Let me say at the outset that I think this piece of legislation goes along with several others of its kind which do not address the real needs of our economy. It has essentially been introduced to fill up time in this chamber and I will not be supporting it. I don't think it looks at the economy as a whole and how we can better provide, in this chamber, a better economic climate.

This is the same ministry that in the last year has imposed an $11,000 tax on small business. They have rapidly increased the minimum wage so that businesses in my community are speaking out and saying that they may have to lay people off because they will not be able to afford their labour.

Earlier today, this minister announced another piece of legislation to which, in the coming days, this party and I'm sure the New Democrats will provide sober second thought, and of course now, this bill.

We have several concerns. I don't have to tell anyone in this chamber about the sad state of our economy. The situation we are in, yes, has been dealt with by economies worldwide, including in other parts of this country. But that does not mean that the McGuinty Liberals can just abdicate their authority in this chamber by producing one-off bills that in the larger economic landscape do nothing for the taxpayers, the residents and the workers of this province.

We have a number of concerns, in the official opposition, with this legislation, including the cost to Ontario businesses and the subsequent job losses that this piece of legislation could cause. As you know, in the month of January alone, the people of this province grappled with the fact that 71,000 of our friends, family and neighbours lost their jobs. They lost their entire income. These are people, we must remember, who are paying mortgages; they are trying to put food on the table for their children; they are trying to put other kids through university. This is a real challenge, and the bill in its current form can actually do the opposite of its original intent. It could scare businesses away from hiring temporary employees because it may make it more expensive to do so. We can't have these agencies fold when so many Ontarians are relying on a second chance. As I mentioned, the McGuinty Liberals have already dealt a few serious blows to small businesses through the Ministry of Labour in the last year.

1420

I like to join the debate when I know that legislation will directly impact my residents. I like to bring their views to the floor, as I'm sure all of my colleagues like to do as well. I received a letter from Comfort Keepers: Comforting Solutions for In-Home Care, in my constituency in Nepean-Carleton. My constituents write me a letter: "I am writing to implore you to oppose Bill 139, `An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act, 2000 in relation to temporary help agencies and certain other matters' which is currently before" the Ontario provincial Parliament.

The letter goes on to say: "We believe that the proposed amendments are based on the experiences made with a number of unscrupulous temporary employment agencies which have made a living by taking advantage of their untrained, unsupervised workers (and to some degree their clients). By contrast, our company's philosophy is to conduct ourselves in an ethical and professional manner and, more importantly, give our staff the kind of flexible work they are seeking, be that daytime, evening, or holidays: in other words, schedules which meet their needs while, at the same time, meeting the needs of our clients/patients.

"The following are important considerations," Comfort Keepers goes on to say:

"1. These changes will add further costs and burden to small businesses such as ours, which ultimately will need to be reflected in the pricing to our clients who are seniors, often on fixed incomes, and who may well no longer be able to afford our services.

"2. We are serving an important segment of our society: seniors who would prefer to age at home and who have found reliable, trustworthy and cost-effective ways of getting" the help they need.

"3. If seniors migrate toward public alternatives, this will put tremendous pressure on the government's ability to provide home care and accept residents to long-term-care facilities...."

I'm just going to deviate from this particular bill for one minute to make my point. In the city of Ottawa-and I've got a few colleagues here from Ottawa-we know that we have significant pressures on our long-term-care facilities as well as our hospitals. It's not a secret; it's been mentioned several times in the newspaper and I'm sure, as many of my colleagues who have talked to our CEOs and the presidents of our hospitals know, it's a real challenge. What we need in the city of Ottawa and we need probably right across the province is an integrated approach which not only builds more capacity in our long-term-care facilities but also helps seniors live independently longer.

When you read this letter from Comfort Keepers, they're talking about how they are able to work through the current system that we have and are keeping more seniors at home rather than in nursing homes and helping us with our long-term-care deficit; it's really important that we take into consideration the views that I've just put on the table from Comfort Keepers. I implore the minister, who I'm pleased to see here in this debate, to take these concerns into consideration as this bill goes to committee.

One of the things that has disappointed me is that through this debate the Liberals haven't been participating. They've skipped their rotation, not only in debate when the NDP or the Conservatives were using their allotted time, but then they also skipped their rotation when it was their turn to debate. I can't imagine that I am the only member of this Legislature or that Conservatives and New Democrats are the only members and caucuses in this Legislature who are getting feedback from this legislation. There are some real concerns here.

I'd like to move on. Another group approached our caucus with some of their concerns with this legislation. I'm happy that the minister is here to listen to this, because there is a real concern with the removal of the "elect to work status" and how it will affect notice of termination.

The constituent writes, "This cost burden will make it impossible for clients to continue to use agencies which they have come to depend on to remain competitive in a global economy. The use of temporary workers helps them manage peak periods and fluctuations."

Granted, all of those stakeholders who oppose this bill know the bill is going forward. They know, in essence, that they've lost the game. But I think what we're trying to do in this chamber, and what I hope the minister will take away from this, is express the concerns that these stakeholders have and maybe find a way we can improve the legislation so that there will not be a negative economic impact on small and medium-sized businesses across the province of Ontario.

I remind the chamber that this is a period of time that we have not seen in many years. We are in a serious recession. People are losing their jobs daily in this province. We must not put more obstacles in the way of those who are employing Ontario's workers.

This constituent goes on to say: "This will remove the flexibility that many organizations have come to require in this global economy with goods arriving from various ports. Many of these organizations will leave this province if that flexibility is lost and move to a more business-friendly environment. With what is occurring in the US they will continue to receive an even greater incentive to do so.

"Numerous large organizations have temporary workers as part of their business plan, including many with unionized environments.

"Those organizations that do not move will ultimately be forced to consistently turn over its workforce in an effort to minimize such impact. This will force all parties to immediately turn over the staff prior to three months of employment to avoid the issue altogether."

I think the minister would have to agree that that is a serious concern.

We are also told, "How can such a policy truly benefit a worker that is trying to develop the skills to gain better full-time employment, when they are displaced every 10 weeks?"

Let's go back to the example of those offering home health care. As we know, seniors who are aging would prefer to have someone they are familiar with, comfortable with and who they trust looking after them. I don't think there is any benefit in seeing a 10-week turnover in that type of environment, where in some cases end-of-life care is what these temporary workers are giving.

There's also a concern that many of these workers are new Canadians with good work ethic and skills but lacking the communication skills clients would require for them to obtain full-time employment. Working temporary assignments as a starting point provides them with an opportunity to contribute, pay taxes and feel proud of themselves.

1430

This comes from one of my colleague Peter Shurman's constituents-it's a direct quote-who actually owns a temporary agency. He lists several more points, including statutory holiday pay becoming mandatory effective June 2, 2009:

"Our agency has paid statutory holiday pay to a percentage of our workforce based on attendance, longevity, etc. so we will be able to digest such a notion. However, the cumulative effect of this with the other proposed changes will be economically devastating to our industry and to our clients."

The Association of Canadian Search, Employment and Staffing Services, ACSESS, executive summary says, "There are three technical shortcomings within the bill which require improvement; otherwise, these areas will cause an overall failure to achieve the stated objectives. These shortcomings unintentionally create an overly complex set of rules that are administratively unmanageable for any employer and may be impossible to monitor and enforce. These shortcomings will also unintentionally cost thousands of jobs and cause significant hardship for the people the bill was specifically designed to protect." Again: "These shortcomings will also unintentionally cost thousands of jobs and cause significant hardship for the people the bill was specifically designed to protect." That is such an important and relevant point to make when debating Bill 139, the Employment Standards Amendment Act (Temporary Help Agencies).

The minister ought to be concerned about that. I don't have to remind him that in the last year, the province of Ontario has seen hundreds of thousands of jobs disappear. We've seen our economic growth in this country go from first to worst. We've actually become a have-not province, though we were once the economic engine of Canada, and we've seen a limited but patchwork response from this government in actually dealing with some of the greatest challenges our economy has faced. We deserve better as a province.

This bill needs to go to committee. It needs to see some of the necessary amendments passed. I would urge the members opposite in the government to understand that to fix the state of our economy requires more than just one-off pieces of legislation, whether it's the minimum wage, whether it's the Green Energy Act, whether it is this piece of legislation or it's the WSIB legislation. The fact remains: Our economy is at its weakest. We need real help for the real people who are suffering.

That's why I will not support this bill: because I do not believe it addresses the challenges which we are facing right across Ontario and which deserve and require serious debate in this Legislature. It requires a budget to be tabled almost immediately, and we've only seen delay and dithering on that front.

Madam Speaker, again I would like to thank you for the opportunity to debate. I do hope that this debate will continue and that we will see members of the government actually participate.