government -- an initiative that, since this bill was introduced, has been copied by the steelworkers' union -- has provided hundreds of workers with some decent termination notice pay and decent severance pay. I think that is rather important. It is real money in the pockets of real people and not so much theorizing as we heard opposite.

For the member to suggest that this is only minimal legislation is just a little much. The fact of the matter is that this is the first jurisdiction in Canada to move legislatively to protect the rights of its workers. No other legislature has moved, including the legislature in Manitoba. I am amazed that my friend opposite would make that kind of comment, as if what this government is doing in this field does not have some degree of importance. We are the only jurisdiction to have launched a major and a fundamental challenge to what we all agree is an improper and a very regressive piece of action by the federal government.

I heard my friend the member for Bellwoods say he had expected we would come in today and say, "The review is complete and here is the legislation." I can only say to him that the review is not complete. When it is complete, we will bring in amendments to the severance pay section, amendments that I am sure his party will want to support fully. Indeed, all members of the Legislature will want to support them fully and applaud them completely.

When these changes are made, it is important that they be made right. I believe we have brought in changes that are right. In terms of Bill 101, the legislation to protect workers' rights to know, I hope to proceed with that later in the fall, following the federal-provincial-territorial conference at the end of this month.

When we come in with our Employment Standards Act amendments -- and they will be fairly comprehensive -- I hope they will be correct and will be applauded, and similarly when we bring in amendments to the Occupational Health and Safety Act or amendments to the Labour Relations Act.

These things take time, but it is time well spent if they are correct. I agree with my friend the member for Bellwoods, I do not hear with any sense of satisfaction the statistics of workers who, while the legislation has been on the books, have not been able to avail themselves of it. We are attempting to correct that. I only indicate to the House that this has taken some time.

I must say, at the same time, that it does not matter if we bring in the most perfect piece of termination and severance pay legislation in all of Canada and North America. If the federal government continues to do what it does, at the end of the day that perfect legislation will be for naught.

Today's step, while it is a limited one, is an important one. Not only does it recognize and restore the integrity of our very special legislation, which gives those kinds of special provisions to employees who are being terminated and losing their jobs through layoffs and closures, but it also says very clearly that the integrity of this Legislature and of its statutes is going to be protected and is being protected by this government.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF TREASURY AND ECONOMICS (CONTINUED)

On vote 1001, ministry administration program; item 1, main office:

Mr. Chairman: We have the estimates in front of us. How many minutes do we have left? Six hours and 24 minutes. Is that correct? Four hours and 29 minutes. I wondered whether the gremlins were back in the clocks again, but no.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Before we get into the estimates with our usual enthusiasm, the member for Cambridge (Mr. Barlow) asked a question about the Ontario municipal employees retirement system pension. I thought we had taken the action -- I see the honourable member is just coming to his place -- to permit police and firemen to retire at age 55 on a full pension after 30 years' service, and that is the case. They are now suggesting we might improve that pension further by giving them what you might call a magic number of 85; that is, their age plus their years of service would give them full retirement.

This is not a standard approach in the public service, the teachers' service group or anything like that, where it is still 90, except under special circumstances. The member would know that there is a special three-year window that permits teachers to retire at age 55 in spite of the fact they have not achieved the magic number.

Dealing with the police and firemen on the basis of 30 years and out, so to speak, as long as they are 55 years of age, I feel does recognize the special challenges, if I may put it that way, of their employment. I think there is reasonable satisfaction that this has been accomplished. Naturally, as with any other employment group, there is always a list of areas where improvements are sought, and those are always under consideration.

Mr. Barlow: After our discussion the other day, I talked to an official from the Cambridge Professional Fire Fighters Association, and he said he did get a briefing from OMERS between the time he had contacted me and the time I talked to the minister. It bears out substantially what the minister has said, although he said everything seemed to be on the right track at the time. That was the indication. I think they are reasonably satisfied.

16:00

Mr. McCague: While we are on the issue of pensions, the Treasurer will be well aware of the large pile of mail he has received from teachers who are on superannuation and of their desire, because of a reported large surplus in the fund, to have him extend benefits to earlier recipients. I know the Treasurer will recall that the retroactive date at this point is May 31, 1982.

He will also know that this act was in the formative stages for some length of time and that it was made retroactive at that time in order that those who had every reason to think it would be in place by May 31, 1982, could collect their pensions, which was their understanding when they retired. Maybe the Treasurer can bring us up to date on how he intends to respond to this request from many of Ontario's retired teachers.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I am sorry. I have no idea what the honourable member said.

Mr. Chairman: The member asked you how you are responding to retired teachers who wish a five-year averaging.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The teachers' superannuation situation is very positive. The honourable member has already indicated that the most recent actuarial valuation shows there is an actuarial surplus. I hesitate, frankly -- and I sound naïve when I say this -- to think of those as real dollars, since they are substantially large sums of money and they do not take into account the additional pension requirements of the teachers that index their pensions.

Frankly, before I came into government and the Treasury, I had thought that the indexing provisions were a part of the teachers' superannuation legislation intrinsically, but it is a separate fund, which is ostensibly paid for and was set up to be paid for by an additional one per cent increase from teachers' salaries. Particularly since teachers' salaries have been rising rapidly over the years since this indexing fund was established, I had thought it would be in quite a positive position to pay that indexing over the years of retirement.

I indicated in the budget in May that there was some concern, at least on my part, that this second fund was not in actuarial surplus but quite the contrary. We have actually got some additional and special advice on pension matters to assist us in looking at the value of the actuarial surpluses and deficits associated with all our pensions and just what our commitment as a government in representing the public at large would have to be.

Therefore, whenever we talk about the surplus in the basic superannuation fund, I have to indicate some concern that there is not a surplus in the other fund, which is designated with the acronym SABA, which means Superannuation Adjustment Benefits Act. I can remember SABA, but I cannot remember Superannuation Adjustment Benefits Act.

In this connection, while it is true that most of the letters I receive point with pride to the substantial surplus, as Treasurer -- and I have the overall responsibility -- I am aware of something less than a surplus situation in the additional fund. I do not want to be critical of the honourable member just because he is the only Progressive Conservative here, because I do not believe he personally was responsible for the legislation that established that.

However, as I see it and as I see the unclear lines of responsibility associated with that, I can see that in the next few months and years there will have to be some very careful review of how that should be properly brought into balance with the emerging requirements for payments.

It seems to me that if the inflation rate is held under reasonable control, that might moderate the problems, but I want to indicate to the honourable member, the many teachers and others interested in the pension status, that the overall position is not one of impressive surplus.

It is also true that when we grant special advantages to teachers who have already retired, who have made their contributions and whose pensions are based on those payments, when these pensions are enriched, as they have been repeatedly for good reason, the consolidated revenue fund is usually called upon to make up at least part of those payments. Even if it all comes out of the surplus, the surplus does not necessarily accrue to payments made by those people who have been retired, sometimes for a number of years, and who, in my view, do not have a direct claim on those dollars.

The fund is there to ensure that the province can meet its responsibilities as set out in the act and any enrichments approved by the Legislature from time to time. My own experience, and it is just a brief one, is that there is always a substantial lineup or list of requests for enrichment of all the pensions over which the province has some control, because it is essentially the guarantor. Certainly, the one where the requests -- sometimes demands but essentially requests -- for improvements are the greatest, deals with the teachers, perhaps because their pension situation is a good one.

I think the teachers say so, and so do we all. We are very proud of that, but the pressure to improve it seems to be very high.

The one coming to me most frequently now is from teachers, many of them formerly professional colleagues of mine, who have retired on pensions based on their best seven years. Some of our other friends, who retired a few years later, have pensions based on their best five years, and as my friends say to me in their letters: "You have to be fair about this. Why should I get less than Joe or Jane?" It is difficult to answer other than to say that they retired a couple of years too soon and that it is difficult for even a magnanimous government, such as the one in office now, to accommodate all these requests.

As for the request we are looking at, I want to know exactly what additional funds, either from the teachers' superannuation fund or from the consolidated revenue fund, wi