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

December 5, 1996

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

l134 - Thu 5 Dec 1996 / Jeu 5 Déc 1996

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

FRANCHISES' ARBITRATION ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LES ARBITRAGES VISANT DES FRANCHISES

VOLUNTEERS

FRANCHISES' ARBITRATION ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LES ARBITRAGES VISANT DES FRANCHISES

VOLUNTEERS

FRANCHISES' ARBITRATION ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LES ARBITRAGES VISANT DES FRANCHISES

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TRANSIT SERVICE FOR THE DISABLED

BANKRUPTCIES IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

SARNIA ECONOMY

PUBLIC SECTOR LAYOFFS

EDUCATION REFORM

HANUKKAH

INJURED WORKERS

WATER SUPPLY

WOMEN IN RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

HOSPITAL FINANCING

DAY OF REMEMBRANCE AND ACTION ON VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOSPITAL FINANCING

SENIOR CITIZENS

PROTECTION OF JOBS

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

HIV FUNDING

AUTOMOBILE LEASING

PHYSICIAN SHORTAGE

MCMICHAEL CANADIAN ART COLLECTION

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

SERVICES FOR ABUSED WOMEN

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

OFFICE OF THE WORKER ADVISER

FEWER POLITICIANS ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 RÉDUISANT LE NOMBRE DE DÉPUTÉS

MOTIONS

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 52

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

PETITIONS

EDUCATION REFORM

CLOSURE OF VANIER CENTRE FOR WOMEN

BEAR HUNTING

USER FEES

EDUCATION FINANCING

SCHOOL FACILITIES

TVONTARIO

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

SCHOOL BOARDS

NURSING STAFF

ORDERS OF THE DAY

AGGREGATE AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES RESSOURCES EN AGRÉGATS ET LES RICHESSES PÉTROLIÈRES

BOXING DAY SHOPPING ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 / SUR L'OUVERTURE DES MAGASINS LE LENDEMAIN DE NOËL

GOOD FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LA BONNE GESTION DES FINANCES PUBLIQUES

GOOD FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LA BONNE GESTION DES FINANCES PUBLIQUES

The House met at 1002.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

FRANCHISES' ARBITRATION ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LES ARBITRAGES VISANT DES FRANCHISES

Mr Chiarelli moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 101,

An Act to provide for the Arbitration of certain Disputes relating to Franchises / Projet de loi 101, Loi prévoyant l'arbitrage de certains différends concernant les franchises.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): This is the first bill we're debating today and it's called the Franchises' Arbitration Act. This deals with subject matter that is long overdue for legislation by this Legislature over the term of a number of governments. The bill is very simple in its structure, and I want to refer to the bill.

The first

section of the bill deals with some definition sections of franchisor/franchisee in a technical sense. I want to thank Mr Tony Martin, the MPP for Sault Ste Marie, who previously introduced legislation on this subject matter. We borrowed some of the technical

definitions from his bill. I also want to compliment Mr Martin for having been an advocate on this issue of franchises for a long time.

I'll read the nub of the bill, or the gist of the bill. It's in

section 2. It says: "In the case of a dispute between a franchisor and a franchisee with respect to a fundamental term" -- and I underline the word "fundamental" -- "of the franchise agreement, either party may require that the matter be determined by arbitration under the Arbitration Act, 1991 by giving the other party notice to that effect."

What that does, in effect, by statutory means, is add a term to every franchise agreement in the province of Ontario to say that either party may refer to arbitration under the Arbitration Act.

The Arbitration Act in Ontario was recently revised by this Legislature, about two years ago. There was all-party consent, and certainly there was a very broad consensus that this statute, the Arbitration Act, should be used very extensively in the province. It forms a very viable alternative dispute mechanism. The bill is now compatible with all the other legislation dealing with arbitration in the other provinces. It has also been highly recommended by various studies into the court system to be used to try to take cases out of the court system.

This bill deals only with fundamental terms of the contract in dispute. It's very important, particularly for franchisors, that they understand this provision. It is not a provision that will allow franchisees to harass and bother and make nuisances of themselves with respect to specific contracts.

If there is an issue fundamental to the contract between the franchisor and the franchisee, if it's a question of termination, if it's a question of misrepresentation to induce somebody to enter into a contract, if it's a question of frustrating the financial viability of the franchise arrangement, it's only under those circumstances that the matter can be referred to arbitration under this particular bill.

I think it's important that we look at some of the realities with respect to franchises in Ontario. First of all, Canada-wide, franchises deal in sales of $90 billion a year in retail business across the country. In Ontario it's $45 billion. It's very widespread throughout the province and impacts on thousands and thousands of small business people who happen to be franchisees, and tens of thousands of employees who work for them, so it's very significant subject matter for this Legislature to consider.

When it comes to mainline franchisors, when we think in terms of McDonald's or Harvey's or Dunkin Donuts, Tim Horton's or what have you, we have to understand that there's not a very level playing field. I practised commercial law for 18 years before I was elected to this Legislature. I acted for many franchisees.

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): You did very well.

Mr Chiarelli: My former partner, Mr Guzzo, on the other side, is commenting that he recognizes that I did such a wonderful job as a commercial lawyer.

In any case, dealing with all these franchisees, it's important to know that it's not a level playing field. The franchisor puts a contract on the table and says, in effect, "Take it or leave it." I've been at the table with my clients, prospective franchisees who are investing their life savings in the business, and if one tries to negotiate changes to those terms it is not possible. The effect of that is that the franchisee in many cases is left in a very dangerous situation in terms of termination, in terms of financial security.

I want to say that most of the franchisors act very responsibly, but there have been some very significant high-profile cases which reflect the dangers in having this continue. Of course it was the rebellion of the Pizza Pizza dealers a year or two ago and, more recently, the Loeb dealers. These are people who were very severely handicapped by the nature of the relationship between them.

This is an issue also of corporate responsibility. While most franchisors accept their corporate responsibility, there are too many cases where they don't, and they take advantage of the little guy, the person with his or her life savings on the line, who has to deal with this hammer hanging over their heads all the time.

There are thousands of Ontario franchisees who feel a tremendous sense of disappointment and betrayal at lack of government action. I'm not talking about this Tory government only. I'm talking about the Liberal government, I'm talking about the NDP government, I'm talking about this government now, which says it has the intention to legislate.

The reason this period, Thursday morning, should be made much more important and significant is that the Liberal administration had what it thought were very priority items that it had to have legislated, and the whole issue of franchises fell through the cracks, the Liberal cracks. The NDP government, very strong advocates of legislation for franchisees and franchisors, strongly advocated it before they were elected, they advocated it after they were elected, and what happened? It fell through the cracks.

We were dealing with the social contract, we were dealing with labour legislation, which were a priority to the NDP government. Now we have the Conservative government, and they have their priorities. I'm not questioning their priorities. It's their right to have them. They're doing tremendous restructuring in the health care field, in education, with municipalities, and now they're saying to the franchise dealers, "We intend to do something next spring." Next spring they might introduce legislation. It will go to committee.

Perhaps we will or we won't, but in the meantime the franchisors and the franchisees across this province do not have legislation. As I said, we have a very simple bill here which I think can serve as the permanent legislation to deal with this particular issue.

There's a broader public policy issue involved in this type of legislation, and that is the whole area of what's happening to our court system. Alternative dispute resolution mechanisms: All the studies and people who have looked at the courts, and I have in my role as Attorney General critic, are all advocating ADR, alternative dispute resolution. We have the Arbitration Act in Ontario, which is already there. It's a very effective piece of legislation. We need to reduce cases which come before the courts.

We've just seen the Loeb franchise dispute go before a judge, I believe six or seven times in the last couple of months. The cost to the franchisees and the franchisors was absolutely exorbitant. The cost to the taxpayers, of using up all this court time to resolve commercial disputes, is not appropriate in today's day and age. All the key people who have looked at the court system are recommending alternative dispute mechanisms, and here we have a very simple way of doing it.

It's frightening to me to see some of the press reports coming out from the franchisors in discussions with this government in terms of what this government is contemplating. This government is contemplating a regulatory framework. It's looking at the possibility of establishing an ombudsman. It's looking at the possibility of establishing prerequisite requirements for franchisors to get into the market. I can't believe that this government at this time would be contemplating looking at a regulatory framework, looking at setting up a bureaucracy to deal with this issue.

I repeat my comments at the beginning. It is very, very simple. We have an Arbitration Act. We're saying that if there is a fundamental dispute between a franchisor and a franchisee, we're simply, by statute, putting a term in every contract across the province saying that either party has the right to refer that to arbitration. It's in the taxpayers' interest to keep these matters out of the court and it's in the interests of all these small business people to have something to rely on in protecting their life savings with these larger, controlling franchisors.

But to deal with the substance of the bill, there are problems with it. It does address an issue that needs to be addressed, and I fully agree with the member for Ottawa West in that regard, that we do need to address the issue of the relationship between franchisors and franchisees in the province of Ontario. Indeed, we need to address it on a broader basis than that, because the franchise business phenomenon in Ontario extends into business relationships outside the province and many times franchisees in Ontario are entering into arrangements with franchisors who are located outside of the province.

So that's one point: that we need, if possible, a degree of interprovincial cooperation in the development of a franchise legislative framework that will work for all of the persons involved either as franchisors or franchisees in the Dominion of Canada.

I also agree that there is a need to have legislation that is fairly refined, in the sense that governments have a tendency to take a sledgehammer approach, and I think we ought to avoid that when we're dealing with business relationships not only as important as these but also as sensitive as these between franchisors and franchisees.

I agree with the honourable member for Ottawa West when he speaks about the importance of alternative dispute resolution. Alternative dispute resolution commonly involves mediation and arbitration. The proposal in this legislation, which is in

section 2 of the act,

section 2 being the main operative

section of the act, talks about, "In the case of a dispute between a franchisor and a franchisee with respect to a fundamental term of the franchise agreement," and I'll stop there for a moment, if I may, because this is the first large difficulty with the bill itself. This term "fundamental term," as used in the private member's bill, is not defined although there is a definition section.

My concern from that -- I also have experience in the courts and in litigating commercial matters, and I acknowledge the experience of Mr Chiarelli, the member for Ottawa West, in these matters. I'm sure he would agree with me that this type of undefined term in the main operative

section of a piece of legislation, rather than minimizing litigation, tends to promote litigation. It also promotes procedural problems, because an aggrieved franchisee, let's say, would have a situation where he would not know whether the matter with which he was dealing ought to go to arbitration or ought to go to the courts because the franchisee would be in the position of not being sure whether the term with respect to which he was dealing was fundamental or not fundamental.

I think we need to work harder on the alternative dispute resolution aspects of this to make sure that the concept works not just in the legislation, on a piece of paper, but that it actually works in practice to accomplish the goals that I'm sure are shared by the member for Ottawa West with most of the members of the House, and that is that we need to address this issue of the relationship between franchisors and franchisees.

The second part of the key

section of the bill, in my view, is the second half of

section 2, which deals with "Either party may require that the matter be determined by arbitration under the Arbitration Act, 1991 by giving the other party notice to that effect."

I have two concerns in that regard. One is that this is giving a mandatory arbitration power to one party, be it the franchisor or the franchisee, which would compel the other party to participate in arbitration under the Arbitration Act, 1991. That gives one party the power to avoid the traditional court proceeding. I think this is a matter that needs further consideration because of the advisability, in my view, and I think this needs to be discussed further, of including mediation before arbitration and the advisability of looking at forms of arbitration other than simply arbitrations under the Arbitration Act, 1991.

I'm sure the member for Ottawa West knows, as I know from experience, that arbitrations under that act are not necessarily cost-efficient. They can be very expensive, they can be very cumbersome and they can take a long time. I think we need to look a little bit harder at the alternative dispute resolution aspect generally and also in this piece of legislation to try to make it work on the ground and not just in theory.

The trend that seems to be developing not only in landlord and tenant disputes but in commercial disputes generally and in the courts is to first seek out mediation, which is having a remarkable success rate at very efficient costs and expeditiously. In that regard, I agree with the principle that is being advanced by my colleague the member for Ottawa West, but I think it needs a lot more work in order to make the approach a functional, useful approach for both franchisors and franchisees.

The bill itself, I believe, was prompted by the dispute between Loeb and a number of its franchisees. We are fortunate that this dispute has been largely resolved, as reported in the press last week, by an agreed buyout between the Loeb grocery chain and the franchisees, so the impetus for the bill in that regard is no longer present, having been overtaken by events.

There is also the concern about consulting. My friends opposite have often criticized our government for perhaps not consulting adequately concerning issues. This is an important commercial issue; it's an important issue for the relationship between persons doing business in the province. These persons are employing people. It's an area of business that is a growth area. I think we would all agree that we want to get it right.

In order to get it right, in my submission, it's very important that the key stakeholders are consulted. Consultations are taking place between the government and the Canadian Franchise Association and the Ontario Coalition of Franchisees, who are the two major stakeholder groups in the franchise industry. They do not support this bill, as I understand it, but they do definitely want to proceed with further discussions and further consultations, which are taking place.

I had the pleasure in September of addressing the Canadian franchisors show at the Coliseum, and I heard from persons there their concern about how this matter is proceeded with. In that regard, there are a number of models, as members are aware.

Some of those models are self-management-type models, where those in the field, both franchisors and franchisees, have an opportunity to police their own, in effect, subject to a code of ethics and rules that they would promulgate. That is one of the possibilities. But the key, I repeat, is that we must consult. I think all members would agree that the stakeholders, the persons in the field who deal with the business life of franchisors and franchisees from week to week, need to have input, serious consultation, in order to arrive at a piece of legislation that one would hope would actually work in business rather than simply make a statement in a private member's bill.

For those reasons, I urge members of the House not to support this particular piece of legislation, although I would certainly agree with the member for Ottawa West that it is an approach that needs to be addressed, both with respect to ADR and with respect to the relationship between franchisors and franchisees generally in the province.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): It's a pleasure for me this morning to speak to Bill 101,

An Act to provide for the Arbitration of certain Disputes relating to Franchises. As has been said by the member for Ottawa West and the member for Durham Centre, many of us are aware of the fact that legislation of this nature is necessary in that, as was referred to by the member for Durham Centre, there is a most recent high-profile dispute that legislation such as this would assist in, but these have been problems that have come up in the past and no doubt they will continue to be of concern to franchisors and franchisees in the future.

In fact, the Franchise Sector Working Team report has been more or less collecting dust since August 1995. All three governments, as was mentioned by the member for Ottawa West, have promised legislation in this area, but it has fallen through the cracks, keeps being delayed and always seems to be in the next session.

Bill 101 provides for an effective and cost-efficient method in which to deal with franchiser and franchisee disputes. As a matter of fact, I quote from the letter of Mr Chiarelli:

"It provides a viable solution to disputes between franchisees and franchisors, and addresses the immediate need for a dispute resolution mechanism in the absence of comprehensive franchise regulatory control. By allowing either party to refer the matter to arbitration under the Arbitrations Act of Ontario, the legislation helps to provide a level playing field for all parties involved."

I think that's the ultimate goal of this legislation and any that the government may bring forth in future in the way of comprehensive franchise regulatory control. The real intent and goal for all of us is that there be a level playing field between the franchisor and the franchisee.

It's also important to note that the bill provides the right to arbitrate only those matters affecting fundamental terms of the franchise agreement and therefore cannot be subject to frivolous abuse. Comment has been made as well by the member for Durham Centre that the word "fundamental" causes some concern. If we all agree that we need to find a solution quickly and not let this go on forever, as it seems to have been in the past, the prudent and expedient thing to do would be to refer this legislation to committee. Then some of these concerns can be addressed.

This legislation will satisfy, in our opinion, the government's pre- and post-election commitments to provide legislation in this matter. The best aspect of the bill of the member for Ottawa West is that it creates no government bureaucracy, no government cost to deal adequately with the issue, and as we all know, the Arbitration Act is an existing statute in Ontario. It is highly respected as a way to deal with commercial disputes.

For example, in the runup to the situation we had with Loeb, the court system had to figure prominently in this dispute, but there was, no doubt, a lot of cost involved. There definitely would have been a significant amount of delay and waste of court resources if at that time we would have had an alternative such as Bill 101. As has been mentioned, Bill 101 uses an already existing and workable act, the Arbitration Act, and in using the Arbitration Act franchisees and franchisors will be saving not only their own money but they will also be saving tax dollars, taxpayers' money in the form of not accessing court resources.

In my estimation, and I agree that this bill should go to committee for further refinement if that's necessary, the intent and for the most part the content of Bill 101 is a fair, timely and cost-effective response to what has been a lack of regulation in the area of franchisor and franchisee disputes, and it's less intrusive than full-scale legislation.

I believe it builds on a very good piece of existing legislation and will go a long way to ensuring that a level playing field exists between franchisees and franchisors.

Rather than dismiss the bill out of hand, as is the case with many private members' bills -- they are intended to solve problems that aren't partisan in nature. They are problems that many of us here on both sides of the House have had our commercial constituents come to us with. In view of the fact that the government has a very heavy legislative schedule, it would be an expedient way to address a problem that will not go away. The longer it's delayed, the more times we as members are going to be involved in helping constituents to solve these kinds of problems and the courts will be involved.

I would encourage those who are here this morning and those who will be voting on the bill to support it so that at least it may go to committee and get an appropriate review.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I certainly welcome the introduction of this bill here this morning. It's another attempt to solve a very difficult issue that continues to hang out there like a black cloud over Ontario, something that has been in front of government for a number of years now, something that some tremendous level of work has been done around by all flavours of government in this place and that governments of the day have not had in their time the will to really do anything about.

I suggest some of that is because of the backroom, heavy-handed, very difficult lobbying that is done by the franchisor, a part of this whole equation, who continues to have a bit of a stranglehold on this type of business in Ontario and frankly is quite problematic.

If, as this government suggests, the free market, private sector approach to the delivery of goods and services and the way we do business in this province is the way we're going to go, it has to at least be interested in putting in place those vehicles that will make sure that transactions and business agreements and contracts between different parties are fair and that both parties live up to not only the legal requirement but the spirit of those agreements. If you don't have that, you really don't have a whole lot going for you, and your business sector suffers and the whole community thereby suffers.

We've certainly had some very high-profile and very troubling examples of what happens to entrepreneurs, very responsible entrepreneurs in communities, when the big foot or the big thumb of the franchisor who decides they're not getting enough out of the agreement wants more and then they bring into play all of those vehicles that are written in either directly or indirectly to the agreement that allow them to pull the plug and just throw people out on their heads.

It's nice to see the Liberals bringing this forward. I remind the House that on two occasions over the last six years we as a party brought forward two bills. Jim Wiseman, a member from the Durham area of the province when we were government, brought a bill forward in response to a very difficult playing out of a disagreement between Pizza Pizza franchisees and the Pizza Pizza franchisor at that particular point in time.

The government of the day, which happened to be New Democrat, took his bill by way of incentive to launch a review of this whole issue and brought together all of the major players, brought them to the table -- franchisors, the franchisee association, legal counsel and others -- to sit down and try and figure out what would be the most intelligent and progressive thing to do in this circumstance and, recognizing that this could come at us again, come up with a plan.

The report was delivered near either the very end of the previous government's mandate or the beginning of the present government's mandate. Anyway, it ended up in the lap of the Minister of Community and Social Services at that point in time for his review.

In that report was the recommendation and very strong suggestion, particularly by the franchisees, that the only way to come to terms with this really difficult problem was to bring in legislation that would do a number of things for the parties involved, including making sure that there was full disclosure of all information before agreements were entered into and that at the end of the day, if there was a disagreement, there was a table to which the parties could come and have some settlement arrived at that was mutually acceptable and would see that particular situation resolved so that we could move forward in some degree of harmony and good health for the business community and the communities within which these enterprises operated.

But the government of the day did not see it as a priority to move forward with this. It was shelved, it was put on a shelf, and when I came forward about a year ago with the same piece of legislation that Mr Wiseman had brought in for the review of this place, we found out that there was nothing being done at the ministry level about this issue.

Whereas the franchisees out there thought that there was some legislation being put together, there was nothing happening. That was sort of a wake-up call, I guess.

I remember the morning that we had that debate in here and the government members got up. Mr Sampson, who has now moved on to bigger and better things, the portfolio of trying to privatize everything in this province, and the member who spoke previously here from the government party, Mr Flaherty, the member for Durham Centre, said the very same things. They said that we didn't need to regulate this industry.

They expressed anxiety on behalf of the franchisor; didn't say too much, I believe, about the franchisee and his or her difficulty in this whole issue; and suggested that the government was going to do something, was going to bring the parties together, was going to make sure that there was a self-regulatory initiative begun and put in place. But alas, none of that has happened. Nothing happened.

I remember as well that the day I brought in my legislation we had four or five Loeb franchisees out there who were under direct threat of losing their stores. Because we didn't do anything at that time about the piece of legislation I brought forward, at least two of those franchisees lost their stores. These were not fly-by-night operators who were trying to make a fast buck at the expense of the community and the franchisor.

These were hard-working, committed families who had invested everything they had, mortgaged their home to take on the operation of these stores and offered to their communities the best of service. Because they weren't able to give back to the franchisor the kind of effort and profit they expected, they just pulled the rug.

There was one family in particular, and I'm not sure exactly where they were now, but they owned a little store in a small community in northern Ontario. I sat and talked with them at the time that I introduced my legislation and it was a sad tale indeed. They had moved from their previous community, had borrowed money, taken all the money they had saved. They had mortgaged their house and moved to the new community and got into this business with great vigour and vitality.

But for one reason or another, the level of energy that they could put in diminished somewhat. I believe one of the partners in the relationship got sick, and because of that Provigo and Loeb decided that they weren't getting the kind of effort they needed so they spit them out and then decided either to bring in somebody else they could rape and pillage or to bring in somebody else they could convince to work as a corporate manager in that particular store so that they could maximize the profit they get out of that store and that community.

We had then two franchisees I know of, and probably more, who were just plain out of luck -- their investment gone, their plans for their future gone, wiped out.

It didn't end there. We continued to talk to the government about what they were doing. There was a change of minister and this thing, of course, got put on the back burner and nothing happened. Then all of a sudden we had this thing festering and, lo and behold, 20 to 22 Loeb franchisees decided, because of the strong-arm tactics that continued to be implemented by Provigo out of Montreal, that they would band together because individually -- it's your archetypal David and Goliath story except that David in this instance just didn't have the firepower to individually go after the giant.

Provigo just has too many resources. So 22 franchisees decided to come together, pool their resources and take the corporate giant on.

They came back to me and said, "Tony, it would be really helpful if we had the government moving on some legislation so that we could maybe shift this out of the court so that we could, at the end of the day, resolve this thing and keep our stores." The big thing here was they wanted to keep their stores, because they saw this as their future, as their nest egg, so to speak, as that which they were willing to work very hard at to make sure it was a huge success so they could turn it over to their family perhaps, or probably.

They wanted me to encourage the government to move quickly to introduce some legislation that would create a table that they could come to to have this thing resolved so that Provigo could have some of its needs met but ultimately they could keep their stores and do what they do best.

Some of these folks started out in this business packing shelves and carrying out, and worked their way up so that they became the owners of the stores. They found themselves, for reasons beyond their control, being threatened with the loss of this opportunity that they had worked so hard all their life to develop.

We were told at that point, and continue to be told today, that the government is moving on some legislation, but we haven't seen anything yet. In the meantime, these 22 store operators -- I believe there are still two out there who haven't come to any settlement or any agreement, so I think there's 20 now who have decided to settle out of court. It wasn't their first option. It wasn't what they wanted to do. They wanted to settle, but they wanted also to be able to keep their stores because that's what they invested in, that's what they do best, that's what they saw as the future for them and for their families.

Frankly, in my community anyway, the two stores that have now gone corporate, because the entrepreneurs who were driving them have now lost their business, were some of the most responsible corporate citizens we had. These were not irresponsible operators of grocery stores. The two families that ran the grocery stores in Sault Ste Marie were your model entrepreneurs, the kind of people that you want to draw out of the woodwork to be the engine for this new economy you keep talking about.

But if you continue to allow the bigger entity, the big guy, to have all the power and to use his resources in the way they have in this instance to just wipe people out because they don't agree with the amount of profit they're getting and they want more, then you won't have anybody wanting to be an entrepreneur, you won't have anybody wanting to take that kind of risk because it's just too great.

In this instance you had 22 operators come together and pool their resources to take on the giant, but at the end of the day it just wasn't enough. They didn't see that they could carry this thing far enough into the system to have a victory for themselves at the end of the day. They weren't looking for the whole tamale. They weren't looking for the whole thing. They just wanted to sit down with this franchisor and talk to him about some of the difficulties they were having around the supply of goods and what those cost and what they could sell them for, and ultimately to keep their stores. That didn't happen. It cries out to this place that we need to put in place something.

So today we have a package brought forward by the member for Ottawa West, Mr Chiarelli, that will go a ways. There are all kinds of examples of legislation out there, even in Canada, in Alberta. There's a wonderful piece of legislation in Britain called the Fair Practices Act that would do the trick. But the government has to have the will to see this through. Even if Mr Chiarelli's bill goes to committee -- we could have a real good discussion there, we could bring some people in and we could make his bill fit, but at the end of the day if the government doesn't agree with it, it's toast, it doesn't go anywhere.

We continue down that road and we will have more -- trust me -- of this happening because franchising, franchisor, franchisee, the whole franchise industry is one of the newer approaches to doing business in our province, and if we don't regulate it in a way that makes it fair, we will have disaster after disaster.

So I today exhort the House, the members who are here, to support this bill. I hope the member for Ottawa West would have enough of his members on side to make sure we get a good crack at it. Last time, when I brought my legislation in, there were a number of your people who didn't vote for it. I hope that today they will, and that the members across the way recognize that we need to do this, if for no other reason but that it's in the best interests of some of the principles that you're espousing re how our economy is going to grow.

Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): I'm pleased to speak this morning on private member's Bill 101 as put forward by my colleague on the other side of the House, the member for Ottawa West. The issue of providing a legislative mechanism to a franchise dispute is a complicated one. If the House will bear with me, I'd just like to digress a little bit.

This government was elected because its members campaigned that we would carry out the five key components of a job creation plan. We would cut personal income taxes. We would reduce non-priority government spending. We would remove government barriers to job creation, investment and economic growth.

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): Mike said this yesterday, Tom.

Mr Froese: But you need to hear it again. You're right, the Premier said it yesterday.

We would cut the size of government and provide the people of Ontario with better for less and we would balance the budget.

Someone might ask, though, "What do these five points have to do with franchise arbitration?" They have a great deal to do with Bill 101. Let's look at why we're cutting taxes. We're cutting taxes to create jobs and to stimulate the economy and, in so doing, bring prosperity back to Ontario. Why? So that the taxpayers can spend it on goods and services they want and need.

Franchising plays an important role in Ontario's economy in providing those goods and services, currently the most widespread in terms of new investment and business development. Opening franchises now accounts for about 30% of sales and 80% of all business successes that survive the first five years. There's actually an 80% chance of success for franchisees. So the need for a franchise dispute mechanism will be less because of the success rate. I also will discuss later, human nature being what it is, that it will not be eliminated altogether.

The second point my government pledged was to cut non-priority government spending. What that means in real terms is that if there's a dispute we have to find ways to bring the franchise partners together that does not necessitate a new bureaucracy. That will not help anyone.

As was said earlier by my colleague the member for Durham Centre, the industry has identified that it wants legislation to deal with problems but in a self-management environment. What we need is balance, and we need not get that by implementing legislation. As to non-priority spending, it tells the industry exactly what to do and when to do it.

The third point was that we said we would cut government barriers to job creation, economic development and investor growth. We need to ask ourselves, will Bill 101 act as a barrier to economic development and job creation? To answer that question, let's look at both the advantages and the disadvantages of franchising.

Chief among the advantages is that it's often much easier to start a new business because the investor has the support of the established parent company, the franchisor. The franchisor can provide the entrepreneur with assistance in obtaining financing, site selection, building construction, supervision, employee training and ongoing support during a difficult break-in period. It's important that the government of the province does what it does. It will create the climate for more such partnerships and investment. We have to be careful that we're not adding red tape without getting the full input of the industry and without looking at the issues involved in settling disputes.

The bottom line is that any legislation dealing with relationships between franchisors and franchisees needs to be driven and monitored by the industry itself. I understand why Bill 101 is being brought forward, but it's not the answer to finding that balance between the two parties involved in franchising. We know there needs to be a code of ethics and disclosure requirements. The franchisor needs to set the parameters and the franchisee needs to know what they are getting into right from the start.

In my opinion, we need legislation that identifies and provides for all factors that drive and affect the entire industry. We also need to make sure that we create conditions for success for those in business now and those willing to invest in new franchise business opportunities, and our plan is working.

I'll be voting against the bill because I don't see where the balance is and where the legislation is industry-driven. That is primarily the reason why I will vote against the bill.

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott et Russell) : Je crois qu'il est très important pour les membres de cette Assemblée de reconnaître le projet de loi 101 prévoyant l'arbitrage de certains différends concernant les franchises.

Les familles, les employés et les propriétaires des franchises Loeb viennent de vivre des situations que personne d'entre nous ne voudrait vivre. Ce projet de loi éviterait ces moments déplorables que ces familles ont dû endurer tout récemment.

Nous savons que les franchises Loeb appartiennent à Provigo de Montréal. Vingt-et-un magasins franchisés ont été impliqués récemment dans cette poursuite.

J'en avais nommé quelques-uns : Loeb Arnprior dans le comté de Carleton ; Loeb Bayridge; Loeb Blind River; Loeb Brady Street; Loeb Cochrane; Loeb Elmvale Acres; Loeb Fisher Street; Loeb Golden Mile; Loeb Hazeldean; Loeb Kirkland Lake; Loeb Korah Road; Loeb LaSalle Court; Loeb Lincoln Heights; Loeb Manotick Mews, encore dans le comté du député de Carleton; Loeb Mattawa; Loeb Meadowlands; Loeb Petawawa; Loeb Prescott; Loeb Rockland; Loeb St-Laurent; et Loeb South Porcupine. Nous avons 21 franchisés qui sont impliqués dans cette poursuite. On aura pu modifier la loi pour aider ces gens.

Je me rappelle une rencontre avec le ministre de la Consommation du temps, le député de Carleton, le 14 août dernier. Il avait son équipe du département de la loi avec lui. J'ai une lettre que j'ai reçue le 3 janvier 1996 qui se lit comme suit au troisième paragraphe :

«Le ministre a admis qu'il existe actuellement un manque d'équilibre et qu'il était au courant d'abus de pouvoir de la part de certains franchiseurs, incluant Loeb. Bien que son parti soit plutôt porté par la déréglementation, il a l'intention de discuter de ce problème avec ses homologues des autres provinces au cours du mois de février. De plus, il a évoqué la possibilité d'introduire un projet de loi au printemps» -- c'est le printemps dernier en 1996 -- «quoique ce projet de loi ne serait sans doute pas en tête de liste des projets de loi de son gouvernement.»

Nous avons eu plusieurs discussions ainsi avec le nouveau ministre de ce ministère, le député de Markham. Nous étions sur le point d'arriver avec un nouveau projet de loi qui aurait été présenté en Chambre il y a quelques semaines. Mais nous avons constaté que les franchiseurs ont mis de la pression sur le gouvernement actuel afin qu'on n'arrive pas avec un projet de loi. C'est regrettable que l'on doive procéder avec de la politicaillerie que nous connaissons dans le moment.

J'ai eu la chance de regarder le procès-verbal du mois de janvier 1996. Aucun avocat n'aurait accepté ce qui était décrit dans ce procès-verbal. Je ne sais pas si mes collègues du gouvernement étaient bien au courant que seulement quatre franchisés pouvaient assister aux réunions. Aucun des franchisés n'avait le droit d'avoir avec lui son avocat ou son conseil légal. Nous étions obligés de signer les ententes. Le magasin Loeb voulait augmenter le volume mais avec pertes à nos franchisés.

C'est bien beau de dire que nous reprenons les magasins, que nous allons désigner notre propre gestion afin d'avoir le plein contrôle, et le but principal était de joindre le volume de Maxi -- Maxi, c'est une succursale de Loeb -- et toujours au détriment des franchisés qui existent actuellement.

Je crois qu'il est temps que le gouvernement regarde de très près. Nous savons qu'il y a d'autres franchiseurs qui s'en viennent, tels les Tim Horton's, les Pizza Pizza, bien, nous avons gagné la cause en cour, apparemment. Mais aujourd'hui le gouvernement a bel et bien la chance d'appuyer un projet de loi qui est déposé par mon collègue d'Ottawa-Ouest qui pourra éliminer tous les problèmes que nous venons de vivre. Si mes collègues du gouvernement pourraient constater le harcèlement qui existait durant cette période de temps, c'est presque incroyable de voir le harcèlement que toutes ces familles, ces propriétaires ou ces franchisés ont dû vivre depuis janvier 1996.

Je crois que le ministre de la Consommation et du Commerce était au courant. C'est un expert dans les franchises. Il était au courant et il est sensible à la cause, mais je suis convaincu qu'il a reçu de la pression de son Cabinet ou du premier ministre de cette province en lui disant, «Laisse tomber ce projet.» Je crois que nous avions de gros supporteurs financiers derrière le premier ministre qui auraient peut-être empêché le premier ministre à recevoir des fonds pour les prochaines élections.

Mais je crois que notre tâche pour nous tous, les élus de cette province, c'est d'en arriver à une entente au meilleur de notre conscience et puis, dans ce cas, je dirais que la conscience de tous les élus de ce gouvernement était de protéger nos petits franchisés.

Mais ce n'est pas ça qui va arriver. Encore une fois nous allons protéger les gros financiers. Dans ce cas-ci nous allons protéger la chaîne de magasins Loeb, dont le propriétaire est Provigo de Montréal. Dans ma propre ville on m'a appelé un soir et puis nous avons reconnu que le serrurier était à la porte, prêt à changer la combinaison du coffre-fort, prêt à changer la serrure de la porte.

Sur le boulevard Saint-Laurent à Ottawa, la même chose. Sur Elmvale Acres, la même chose. J'étais sur place. L'épouse du propriétaire pleurait ; les employés à la caisse pleuraient. Ils voyaient le serrurier à la porte avec les gardes de sécurité et on venait changer les serrures. Pourquoi ? J'ai ici la liste qu'ils avaient reçue avec toutes les dates qu'on voulait procéder avec la fermeture de tous les magasins.

Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): I would like to say that I will be supporting the bill.

I was one of those franchisees who had the rug pulled out from under them after 25 or 26 years with the company, and they came in and told me by a 30-day notice, "You're out of business." I want to support the bill we've got coming forward.

I find it awfully hard to think that I'm supporting something the member for Sault Ste Marie is supporting, but I'll have to deal with my conscience later on tonight. But I can tell you that those big companies care little or nothing about the little guy, and I was one of those little guys they pulled the rug out from and I think we need that kind of support for those individuals. That's why this person from Quinte is going to stand up for the little guy. I was one of those little guys.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Ottawa West, you have two minutes.

Mr Chiarelli: I think the people across this province should know that the member for Durham Centre is the parliamentary assistant to the minister responsible for this particular issue. I also think the people of Ontario should know that the then minister, on September 25, 1995 -- that was Mr Norm Sterling -- issued a press release which said: "Consumer and Commercial Relations Minister Norman Sterling today said that he was pleased to receive the Franchise Sector Working Team report presented to him on August 30, 1995" -- 15 months ago.

The minister's press release goes on to say: "The minister said he will share the report on franchising with other provincial governments since franchising affects all provinces."

Well, I wonder what happened to Canada Post. They've had this now for 15 months and they've done nothing. This is the government that represents business people. They represent these tens of thousands of small business people who are franchisees who are getting hammered by the big franchisors, and what do they do? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. They close their eyes. Here is one minister saying, 15 months ago, that he's already got the results of all the consultation, and 15 months later we have a new minister saying: "Maybe we'll do something in the spring. Oh, this bill isn't good enough."

The member for Durham Centre says quite clearly he agrees with the principle of this bill. Then he should support it. He should send it to committee, and if he wants to change some of the

definitions, if he wants to close some of the problems with terminology, he can do it in committee. We can work together, we can work with it in a non-partisan way.

I think the only way this government will deal with this issue is if there is a new minister. If that new minister happens to be Mr Guzzo, my former law partner, he understands the problem with franchisees. He will do something and he will get some action, and I encourage Mike Harris to appoint him.

The Deputy Speaker: The time allotted for the first ballot item has expired.

VOLUNTEERS

Mr Galt moved private member's notice of motion number 33:

That in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should recognize the important role of volunteers in the province of Ontario, should consider their concerns about their exposure to liability and that barriers to voluntary service be removed and that volunteers should be encouraged and be properly recognized for their efforts.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): In his famous book The Prophet, early-20th-century philosopher Kahlil Gibran wrote: "You give but little when you give of your possessions. It is when you give of yourself that you truly give."

Here in Ontario, we have literally millions of people giving of themselves every day. They do this by donating their time and their efforts to charities, to hospitals and to religious organizations, to service clubs for Lions Clubs International, to minor hockey and softball leagues, to medical research and service organizations like the Heart and Stroke Foundation, the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, and the Canadian Cancer Society, just to name a few.

Volunteers do this work without compensation, they do this work without being asked, and they do this work solely for the benefit of their fellow human beings. They only seek to serve and to return something to the communities in which they live.

Volunteer efforts enhance the social fabric of Ontario in a way that government or business never can. In fact, volunteer efforts in Ontario, and indeed across Canada, are vital to the health and the wellbeing of our respective communities. Volunteers help to ensure that our neighbourhoods are protected and that our children are safe. They help the needy and the disadvantaged in society in often very personal ways. They support medical advances and scientific research. They help both the young and the old to cope in an increasingly fragmented society.

Statistics Canada says that as many as four persons in 10 have volunteered for a community or social agency. One person in three has volunteered or helped to support a religious organization. Although it is difficult to quantify the value of volunteer work, it is safe to say that billions of dollars worth of effort is expended by volunteers every year. We also know that volunteers give more to charities than the average donor.

The Canadian Centre for Philanthropy reports that donations to charity in Canada totalled more than $8 billion last year. This money went to some 69,000 registered charities, many of which operate completely without government support.

It is often said that the charitable sector, or the third sector, as business guru Peter Drucker calls it, is the fastest-growing social grouping on this continent. The staff and the volunteers of these organizations do for the community what DOS does for dummies in personal computing. They make it easy to try something new and very worthwhile. They can do this because they have the flexibility to experiment without making huge investments in hardware and program delivery. They have proven themselves to be more efficient than either the private or public sector. In fact, the social capital provided by volunteers is one of the last great and growing resources in our society.

The resolution I am putting forward for a vote today recognizes the immense social capital contributed by volunteers across this province. It seeks to give a little back to these volunteers and to the organizations they represent. I believe there are many opportunities for our government to encourage these volunteer efforts through legislative change and policy adjustment.

While I recognize that many efforts to do that are already well under way, I believe we must make a public commitment to our province's volunteers. We must make a commitment to encourage their efforts and remove barriers to voluntary service.

These barriers take many forms. For instance, members of voluntary boards of directors have liabilities under the law that are in many ways inappropriate to a volunteer organization. Although few are prosecuted under these laws, the perception that volunteers are risking their assets and their life earnings to serve has a significant impact on their willingness to become involved. What's more, purchasing liability insurance is often too costly for all but the largest charitable organizations. As a result, many forgo this option, preferring to use assets instead for the betterment of their community.

In doing so, they are putting themselves at risk. This is but one example of the tough decisions volunteers in the third sector are facing.

At the same time, I'm not suggesting that volunteers should be completely absolved of responsibility for their actions. If it is shown that a volunteer has acted with gross negligence, malice or ill intent, indeed the person should be held accountable. In the case of an automobile accident, for instance, even if the driver is a volunteer, all existing regulations and statutes should be applied.

But what I am concerned about is that charities and volunteers operating in Ontario do not have any protection from liability in carrying out their charitably motivated actions. I believe this is a very important distinction to make. In contrast to Ontario, many jurisdictions across North America have enacted volunteer protection laws that provide some protection for volunteers against liability.

This protection is based on three fundamental principles: the volunteer was acting in good faith; the volunteer was acting within the scope of their official functions; and, finally, that the damage or injury was not caused by wilful or wanton misconduct.

That, I believe, is the litmus test for many jurisdictions, and I believe we can successfully apply the same conditions here.

A thoughtfully constructed volunteer protection law would demonstrate that we are serious about encouraging the volunteer sector. Given the tremendous social capital and value that volunteer organizations contribute to Ontario, I believe the time has come to seriously address their concerns.

Many in the voluntary sector are concerned that they are not considered or involved in the formation of relevant public policy. They are concerned that the value of volunteerism is not adequately recognized at the highest levels of government and that their organizations are not adequately protected against liability arising from charitably motivated actions. It is within the power of this government to allay those fears and take tangible action to support volunteers. I would like to recommend strongly that we do just that.

Until the 1960s many volunteers worked in charitable organizations and religious organizations to bring a quality of life to Ontario. In the late 1960s, some 30 years ago, governments across Canada thought they could do it better. They went into a cycle of spend and borrow, and as a result we've ended up making bankers rich, and the province of Ontario has an $8.7-billion interest payment to pay this year. That $8.7 billion in interest could build things like 13 SkyDomes across Ontario. That is what $8.7 billion in interest is equal to.

It is obvious that we can no longer continue that kind of cycle of spend and borrow. Once again, it is imperative that we look to the volunteer sector, that third sector, to assist us in ensuring that we have the quality of life in Ontario that our children deserve.

Therefore,

be it resolved that in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should recognize the important role of volunteers in the province; it should consider their concerns about their exposure to liability; that barriers to voluntary service should be removed; and finally, that volunteers should be encouraged and properly recognized for their efforts.

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): I want to congratulate the member for Northumberland this morning for introducing this bill for many reasons. It gives me an opportunity to boast about the volunteers in my own community and how effective they are. If it weren't for volunteers in my own community I don't think the quality of life would be as good as it is.

Volunteers in my community have built an arena and a number of parks. These parks and the arena are not being managed, but are supported by volunteers. With the help of le Club Richelieu, which raised $300,000 to build a community centre, which is called le Centre Richelieu, along with the Kiwanis Club and the Lions Club, all volunteers raised close to half a million dollars, and these facilities were built because of volunteerism, because of volunteers who continue to improve the quality of life in our community.

When we look at a community, too often we look at the measurable assets of a community. We look at roads, transportation and the infrastructure and we say that all these great things will improve or are improving the quality of life in the community. I say that without volunteerism my community wouldn't be the same. I think volunteerism is an asset and I encourage all communities right across Ontario to invite volunteers to participate in the real life of our community. I usually brag about my senior citizens club. They have 1,600 members in this club, the largest in Ontario.

They just raised $350,000 to build their own centre -- again, all volunteers. I think this is an asset to my community.

I realize what the government of Ontario has done in the last 10 or 15 years. Every year they recognize volunteers in the province of Ontario, but this is only once a year. I think we should celebrate volunteerism in this province every day, because they do improve the quality of life, and that's what a community is all about. It's not about sidewalks, it's not about paved roads, it's not about the traffic in your community; it's about people. When we plan a community in the province of Ontario we usually think about infrastructure first, then we think about people. It should be the opposite. We should plan with people in mind, then have the infrastructure to serve these people.

I know that if I didn't say a word in French, my volunteers in my community wouldn't appreciate it.

Je veux profiter de cette occasion pour féliciter les nombreux groupes volontaires dans ma communauté. Je pense aux dames auxiliaires de la Légion, de l'hôpital Montfort, à tous ces gens-là, aux milliers de personnes. Pourtant je demeure dans une petite communauté, et par contre nous avons un grand nombre per capita de volontaires.

Ces gens-là ne sont jamais payés, et le gouvernement devrait reconnaître le bienfait de ces gens-là. Si le gouvernement de l'Ontario aujourd'hui devait payer chacun de nos volontaires, ça leur coûterait 2,1 $ milliards par année -- $2.1 billion in services.

Il faut reconnaître que la qualité de la vie d'une communauté ne dépend pas surtout des services comme les routes, les trottoirs, toutes ces choses-là. Ce sont des gens, et on manque trop souvent l'occasion de féliciter ces gens-là et d'encourager d'autres à faire profiter leur communauté.

I will be supporting the member's bill and I hope that all of us will join and support this bill.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): This resolution this morning at first blush is motherhood. I think we all agree that the volunteer sector and the contribution that volunteers make to our community is an invaluable way of getting some things done that otherwise wouldn't get done, an invaluable way of using the time and resources and expertise of people to help community, to help themselves, to build a community, to contribute to quality of life, that is just unparalleled in any other way; and that we should be doing all in our power to encourage and support and to assist in that effort. And that happens.

It's been going on for a long time and will continue to go on. We'll find ways to support that and to make sure that it continues to be an integral and important part of the life of all the communities in this province.

But when you look at this piece of legislation in the context of the agenda of this government and what this government is about and what it's been doing to people and what it proposes to do and when you listen to some of the comments at the end of the speech of the member who has introduced it, the member for Northumberland, it takes on a different flavour, it takes on a different colour, it becomes a fish of a different stock. I think we have to talk about that.

We would be doing the people of this province a great disfavour, those of us who have been elected to come here, particularly those of us of a New Democratic persuasion, if we don't uncover some of this, unravel it, take out some of the layers so that we see what in fact is at the heart of it.

I spoke the other night about legislation that has come from this government over the last year and a half, most of it being a Trojan horse: It comes packaged in nice language, very fluffy and soft and feel-good public relations supports, with names like "legislation to assist tenants, legislation to assist workers," and all that; but when you peel away some of what, yes, is put in by way of some small token of something helpful, we find that the heart of the matter is a taking away, a diminishing of the things that we as a community over a large number of years have put together to facilitate the total life of this province and this community.

What this resolution really is about is paving the way for initiatives such as workfare, making workfare seem somewhat more palatable because it's in the volunteer sector. It's making sure that those organizations that take on the workfare recipients are not liable and are more willing to do it, because they're having a hell of a time out there getting any community or any organization to buy into this --

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Change the name.

Mr Martin: That's right -- into this program, Ontario Works. You change the name, but it doesn't change the beast. Anything this government says or anything a member of this government says that feels in any way supportive of people helping people, supportive of communities, supportive of some of those very important institutions and traditions that we've built up collectively over the years to assist all of us as we live our daily lives, to enhance quality of life, is, in my mind, suspect because of what they've done, because of their track record to date.

As I said, certainly this resolution lends itself very clearly to paving the way for groups and individuals in our communities to become involved in the whole issue of workfare.

We'll move on to another area: education. We hear in the education system that we're going to move more and more students out into the community to work in co-op programs, to go and spend a few hours every week at McDonald's, for example, so you learn how to flip hamburgers and how to scrub the floor --

Interjection: Five hundred people looking for one job.

Mr Martin: Five hundred people working for -- and we call this volunteer; it's opening up the volunteer sector. We know what it is: It's getting work for nothing. It's delivering programs to people for nothing that we, as a collective, as a community of people, have decided over the years were worth paying for. We believed that people making a salary and collecting a wage for doing very valuable work in the public sector is worth paying for, because those people, ultimately, take the money they get and spend it back in the communities.

It goes into the cash registers and the tills of the small business community that you seem, in word anyway, so readily to support, but in fact when something comes before the House that talks about protecting and supporting small business, like the bill that we had previously here, you very clearly will not, most of you, support that.

To suggest for a second that anything you do by way of, for example, this resolution that's in front of us this morning is somehow going to be helpful in any way to the communities and people of this province is not supported by the track record that you have so far. Everything you do hurts people; everything you do particularly hurts vulnerable people and marginalized people.

Interjections.

Mr Martin: You laugh over there.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Go ahead.

Mr Martin: July 1995 was probably the high-water mark in meanness.

Mr Jim Flaherty (Durham Centre): Are people being mean to you, Tony?

Mr Martin: You're being mean to the people of this province. To come in here today with this warm fuzzy and expect that people are going to buy into this and not see it for what it is speaks volumes of the naïveté of some of the members of your caucus around just exactly what you're doing and what people are seeing and feeling out there in the communities.

I was going to say that in July 1995 I woke up to the announcement from this government that it was going to take 22% out of the income of the poorest and the most vulnerable and the most marginalized in our province. Can you imagine, Speaker, if you or I or the members over there walked into work one morning and the boss just said: "We're going to take 22% of your salary today because we think it's going to be good for you. It's going to make you more responsible; it's going to make you more accountable. You're going to probably work harder for the money that you get. Ultimately, it's going to be good for the whole community."

We know that that's just not true. We know that when you take money away from the poorest --

The Deputy Speaker: I'd like to bring you back to the topic, which is on volunteers.

Mr Martin: Well, I am.

The Deputy Speaker: Not quite. No, no.

Mr Martin: This is private member's hour.

The Deputy Speaker: At the same time, you have to stick to the topic. If you don't stick to the topic, I'll have to rule you out of order.

Mr Martin: That would be really unfortunate, and I think it would be a misuse of your power.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): -- fireside chat.

Mr Martin: Whatever. You call it what you like: fireside chat. That's the language you use to hurt people in this community in Ontario.

If this was really about supporting and helping volunteers, I would have no problem, because as I said when I started out, it's motherhood. But it's not about that. It's about paving the way for moving public service jobs into the private sector. It's about paving the way for the introduction of your workfare initiative that is having an awful hard time getting off the ground. It's about paving the way for moving kids out of the classroom where teachers are being paid to teach them into the co-op sector of the community so that they can learn how to flip hamburgers and shovel snow and wash floors. That's what this is about. It's about nothing else.

Trying to present to us this morning this warm, fuzzy, "Let's support volunteers," as I said, is typical of the way this government has delivered everything by way of legislative agenda and initiative in this province in the last year and a half. It's tearing at the very fibre, it's taking thread by thread from the fibre that has been put together by all of us. You in particular, Speaker, have been here a lot longer than I have, and you've seen governments in this place work together to try to put in place the best of services for people, the best of education, the best of health care.

You've seen us grapple with how we pay for that and make sure that those who are delivering those services have the resources they need to be the best they can be.

What we have out there in the communities across this province are teachers and nurses and social workers who have spent most of their lives becoming the best they can be in that profession, investing in their professional development, now having to turn to the volunteer sector to be able to use that resource they are for all of us, and not be paid for it. How does that help anybody? How does that help my community? When you turn health care and when you turn education and when you turn social services over to the volunteer sector, you take money out of my community. You take bread out of the hands of the children, of small business people in my community.

Let me tell you what happened to my community when this government decided they were going to take 22% out of the income of the poorest of the people who live in Sault Ste Marie. Twenty four million dollars was gone out of the economy of Sault Ste Marie, $2 million a month, $24 million that was spent annually. It was $24 million a year out of the small business sector, out of the cash registers of the corner stores.

When you decided to turn social services and health care and education over to the volunteer sector, which is what this is really about, you took, up until September 1995 -- and that's just the first three months of your mandate -- about $35 million out of the economy of Sault Ste Marie, money that was spent in corner stores and grocery stores and at garages, money that circulated among all of us to make sure that all of us could pay for those services we need and the food we need and to pay the rent and to build new homes etc.

And the carnage goes on. When we see in January 1997, when we all come back here, what you're going to do in the municipal sector and the education sector by way of changing the governance and all that means, what it will be about in the end is taking money away from communities, taking money away from the education system and turning a lot of the work the professionals in those areas do over to the volunteer sector and pay them absolutely nothing for their efforts. That is what this is about. This is about paving the way. This is about trying to convince people that you folks over there have a heart.

But we know you don't. There's no heart and there's no soul in the government you are part of, and there is nothing in what you've done so far to indicate that down the road somewhere you might in fact discover that you do have one.

It doesn't matter how wonderfully you talk about the volunteer sector and what they do and what they offer to the community you live in. It doesn't matter how you couch it. It doesn't matter how many times you bring the Trojan horse in. At the end of the day, the soldiers jump out with their guns and their knives and they shred the fabric that we all collectively have woven over the years to make sure we looked after people who were in need, that we had the best of education, that we had the best of health care, that we had the best of social services in this province.

As a matter of fact, when you look at the reports that are written about why Ontario is forever these days being recognized by the United Nations as the envy of the world, the place where people would love to come and live, it's because we have good services and because of previous government. What you're doing in your short year and a half is destroying all of that, you're taking away from it. It won't be long, because of what you're doing to the public sector and because of what you're foisting on the volunteer sector, that we will become every inch a Third World country, a have-not country.

The gap between the rich and the poor is widening, and you're not going to be able to bring it together with the volunteer sector. You're going to have to get back to giving those people who need it the resources to do the job that we all know they should be doing.

The Deputy Speaker: I would just like to remind the members that the member for Northumberland's resolution was quite clear. It was on volunteers, and the topic should be on volunteers -- as simple as that.

Mr Tilson: I think we've just heard an excellent example from the member for Sault Ste Marie of why this province is in the terrible economic position it's in. However, I won't dwell on that, because the purpose of the resolution brought forward by the member for Northumberland is to bring to the attention of this House and to the public the problem we have in our society of volunteers who are doing things in a society that is becoming more and more litigious, and how do we as a government or how do we as a society protect those volunteers?

Families in the past, and not so long ago, at a time when life was a little slower, helped each other, communities helped each other. They do to a certain extent still, but not as much, because different governments over the years, of all political stripes, have done more and more and more for different groups in our society, until we have reached, of course, a position where we have no money. The money is all spent. We have a debt in the province of $100 billion.

This government and, hopefully, other governments around this country will look at the fact that we need to count on our volunteer society. We need the families and friends and members of our society to help us in a more personal way.

Mr Martin: Services won't get delivered otherwise.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Sault Ste Marie, you had your turn.

Mr Tilson: Quite recently there was legislation put in this House called Bill 79, which dealt with a number of things. One of the things it dealt with was volunteers and improving their plight with respect to incorporated organizations and charities, making life easier for them by enabling them to obtain liability insurance coverage.

The purpose of this resolution, as I understand it, is to talk about the individual, the person who drives seniors to different areas of our community, the single volunteer. We need those people. We need those people, and they run a great risk of getting sued in this particular society we live in.

In my community, for example, there are three men, Chuck Landry, Jim Blackwell and Doug Clark, who run a golf tournament. Those three men -- they're not incorporated -- have promised to raise for our community $72,000 for our local hospital. That's all they're doing, and they don't have any protection. They run a great risk of being sued personally for problems that may occur. But that's what they've undertaken to do.

There are individual restaurateurs who open up their kitchens to feed the hungry on Christmas Day and other times of the year. I'm talking about people in my community. I'm talking about volunteers in our community, and those people do have some sort of risk --

Mr Martin: Why don't you give people enough money to feed themselves at home?

The Deputy Speaker: I'd ask you to follow the procedures and stop heckling.

Mr Martin: I can't handle this.

The Deputy Speaker: I'm asking you. If you can't, then I'll take the measures I have to take.

Mr Tilson: The mayor of Orangeville, Mayor Rose, has organized a youth advisory committee. Its purpose is to set up a drop-in centre for our youth in the town of Orangeville. They have accepted donated games and amusements from individuals to help form this drop-in community. Those people aren't any part of any charity or any organized group, and they literally are unprotected.

Santa Claus parades: We all have Santa Claus parades, particularly in the rural communities, and they're volunteers, single volunteers, not large groups or organizations, who volunteer their time, volunteer their trucks, volunteer their flatbeds, those sorts of things.

That is the purpose of this resolution. I commend the member for Northumberland for raising it in this House. We need these volunteers to survive. We need the assistance. There's no question that the people who are perhaps injured by accident need protection as well. I don't think the member for Northumberland is offering any particular solution, but he's raising a concern.

We need to encourage our volunteers in our communities, and there's a concern that needs to be addressed, and hopefully all members of this House will consider that concern, particularly in the area of liability, because these volunteers who help us in all of our -- I've just mentioned a few in my community and I'm sure every member in this House, whether you live in a rural community or whether you live in a large urban community, could stand up and give personal examples of people who need protection. Congratulations to the member for Northumberland.

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I am pleased to stand, and I want to indicate right off the top that I'm very supportive of the resolution before us today in that volunteerism in Ontario is very, very important.

I appreciate the comments from the member for Dufferin-Peel. I think that is what the member is attempting to get at: the legal liabilities that are incurred by volunteers across the province. I appreciate the member raising this issue, but it's terribly complex. I am not a lawyer, but I know that the issues being raised by the member for Northumberland are very difficult to solve.

I hope the government will do its best to find ways so that we don't have Rotary Clubs, we don't have Kinsmen Clubs, we don't have Kiwanis Clubs, we don't have hospital auxiliaries, we don't have all those people paying out large amounts for liability insurance. They're raising money, and I just don't appreciate the fact that they have to send it off to insurance companies somewhere. I also appreciate the fact that volunteers in our society as individuals, just doing things as individuals, need some help.

I was surprised, however, at how we somehow got back into class warfare in this, on a resolution supporting volunteers. The government and the third party -- if there was ever a division in the world. I don't know how we could get into it on supporting volunteers.

I want to give the member for Northumberland an opportunity to correct I think a misstatement, at least I hope it is. He said he wanted to get back to the 1960s in terms of volunteerism. Well, I'll tell you, in my constituency we have more volunteers doing more things today than we had in the 1960. I don't think that we want to go back to the 1960s in the constituency of Algoma-Manitoulin.

I think about all the good things our volunteers are doing in the city of Elliott Lake, the city of rebirth, a phoenix, if you like, a city that has gone through losing 4,000 extremely well-paid mining jobs to now the premier place for seniors to come and live with a quality of life that is unsurpassed in this country. That has happened because of volunteers. The whole concept came from volunteers. It was supported by government, though, by the way, but the absolute quality of life is certainly more dependent upon the volunteers than on the government sector.

I think of the Lions Club at Serpent River. I think about the Rotary Club of Gore Bay that, 10 or 15 years ago when I was involved with it, raised 70% more than they needed to to build a medical centre and then was able to donate those additional funds to equipment and things the physicians would need at that medical centre.

Volunteers are more important than ever. I do not see it as -- the government seems to be painting this as, "We've got to get it out of government so the volunteers can do things." I don't see it as that kind of issue. We need volunteers. Governments have a problem. Goodness, we have a government that's borrowing $8 billion or $9 billion this year, $8 billion or $9 billion more than a Liberal administration borrowed in five, a government that is going to give a tax break of $12 billion when they're in absolutely very difficult financial straits.

I understand that there's a problem, but the problem isn't one between government and volunteers. It's about liability insurance for volunteers. As we see these divisions between the third party and the government, this is really a resolution -- and probably the member from Northumberland agrees with me -- that's meant to bring people together. It isn't about silly partisan politics which demean us all, especially in private members' hour.

I want to tell you that a place like the district of Manitoulin, basically an island -- we have a little bit of territory on the mainland but mostly it's an island -- 110 miles long, 50 miles wide, has a population of about 12,000 or 13,000. The largest community would probably be Wikwemikong First Nation, which has maybe 2,000 or 2,500 people in the actual village. The next one is Little Current, with about 1,400 people. These are very small communities, at least by Metropolitan Toronto standards. I defy you to go to those communities and tell them that volunteerism is not important.

They have built the curling rinks, they have built the arenas, they look after the hockey teams, they look after the figure skaters, they look after raising money for the hospitals, they do the Meals on Wheels. Those volunteers -- and I don't think we're unlike anybody else -- really provide a service. In Espanola -- the Lions Club, the Eagles, the Elks and many more -- it's incredible the work and support they provide to the community.

I don't think that we do ourselves a service if we want to pit government against volunteers, the legal community against volunteers. At the very same time we have to understand that some of the things that happen at volunteer events -- just because they're sponsored by a volunteer doesn't mean there can't be something bad happen. We all, at least the more northerly members of this Legislature, know about snowmobiles and snowmobile races and those kinds of events, and there can be very serious things happen.

People can be injured, and certainly no volunteer organization wants to see someone injured or hurt and not be compensated in some way for what might perhaps happen because of the volunteer's negligence, because once in a while even a volunteer can do something that's negligent.

All I'm saying and suggesting to you today is that I think the member for Northumberland has it right. We have to provide more support to our volunteers in terms of trying to eliminate any legal liabilities that aren't appropriate, but we're going to have to think very hard about how we get those kinds of liability factors taken care of and at the same time protect both the public and the participants in the event from serious harm and injury.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to participate.

Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York): It is a pleasure to rise in support of the resolution of my colleague the member for Northumberland, which directs government to recognize the important role of volunteers and to protect volunteers from exposure to liability and remove the barriers to voluntary service. I want to thank the member for Northumberland for bringing this important resolution to our attention and I want to assure him that he has my support.

In the 1995 throne speech the Premier appointed me as his parliamentary assistant to lead a government initiative aimed at promoting, encouraging, supporting and nurturing the spirit of volunteerism in Ontario. In looking at that initiative and the kinds of objectives we have in this, it's really important to look at a number of issues that have been raised this morning through the resolution and the discussions that have followed.

First of all, we recognize that volunteers play a critical role in supporting and developing the quality of life we all value in this province. I particularly was taken by the member for Ottawa East and the comments he made, because they truly express what many of us have found in our own communities, that the quality of lifestyle we value is provided largely by volunteers. Voluntary action and volunteerism are rooted in our concept of citizenship and social responsibility. It is part of our cultural heritage and it is part of the democratic tradition to take a role in civic society.

In the initiative we look at a number of objectives, and one of the first things that came to my attention was the fact that there are barriers which inhibit decisions to assume volunteer roles, and it is to that object in the consultation process that I will speak in a moment.

One of the things that we are looking at is to create a sector for Ontarians that is safe, accessible and recognized; to provide leadership and work together with volunteers, the voluntary sector and the private sector to enhance partnerships and coordination; and finally, to provide the framework for opportunity which makes it easier for volunteers to be involved at the community level.

As a result of the recognition of these objectives, I established an advisory board to bring recommendations forward to the government and began a consultation process with volunteers across the province. We began in July with a one-day key informants' conference where we asked them to identify the challenges and the barriers to voluntary action. In September, we invited another group, 50 people, to participate in a three-day search conference. Their task was to create a vision of a desired future for voluntary action in this province.

Finally, we took those recommendations across the province, to 10 different communities, to get input and response to these recommendations from them. I await the final report of the advisory board this month.

I would just like to comment on a couple of the things that very clearly come from our consultation. It becomes very clear that it's important to promote voluntary action as the hallmark of civil society. It's also very important to provide opportunities to work together in partnerships. This is something that we see over and over again in all of our communities where people are working together. Some of the members have raised examples in their own communities.

Yesterday I had the opportunity to join with the celebration of the creation of the Web site page for the Kids Help Phone and Bell On-line. Here is an outstanding example of the kind of cooperation between a private sector venture and a community venture.

We also are looking at how we can sustain and shape the capacity of the voluntary sector. People want to make their communities a better place to live, and it is incumbent upon the government to help that. In that way we look at a number of government initiatives. The member for Dufferin-Peel referred to the Ministry of the Attorney General's Bill 79. We also have a number of other examples, such as the linkages program through the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation.

The government continues to support hundreds of volunteers throughout the province through its ministries, and so I'm pleased to be able to stand in support of this resolution.

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I'm pleased to have the opportunity to speak in support of this resolution today. I want to say at the outset that I appreciate the comments from the other speakers, including the member for Sault Ste Marie, who is always sincere in his comments, but I want to reassure the member for Sault Ste Marie that this resolution has nothing to do with the Premier's office, has nothing to do with the government generally. It has to do with the efforts of the member for Northumberland, who is far too modest to mention that he has put in 31 years as a member of a service organization. He's been a leader, on a volunteer basis, in the community he comes from.

My own experiences with this issue are as a small-town lawyer. I have had people come to my office who are thinking of starting community organizations and are very concerned about the issue of liability. In preparing for today I did some research on the American experience with respect to legislation. I was assisted in this regard by the Legislative research service, which provided me with a very good paper.

In my research I discovered that many of the statutes that have been brought in in American jurisdictions resulted from a case where a baseball coach was successfully sued by a parent when one of the children on a baseball team was hit in the eye while playing in the outfield. It's kind of a strange case because I don't understand why liability would be found in that situation, but none the less it was. That has prompted a lot of organizations in the American states to approach their legislatures and ask for liability coverage, for some protection from liability.

As the member for Dufferin-Peel suggested in his talk, there seems to be a growing concern with litigation and with liability in Canada and in Ontario. I remember once, as a young lawyer, going to a seminar where a law professor from New York, who was also a leading litigation attorney in New York City, mentioned that one of the biggest drawbacks to attract investment in the business community, especially in the eastern states in the United States, was the prospect of litigation. If you are sued in the US, you are a loser immediately because of the tremendous costs of trying to defend such a suit.

These are the kinds of concerns that volunteers have in Ontario and these are the kinds of concerns that we should be addressing as a government.

Some people would say that we as a government should keep our nose out of this, that we should let people have complete freedom to litigate, complete freedom to sue. I'm not sure that that preserves the kind of freedom that volunteers need to have in order to step up and volunteer and help to make our communities better places to live in.

I'd like to turn over the last minute and a half of my time to my colleague, who has some comments as well.

Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand): On a personal note, I raise Peruvian paso horses. Because of their attitude and because of their gait they are particularly adaptable to use by people who are mentally or physically challenged. My ranch is wide open for any of these organizations to use at any time, except my liability policy specifically excludes use of my horses by mentally or physically challenged people. There are organizations in my area that cannot take advantage of the opportunity because of the situation with liability insurance. This particular bill will change that, and I'm behind it 100%.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Further debate? The member for Northumberland has two minutes.

Mr Galt: Thanks to the many members in this House who are supporting this resolution. I would first like to explain to the member for Algoma-Manitoulin, who has concerns about returning to the 1960s, that wasn't quite my intent. What I was wanting to point out was the new direction we took in the late 1960s where government thought they could run everything. I certainly don't want to return to the 1960s, but I do want to draw the comparison whereby today, as government is required because of the debt load to start backing off on some of the services, volunteers are needed more than ever.

I think the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay expressed it very well with the incident in the US where a child was hit with a baseball and the end result was that the coach was sued when certainly it was no fault of the coach. I'm sure the coach had the best intentions for those children. That's why he or she was there, to look after the children and give them the opportunity to play ball, and the end result was an injury. Following that, this poor coach ended up having to pay dearly for that particular incident, when it was a sport and it was quite accidental.

I'm very pleased with the member for Ottawa East making many references to volunteers and organizations in his riding, and how often the term Lions came up, Lions Clubs International. Having been a member of the organization for some 31 years, my chest came out a little with each mention of it. But at the same time I recognize the tremendous effort put in by all the other service clubs. Certainly they all contribute tremendously to their respective communities.

Voluntary action is a hallmark of a civil society. It is deeply rooted in citizenship and social responsibility and it represents the best our society has to offer. I believe we should protect the interests of those who serve as well as those who receive volunteer services. That is why I'm asking the members of this House to support the resolution I'm putting forward today. We have had big government. We've had big business. Now we need big community. I believe this resolution will take us one step closer to achieving that goal.

FRANCHISES' ARBITRATION ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LES ARBITRAGES VISANT DES FRANCHISES

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): We will deal first with ballot item number 53, standing in the name of Mr Chiarelli. If any members are opposed to taking a vote on this at this time, would they please rise.

Mr Chiarelli has moved second reading of Bill 101.

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

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

There will be a division on this and it will be held after the next order of business.

VOLUNTEERS

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): We'll now deal with ballot item number 54, standing in the name of Mr Galt. If there are any members opposed to taking a vote on this now, would they please rise.

Mr Galt has moved resolution number 33.

Is it the wish of the House that the resolution carry? Carried.

There will be a five-minute bell calling in the members.

The division bells rang from 1202 to 1207.

FRANCHISES' ARBITRATION ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LES ARBITRAGES VISANT DES FRANCHISES

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Mr Chiarelli has moved second reading of Bill 101,

An Act to provide for the Arbitration of certain Disputes relating to Franchises.

All those in favour will please rise and remain standing until named by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Crozier, Bruce

Martin, Tony

Baird, John R.

Galt, Doug

Morin, Gilles E.

Bartolucci, Rick

Grandmaître, Bernard

Murdoch, Bill

Boushy, Dave

Gravelle, Michael

Phillips, Gerry

Boyd, Marion

Guzzo, Garry J.

Ramsay, David

Bradley, James J.

Jordan, W. Leo

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Brown, Michael A.

Kells, Morley

Ruprecht, Tony

Caplan, Elinor

Kennedy, Gerard

Sergio, Mario

Chiarelli, Robert

Kwinter, Monte

Shea, Derwyn

Christopherson, David

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Wildman, Bud

Churley, Marilyn

Lankin, Frances

Colle, Mike

Laughren, Floyd

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed will please rise and remain standing until named by the Clerk.

Nays

Barrett, Toby

Grimmett, Bill

Parker, John L.

Carroll, Jack

Hastings, John

Sheehan, Frank

Doyle, Ed

Hudak, Tim

Smith, Bruce

Fisher, Barbara

Johnson, Ron

Tilson, David

Flaherty, Jim

Leadston, Gary L.

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Ford, Douglas B.

Martiniuk, Gerry

Wood, Bob

Froese, Tom

O'Toole, John

Young, Terence H.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 34, the nays are 21.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Pursuant to standing order number 96(k), the bill is referred to the committee of the whole House.

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): I move that Bill 101 be referred to the standing committee on administration of justice.

The Acting Speaker: Is it agreed? It is not agreed.

All those in favour will please rise. Thank you. A majority being in favour, this bill stands referred to the standing committee on administration of justice.

It being after 12, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1211 to 1331.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TRANSIT SERVICE FOR THE DISABLED

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): One of the most cherished things for senior citizens and the physically challenged in Ontario is mobility. The service currently provided to many people in Metropolitan Toronto by Wheel-Trans is truly invaluable. However, it is becoming increasingly obvious that the government continues to abandon the most needy and vulnerable citizens in our society.

I have another illustration of the fallout from the government's mean-spirited policies: a senior citizen from my riding of Yorkview, Mrs Ellen Bloom, who has undergone double hip replacement surgery and required the services of Wheel-Trans to attend her doctor's appointments and other essential trips. Her claim to Wheel-Trans is supported by her doctor, and yet she has been notified by Wheel-Trans that she does not meet the eligibility requirements for their accessible transit service.

I call upon the Premier and his government to cease this headlong assault on the senior citizens and severely physically challenged. If we are not to provide the most rudimentary services to those in need in this province, then what hope is there for our society?

Premier, I ask that you think again about the policy you are pursuing. They are not just numbers on a page. They are our neighbours, our friends and our families.

BANKRUPTCIES IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Today my statement is on the bankruptcies in Ontario, and especially in northern Ontario. It's directed at the Minister of Northern Development and Mines and Premier Mike Harris.

Yesterday the Premier said, "Consumer confidence in Ontario has risen by 19.3% this year." But Ontario does not stop at the French River. Here are some of the results of the Common Sense Revolution in northern Ontario, and these numbers don't tell lies. In Cochrane, for example, the consumer bankruptcy rate went up 115.38%; in west Sault Ste Marie, 127.7%; in Timmins, 75%; in Kirkland Lake, 93.3%. This is the feedback we're getting from what is happening throughout northern Ontario. I'm wondering, and a lot of people in northern Ontario are wondering, is this what the Common Sense Revolution meant when Mike Harris was out campaigning in 1995 for a majority government here?

We see all kinds of figures: the city of Sudbury, a 49.7% increase. This is in a seven-month period. The area around Sudbury, a 41.72% increase. In the Tri-town area it's going up on a steady basis, 25%. In North Bay -- this is the home of the Premier -- bankruptcies have gone up over 21% in the last seven months. As I said earlier, Timmins has gone up.

If this is what the Common Sense Revolution means to northern Ontario, we don't want it.

SARNIA ECONOMY

Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia): I am happy to update this assembly on some of the progressive changes happening in Sarnia. The riding I'm honoured to represent is well on its way to becoming a major point of attraction for American dollars.

The twinning of the International Blue Water Bridge, just completed, has positioned Sarnia, southwestern Ontario, and Ontario as a whole as a larger welcoming gateway to American visitors by making access quicker and easier.

The International Blue Water Bridge in my riding is already one of the main car and truck passageways to the US and links Highway 402 in my riding to Interstates 69 and 94 in Michigan. By the year 2000, the volume of traffic using the bridge is expected to increase by 50%, amounting to 7.5 million vehicles per year.

Thanks to a healthy economic climate created by this government, existing business can expand to accommodate our American friends and their dollars. For example, this nation's largest Canadian Tire store, occupying 130,000 square feet, opened its doors just as the twinning of the bridge was completed. Canadian Tire is using a unique and aggressive strategy of targeting American cross-border shoppers.

PUBLIC SECTOR LAYOFFS

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): It's very sad, as we move towards Christmas, that the Mike Harris government is certainly the Grinch that stole Christmas. As part of the 720 Ministry of Transportation of Ontario job cuts across the province, 23 more jobs were cut in New Liskeard after a series of cuts this year.

I would just say to this government that however and whenever you're doing your restructuring, much of which we disagree with, basic human resource management would tell you that a couple of weeks before Christmas is not the time to lay off 720 people across this province.

In all our towns, in all our communities that have depended upon government opportunities for employment, much of that in northern Ontario, our towns are being ravished by the Harris government cuts. Their depth and speed are very much hurting our communities. The people, the leaders in our communities, their heads are rolling by what is happening with this juggernaut that's been let loose by the Harris government.

I would ask that the Harris government get some sense and get some real common sense back into their heads and stop these job cuts across this province, and certainly stop the ill-advised timing of them, just before Christmas when families are trying to put some money together to have a bit of holiday time. The present that you give them is: "You're out of work. Go try to find something in Harris Ontario."

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I heard recently that the American consumer advocate Ralph Nader made a statement in Vancouver that Canada's new national coast-to-coast pastime is fixing things that aren't broken.

This reminded me of the Ministry of Education and Training, which has sent out a request for research to Dr Allen Pearson, dean of education at the University of Western Ontario. Dr Pearson is the head of the Ontario Association of Deans of Education, which acts as a funnel for this type of request.

The letter is a request for research; that is, a series of papers that would be reviews of literature on secondary school reform and best practices in other jurisdictions. The purpose of this request is to get information to be used for further discussion and dialogue.

As David Moll, the chair of the Toronto Board of Education, has said, the government has it all backwards. They've already stated the changes they want to make and now it seems they're checking with the academics to see if it makes sense.

This is a complete disaster. The government has alienated everyone in the education community: trustees, educational administrators, teachers, students and parents. The government has made up its mind and now has decided to find out if there are any facts that back up the position it has taken.

HANUKKAH

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): It is my privilege to call to the attention of all members in the House that tonight marks the beginning of the eight-day feast of Hanukkah.

Hanukkah commemorates the historic events during the time of the Maccabees, who were freedom fighters against foreign oppression. Their successful fight won back the city of Jerusalem, where Jewish religious life was restored in accordance with Mosaic law. The ever-burning lamp of the Presence, with only enough oil to last one day, burned steadily for the eight days it took to find more oil. This is the miracle of light that is commemorated during Hanukkah with a nine-candle menorah. On each night of the Hanukkah festival, Jewish families gather together to share togetherness, readings and prayers and to light one of the menorah candles on eight successive nights.

On behalf of the Ontario government, I would like to take this opportunity to wish the Canadian Jewish community of Ontario a very happy Hanukkah celebration. Because this holiday commemorates the priceless gift of freedom given to the Jews by God through his zealous servants the Maccabees, it is a holiday with great relevance for all Canadians who live in a land that is likewise so richly blessed with this gift. Shalom.

INJURED WORKERS

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I have received in my office dozens of calls from injured workers in my riding concerned about the draconian cuts and legislation this government is planning to introduce.

Workers in my riding who are injured, who have gone to work in the morning hoping to come home in one piece, and unfortunately an industrial accident has hindered that, are now facing the attack of this government.

This government believes that injured workers are making too much money. This government believes that, "Injured workers choose to be there, so we're going to punish them." This government believes that you have to cut their benefits by 5%, because this government believes that injured workers want to stay on WCB because they're making too much money.

That is the mentality that is driving these cuts: "We're going to de-index their pensions. Injured workers are too wealthy. The injured worker who is 55 or 60 years old is making too much money and the pension they're receiving as a result of their chronic disability, such as a back injury, an arm injury and many other problems they suffer, is much too generous." That is the mentality of this cutting.

I think it's an absolute disgrace when this government, in order to take care of its corporate friends, decides its going to attack the most vulnerable people in our society. They're going to attack hardworking men and women in this province who as a result of going to work and trying to make a living for their families have suffered an injury. I think this government should be ashamed of itself.

I challenge members of this government to see injured workers in their own ridings. Look them in the eye. Tell them why you're cutting their benefits and tell them why you're taking food away from their tables and their children.

WATER SUPPLY

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): I wanted to make a couple of comments about this government seeming to be hell-bent to privatize one of the most precious resources in this province, namely, our water.

The Minister of Environment, in his typical fashion, tries to be cute by half when he talks about not privatizing as much as simply turning it over to the rightful owners, the municipalities of this province, while he's the one who's mused very publicly about privatizing OCWA, the Ontario Clean Water Agency.

When this has been done elsewhere, it's been a disaster. In the UK they privatized the water supply. Guess what? Rates went up by as much as 62%. The worst polluters of the rivers in the UK now are the privatized water companies. Of course, the salaries of the executives in those water companies went right through the roof.

Here we are in Ontario seemingly determined to go down that same road, which to me makes no sense whatsoever. I know this government has a fetish for privatization, but when it comes to clean water, we have no interest in pursuing that route.

I can say to the Minister of Environment that if he's determined to do this, then he'd better be prepared to take the heat, because people in this province will not tolerate having our water supply turned over to the private sector.

WOMEN IN RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): I rise in the House today to offer my congratulations to a group of people in my riding who are making Ontario a better place. I'm talking about the non-profit organization Women in Rural Economic Development, WRED, which has its head office in Stratford, in Perth county.

WRED is a provincial non-profit organization dedicated to providing rural women with increased participation in rural economic development. This is accomplished through the successful execution of business development training, networking programs and access to capital.

This organization was founded just three years ago and presently has a membership base of over 500 people. Although newly formed, they have already successfully provided business development assistance to over 300 women. As a matter of fact, due to their efforts, there are now over 220 new businesses operating in rural Ontario.

As well, this group is now looking towards developing a rural economic strategy across Canada as well as in Ontario, which will improve the quality of life more in rural areas.

This is an excellent example of how the people of Perth work together to provide within their communities and across the province. It is also evidence that Ontario can be prosperous without government intervention.

Once again, it's my pleasure to stand in the House today and applaud yet another example of how the people of the great riding of Perth are working together to improve Ontario.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

HOSPITAL FINANCING

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): I rise today to demonstrate this government's commitment to quality health care in Ontario. I'm pleased to announce to the members of this House that the provincial government's share of capital financing for hospital restructuring projects approved by the Health Services Restructuring Commission will increase from 50% to the unprecedented level of 70% funding.

We have listened to the people of Ontario, to hospitals and to the Ontario Hospital Association. We recognize the need for special capital help to effectively restructure hospitals. That is why the ministry is changing its spending formula to provide a greater share for restructuring capital projects.

Just yesterday, I was in Thunder Bay to announce the province's commitment of $59.4 million in capital funds to help Thunder Bay and northwestern Ontario improve its local health care system, and I look forward to assisting other communities through the same process.

Let me emphasize that the Mike Harris government is adhering to our campaign commitment that health care funding will not fall below $17.4 billion. Not only have we met our campaign commitment, but we are actually spending $300 million more than that this year. This is no small miracle in light of federal funding cuts of $2.1 billion to Ontario's health and social transfers. The only people cutting health care dollars in Ontario are the federal Liberals, Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin, plain and simple.

The Mike Harris government is not cutting health care dollars. We are changing how health care dollars are spent. We are making these changes now so that the people of Ontario will have a health care system that will meet their needs in the future. We are reinvesting savings in direct patient care and front-line services. Without these changes, our system will not be able to provide the modern, advanced care Ontarians deserve as we move into the 21st century.

We want a truly integrated health care system that delivers the right care, at the right time, in the right place. We are bringing health care to patients in their homes and in their communities. This is the way care should be provided. We are guided in our efforts by our vision of the future of health care in Ontario, putting patients first. Our goal is to provide quality care at an affordable price.

Picture our system as a wheel. On the rim are the major components: hospitals, nurses, physician offices, pharmacies, laboratories, long-term-care providers and mental health agencies. In the centre is the patient, the focus of all our efforts. The spokes? Well, the spokes are information systems. Information systems will coordinate all of the parts.

Last November the Minister of Finance announced that we would commence the shift of dollars from our hospital sector into community-based care. In 1996-97 that shift was $360 million, or 5% of hospital budgets; in the next year, $435 million, or 6%; and $507 million, or 7%, in 1998-99.

I want to emphasize that caring for patients in the community as restructuring occurs is indeed our priority. Earlier this year I announced a reinvestment of $170 million into community-based care services such as home care. This is the largest single reinvestment in health care in Ontario. Communities across the province are already benefitting from this. In addition, this government committed $23.5 million to the community investment fund for mental health services in the community.

The key to achieving the savings in the hospital sector for reinvestment in greater health care services is the largest health services restructuring and re-engineering effort in North America. Through the hard work of Dr Duncan Sinclair and the Health Services Restructuring Commission, we will achieve this change in a way that ensures we never lose sight of the needs of patients.

That is why today's announcement is so important. Communities need to know that the government will be there to support them as they work to improve their local health care systems. Today we are telling the people of the province that we will be there to help and we will continue to reinvest in their good health.

Let me emphasize that this does not mean a return to the emphasis on bricks and mortar of former Liberal and NDP governments. It is yet another commitment on behalf of this government to move towards a fully integrated, easier to use health care system, a system which puts patients first and provides the health care that the people of Ontario deserve and need.

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): Mr Speaker, we have an agreement among all parties to make a statement on tomorrow's national day of remembrance with regard to violence against women. I'm wondering if it's appropriate to do that now or after the responses. I think it would be appropriate after the responses, since we will have a moment of silence.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I rise today to respond to the unbelievably bad statement by this Minister of Health. He stumbled through it because, frankly, in response to direct questions from Robert Fisher during the leaders' debate on whether or not Mike Harris's promise to protect health care meant that he would not close hospitals, Mike Harris answered, "Well, certainly I can guarantee you that it's not my plan to close hospitals."

Today, the minister stands in his place and is telling communities that they are going to have to spend 30% of the capital cost to close their hospitals. That's what this is about.

The second thing that Mike Harris and Jim Wilson do in their response to questions is answer, as the minister did today, by trying to blame the federal government. I want to remind him of two things: First, their Common Sense Revolution document had a big banner across it that said the "Post-Martin Budget" CSR, and they assured everyone that they had taken it all into account and none of their policies were going to be guided by any of the concerns they might or might not have, and in fact Mike Harris said he supported Mr Martin and what he was doing. This is the quote from Mike Harris.

He said, "The restructuring of federal transfer payments does not affect the Harris commitment to protecting Ontario's health care system, which is a top spending priority."

What have we heard from this Premier? What was his commitment?

(1) He had no plan to close hospitals; and (2) he felt that the federal government's transfer plans would not in any way affect what he's doing. What do we hear from the minister today? What we hear from the minister today is gobbledegook. This minister arbitrarily cut all capital funding to 50%. Today he stands in his place and says: "Whoops, we made a mistake. We're going to take it up to 70%."

The only thing that is unprecedented about his 70% announcement is the fact that he shamefully has to admit his error in this House. What is unprecedented is his hospital closing commission with unprecedented powers to go into communities and force them to close their hospitals. About his commitment to an integrated delivery system, everything that he is doing is creating a barrier to getting there. His approach to primary care, his approach to long-term care, his approach to mental health reform, all of those are just creating new silos and making it impossible.

But the thing that is making it most impossible and the thing that is worrying, and rightly worrying, communities and people across this province is his $1.3-billion cut to the hospital budgets of this province. He can stand in his place and day after day say he's not cutting, but the truth is, he is cutting $1.3 billion from the hospital budgets, and that is the infrastructure that people in our communities depend on to take care of them when they are sick and they need surgeries. When they need help, they want their hospitals to be there for them, and this minister stands in his place.

He has cut the capital budget of the Ministry of Health to an unprecedented low; it is an unprecedented $167 million. The question I would ask him as he stands in his place is, how can he possibly --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Stop the clock.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister of Health, come to order, please. Member for St Catharines.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Folks. Member for Oriole.

Mrs Caplan: This minister cannot possibly fund the capital that is required in the $167-million budget allotment for the Ministry of Health. That is an unprecedented low. That is another cut that he has made.

Today's announcement is spin; it is spin from a minister whose reputation as a minister is that of a bully who makes arbitrary decisions, who has not taken the health and the health care needs of the province of Ontario seriously, who has done everything he can to undermine relations with those who make the system work.

This is typical of the former Mulroney staffer that he is. I say to him, you're not going to get away with closing hospitals, and you are not going to get away with cutting $1.3 billion out of their budgets. You are not going to get away with making the people of this province so angry and expect that they will ever support you and your government ever again. You, sir, are a disgrace and a disaster as a Minister of Health.

The Speaker: The member for Windsor-Riverside.

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): We certainly --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Stop the clock.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Okay, and Merry Christmas, one and all. Okay? We're all done. You can seek unanimous consent if you want to continue. If not, you're going to just have to take that one outside. The member for Windsor-Riverside.

Mr Cooke: I think the two of them deserve one another.

On the one issue that the minister has announced today, I certainly, and our caucus, agree with the minister's decision to go to 70%. We only wish he had announced this when the restructuring process began, because so many communities have been so concerned about whether any of the plans make any sense because of the 50% that he had announced before and the impossibility of any community being able to raise that kind of ca