The House met at 1002.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

NORTHERN ONTARIO SENATE REPRESENTATION ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR LA REPRÉSENTATION DU NORD DE L'ONTARIO AU SÉNAT

Mr Ramsay moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 84, An Act to provide for the Representation of Northern Ontario in the Senate of Canada / Loi prévoyant la représentation du Nord de l'Ontario au Sénat du Canada

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I'm very pleased to be able to rise today, to finally have my turn come up after seven years in the Ontario Legislature, to have the opportunity on our Thursday mornings to present a private piece of legislation, as we do.

As you know, my bill is about allowing northern Ontarians to choose their own Senate representation. Of course, this was given great debate as Canadians across the country, coast to coast, were discussing how we were to change our Constitution. As people will remember now -- it seems fleeting after the referendum of last week -- we in the country and the politicians felt that we needed a new Senate and that we needed to reform how the Senate was chosen. This movement really started in Alberta.

People have asked me today, now that the referendum has said No to the full constitutional package, why would I continue to pursue the idea that northern Ontarians be allowed to select their own senators in a new Senate? We're certainly going to talk more about this later on, but I just want to state right now that it is very important that northern Ontarians have the ability to choose their senators. I want to put that on the record and allow other northerners to put that on the record, so that when we do revisit the issue of Senate reform, which I'm sure we are going to do in this country in the next few years, it will be on the record that the people of northern Ontario have spoken and would like to be allowed to choose their own Senate representatives.

I would like to dedicate this bill this morning to a senator from northern Ontario who passed away on Tuesday. He was Senator Rhéal Bélisle, who had served in the Senate of Canada. He died at the age of 73 after a lengthy illness. That leaves from northern Ontario, if you count Mr Kelleher, one senator out of 24 today. I think it reinforces the point of how important it is that we get on with the work of reforming the Senate of Canada and that the regions of Ontario have the ability to choose their own senators.

I think it is important that when the discussions came that we would have an elected Senate from the different provinces across the country, it became very apparent that if we in the north were to participate in an election at large -- that is, to elect six senators, as was proposed, throughout all of Ontario -- it would become very difficult for northern Ontario to elect a representative of its own.

I believe it would have been difficult for many reasons. As you know, in northern Ontario we are 10% of the population, yet we represent 90% of the land base of this great province. It's very difficult for us to travel in the north. It's very difficult for us to garner the resources to mount a province-wide campaign. I am sure, and I am sure all northerners would agree, that it would have been very difficult for the north to elect one of its own in a province-wide election. Therefore, I felt it was important to make the point now, so that when we do enter discussions later on in regard to Senate reform, northerners would have put on the record that whatever reform package eventually comes forward, we would like to have the opportunity to elect our own.

For that reason I kept the premise of this bill very simple, because a lot of people have many ideas about Senate reform and I certainly don't want to conflict with those. I am here today to make one point and one point only, that whatever number of senators may be decided upon in future senatorial reform, the north have that opportunity to elect its own.

I have to tell you, as people in the north certainly realize, that this is not an idea that has originated with me. This idea came from the city of Timmins and the Save Our North committee. Steve Perry, with whom I met last night, actually, on other matters in regard to the mining industry, heads a very active group of northerners throughout all northern Ontario in regard to economic development and political representation in the north. It was the Save Our North campaign, once hearing, as I did, the suggestions in the Charlottetown accord, that felt that northern Ontarians should be able to elect their own senators. In their particular proposal they had decided that they would like to have three out of the six.

In my discussions with people across the north and across the rest of northern Ontario, it seemed to me that the perception outside of northern Ontario was that maybe it was just a tad too greedy on behalf of us to say that we would like 50% of the representation, when quite frankly, as I've said, we represent only 10% of the people here in Ontario. I went back to Save Our North and said, "I would really like to support the principle of your bill, but I would like to change it to two out of the six senators proposed." They certainly agreed it would be a good idea to bring that forward if it was more acceptable. I believe it is more acceptable, because this now leaves room for other regions of Ontario to share in the six or how many senators are eventually decided upon.

And I think that's right, because what I'm talking about today is not just for northern Ontario; I'm trying to make the point that the regions of Ontario should be able to elect their own representatives in the Senate of Canada. That's the basis of what the triple E principles are all about. It's about regional representation. It's not about representation by population, which we try to assume here in this House and our House in Ottawa. We try to do that, but the Senate is very different. The Senate is that chamber of sober second thought, as they say, and the idea of a new reformed Senate is to give the Senate some authority, some teeth, if you will, especially in regard to resource matters.

That's why I'm here today and why groups from northern Ontario are supporting my private member's resolution, because we are, as you know, primarily a resource-dependent region of Ontario. We from the north must have a say on resource taxation, as has been proposed for a new, more effective Senate. That's why it's very important that we're going to be able to choose our own.

In notifying the many municipalities across northern Ontario, I have been able to get tremendous support from municipalities right across northeastern and northwestern Ontario. I'm very pleased for that support, and, as I have requested, many of those towns have contacted their local MPPs to ask them to support this bill. I'd like to read an excerpt from one of those letters, from the township of Emo, a tremendous farm area that is very much like my own in Timiskaming, except this is in the great riding of Rainy River. They say in their second paragraph:

"We realize that with the No vote, Senate reform is probably on the back burner until a new constitutional endeavour. We think it is very important for various regions in Ontario to go on the record concerning any possible future makeup in the Senate. In this manner, any future provincial negotiating team will know in advance that regional and gender representation will be a requirement."

1010

I think that's very important, because what happened, I think, with the Charlottetown accord is that our politicians nationally got out there maybe a little too far in front of the people of this country in making their deliberations. I know it's very difficult when you get into that negotiating situation, that the pressures are on you and you start to make your deals and make those compromises. I think, by stating on the record today what especially the people from northern Ontario would like to see from a Senate, that this would give our future negotiators much more certainty in entering those new negotiations.

Again, that is why I will continue today with this and hope to garner the support of many members in the House, because I think it's an important issue. I'd like to thank those municipalities that have responded and are responding at this moment to this bill.

This is, I guess, just one of many battles that we who are elected from northern Ontario, from all political parties, always have to face. There are 16 of us in this House representing, as I've said, 90% of the land base of Ontario, albeit 10% of the people, and it's very difficult for us, from all parties, to make the point down here with a bureaucracy that is primarily centred in Toronto, of the importance of northern Ontario and what our needs and desires are. This is just one more tool, and I would like to be able to say, when I have completed my career, that I have been able to work towards putting institutions in place, making some fundamental changes, to make it easier for the people who came after me to make that representation to Toronto for northern Ontario.

One of those, I believe, that our government started and that the new government is continuing, is the transfer of public service jobs into northern Ontario. I certainly salute the new government for continuing that endeavour our government had started. This was an idea that René Fontaine and many of us in the Liberal government had felt was good, and we've been able to convince the new government to continue that. That is going to make our jobs easier in the future too, because we will now be coming in contact with civil servants who have lived in the north, who understand the problems of northern Ontario and have that experience.

Mr Speaker, I'm going to surrender the floor right now and will be back to sum up at the end of the debate.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): While I respect and sympathize with the member's intentions on behalf of his constituents in northern Ontario, and while I support the principle of wanting regional representation of the north in a new Senate, I must state that I have some serious difficulties with Bill 84.

It was my intention last night, as I reflected on speaking to this bill, to speak specifically to the provisions of Bill 84, but I decided differently. The problem is this: The member opposite introduced Bill 84 in the context of a specific constitutional proposal, the Charlottetown accord, which for all intents and purposes is no longer a living document. Therefore, the fundamental flaw in the member's bill is that it's no longer relevant.

In my view, it would be unwise for this House to pass a bill respecting provisions for Senate representation without knowing what kind of Senate model we are talking about. The set of constitutional proposals to which it is tied and upon which it relies for its rationale is no longer the basis for discussion.

For this reason I must speak against Bill 84 as it is presented at this time. While I can understand the member's intent in seeking a form of regional balance of Senate seats within Ontario, I want to be the first to acknowledge that the train has left the station. Constitutional reform is no longer on the agenda at the moment, and I believe there is broad consensus that this matter should not be reopened for at least the foreseeable future.

This House has other business to conduct at this time, and I recommend that we get on with it and defer this discussion until there is consensus to reopen this issue.

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I'm pleased to participate in the debate today, particularly because of the strong efforts of the member for Timiskaming on behalf of northerners.

Having listened to the member opposite, just briefly, I guess I understand: The train has left the station but the train will come back to the station some day. It is important for us to understand that under the referendum proposal, the Senate of Canada was to have had special powers with regard to resource issues. I and northern members are particularly concerned about resource issues because our economy is strongly based on resource issues.

It seemed to me that when Save Our North came up with the idea of having three senators from Ontario to deal with those specific resource issues on behalf of the communities in Ontario that are most affected by resource issues, the member's proposal made ultimate sense, and whether it's two, three, four or a percentage of a third of whatever Senate may appear, it seems to me that in the Parliament of Canada there needs to be strong representation from the northern part of our province.

Northerners do exist on 90% of this land base. We are, I think, only 9% of the population now. Most of that population is concentrated in the five major centres of northern Ontario. It leaves about 2% of the people of northern Ontario out across the rural north. These people need representation.

We have seen many federal initiatives that have not been, in our view, in the interests of northern Ontario. We have seen the cancellation of flow-through shares, for example, in the mining sector. We have not seen the replacement of that initiative with something that would help a very ailing industry. We have seen, over time, a problem with the forestry industry, where I'm sure that if the federal government was getting more representation in the Senate from resource-based economies like Ontario's north, we would have more voice in pushing that agenda along.

I believe the member has provided a useful function. I believe that it's important to Ontarians, and especially northern Ontarians, to be able to get their views across to the federal politicians. I say that also with regard to the provincial politicians. As the member for Timiskaming pointed out, there are but 16 of us, from all parties, in this House of 130 members. I think we do, from all parties, a good job of raising the issues. We win some and happen to lose our share also, but I think that, at least in terms of our voices, we are relatively well heard, but I'm not so sure sometimes how much we really affect public policy, just because of the sheer numbers.

Members will recognize, especially northern members, that there have been movements afoot over the years to create a province of northern Ontario. While I'm not an advocate of that, I can understand, when I'm out talking to my constituents, that there are some real issues that real people see quite differently from the view from Elliot Lake or Espanola or Mindemoya than they see from Toronto or Sarnia or Windsor. Their view of the world is different. Our economy is basically different, and while we are attempting to diversify that economy -- I think the former government took some great steps in that direction -- I know that northern Ontario people feel they are not getting their message through as loudly and as clearly as they should be.

This small step of suggesting that in what was to be a Senate with a resource-based prerogative, northern Ontario, the resource-based communities, should have a say, I think is what the member for Timiskaming was trying to talk about.

1020

In one of my communities, Elliot Lake, for example, we have had terrible difficulties over the last couple of years. Our mines have shut down. This government has laid off 1,600 workers directly. The federal government, to its credit, has supplied a vast amount of training dollars, as it should under the Constitution and under constitutional arrangements. But just this week, we have learned that the federal government has withdrawn funding for 30 workers who were to be retrained, who were back at school, who were hoping to get on with their lives. The federal government, through Employment and Immigration policy, because it has not had enough money, has cancelled a program.

I do not know what those workers are to do. I know that in the House of Commons our members will be speaking to the government about this, but I think in particular that having a stronger voice in the Senate, while it may not alleviate the problem, will certainly add weight to what northern MPs are saying to Brian Mulroney these days.

I know the member has support across the north for his initiative. I know in my communities I have been talking to the mayor of Espanola, to people from Spanish -- that's officially the township of Shedden -- who are telling me that this is a good idea and that we should be doing this. While I guess the question is at the moment moot, I think the philosophy that underlies what the member has done here is basically sound and should be supported by all members. We should not use the excuse, "Well, the train has left the station." Let's vote on the issue. What we're really voting for is for people in the resource area of this province to have a voice in the resource decisions that affect this province.

I thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity today to participate in this debate and I look forward to interventions by other members.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I'd like to start off by saying that in regard to the proposal here before us in Bill 84 put forward by Mr Ramsay from Timiskaming, I think there isn't really any problem in supporting the idea in principle of having representation from northern Ontario in a Senate.

But I'd just like to say a couple of things. First of all, there is a difficulty; that is, on October 26, the people of northern Ontario, like most other people across this nation, voted No to the constitutional accord that was agreed to in Charlottetown, which leaves us with a little bit of a dilemma. I just want to go through this somewhat.

If we take a look at the results that came in on the referendum during the night of October 26 and we look at northern Ontario, there was a higher than normal percentage of people voting No in northern Ontario than in most other regions of the province of Ontario itself. I think we should listen a little bit to what the people in the north were telling us.

One of the things that I think all of us, if we would admit it, heard very strongly when we went around talking to our constituents in the north was that most people in the north support the abolition of the Senate. I think it's fairly safe to say a lot of people in the north, probably like other regions in the country, feel that the Senate in itself, the way it is now, serves no useful purpose and were somewhat hesitant to make the leap of faith of going to an elected Senate that effectively would become an effective Senate when the 1995 or 1996 election would happen when we would elect them.

I think we need to listen to what people are saying. One of the difficulties I have is that even though I'll support this motion, because I agree with the concept, I think we need to listen to what people in the north were saying and I just want to bring that point out.

I'd like to touch on one of the points Mr Ramsay raised at the very beginning, that this is an initiative, yes, that came from the people of Save Our North, and I'd like to use the name of Mr Steve Perry, who is really probably the leader on this issue, who contacted probably most northern members. I know he contacted me and obviously Mr Ramsay in order to talk about this issue. I think it's important that the House understand and that the people out there understand why Save Our North and people within the mining industry and forestry industry think it's important to have this kind of concept.

If we take a look at the powers the new Senate was going to be given, if it would have passed on October 26, the Senate would have really had a lot of power when it came to resource decisions. Since northern Ontario is a resource-based economy, where mining and forestry is the mainstay of its economy, it was felt that it was very important that we have good representation from Ontario out of the six senators who would have been underneath that accord, to be able to speak on resource-based issues.

In effect those six senators from Ontario, like six senators from any other province, would have had an effective voice when it came to the federal government deciding policy on questions of resource. As such, the idea of Save Our North was that, senators, obviously out of the six who were elected, we should make sure that we had senators from northern Ontario who understood the resource sector, not just understanding it from a reading perspective and taking a look at the Globe and Mail and the Toronto Sun -- God forbid, not the Toronto Sun -- and the Toronto Star, but people who actually lived in northern Ontario who understood what the mining industry and the forestry industry really are all about, who understand not only the bottom line but the human equations of those industries and how important they are to our community in northern Ontario.

Because of that, I think we don't have any problem supporting that particular motion, but there are couple of other things that have to be said.

As was mentioned by colleague Mr Marchese, one of the difficulties of this debate -- I understand why Mr Ramsay is putting it forward. I imagine that he wanted this to come out before the referendum. That was probably what the intention was and that's why this particular bill came forward at this time. It was just a question of timing within the House.

But again, I just have to point out that at this point God knows what's going to happen. What's going to happen in the next round of negotiations? Will there be negotiations when it comes to a renewal of Canada? I certainly hope so.

On the question of the Senate, what's going to happen? Are we going to end up in a situation where the majority of Canadians are going to take the view that we should abolish the Senate? Who knows? I just want to point out that it's a little bit premature to be talking about representation, but I do think it's important that if ever we get to the area of having elected senators that we have fair representation from northern Ontario.

Some of my colleagues within the New Democratic caucus -- it's interesting -- had a bit of a discussion when we talked about this, exactly about where the boundaries of northern Ontario should be, because there are also other regions within the province that feel somewhat alienated when it comes to the question of how they're viewed by Queen's Park.

It's not the fault of this government or the past government or the government before that; it's just the reality of the geography of Ontario. People who live in rural Ontario, either in southwestern, southeastern or central Ontario, have probably some of the same concerns as we do in northern Ontario when it comes to access to important services such as health care, when it comes to access to government generally. In some ways we probably do better in northern Ontario, because of something that was introduced under the Conservative government and followed through by the Liberals and ours, which is the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines. That particular ministry gives a voice to northern Ontario that probably most other regions within the province don't have.

One of the things that would be interesting -- and I will stick my neck out a little bit -- is maybe what should be happening is having some sort of a similar model for some of those other regions within the province to have a voice and be able to bring forward their issues, because the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines really is sort of like the catalyst. It's like the one-window approach to government services in northern Ontario where a municipality or individual says: "I'm having difficulty with my business. I want to be able to approach the government for assistance." If it's a municipality having to do with fixing roads or it's a question of health care or it's a question of social services, the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines sort of acts as that one-window approach.

I think we should be fairly proud and fairly happy that we have such a service in northern Ontario, a ministry that is viewed probably as one of the better ministries in the north, mainly because of the functions it runs, and also, I think, because of the size of the ministry. It's not so big that it's become bureaucratic. It's very much a hands-on, grass-roots type of ministry.

The other thing I want to get back to very quickly is the question of the importance of the resource sector. I think all of us here from the north, on all sides of the House, and I would invite Mr Eves who is here from the Conservative caucus to maybe concur with me on this, agree that there is a great deal of underestimation on the part of some people in this province when it comes to the importance of resources in our province. It's not because of anything malicious; it's just because most people really haven't had the chance to sit down and think about it.

If you're living in London, Sarnia, Windsor, Ottawa or wherever it might be, not many people think of the important role the forestry and mining industries play in our daily lives and their importance to the economy of this province. As such, what ends up happening at times is that those particular industries, especially because of the hard economic times we're going through right now, when they try to bring forward some of their concerns about where they're at as industries, they sometimes feel a little alienated and sort of left aside. I think it's something we as members really have to start talking about within our constituencies, not only in northern Ontario but also outside of the north: the importance those industries have.

1030

The communities I represent -- Timmins, Iroquois Falls and Matheson -- are all touched very, very closely to what these industries mean. Mining is a daily part of our lives in northern Ontario. I've worked in the mines; most of my friends either work in the mining industry or the forestry industry. They really are highly technologically advanced industries. Mining is probably one of the the most technologically advanced industries within the province. If you take a look at the developments that have happened around instrumentation, around some of the technologies we use in mining, they are very much advanced of other industries. Yet some people look at mining as a labour-intensive industry that has no technology within it. I say that just in passing, because we need to understand that mining requires high technical skill. One of the difficulties we have, obviously, is that we have to be able to communicate to people the importance of the industry, but also what the industry actually is.

The industry itself has been going through -- I would say it started probably about 1982-83, from what I recall, working within the industry -- a really tough time, especially the mining industry.

First of all, we've seen the depleting of prices of metals on the foreign markets because of what happened with the bringing on line of new mining properties in different places across the world. We've seen the prices of copper, gold, zinc and other metals drop in price, which means that obviously the costs of operating these mines have become a lot more marginal when it comes to making a profit.

The other thing that's obviously happened as well is that there have been many changes in what's happened within the industry itself over the years. A lot of the reserves we've had in the past, because there hasn't been the money to spend on the exploration end of it, are fast depleting. We need to send a message out there to build the confidence within the industry in order to make sure we invest in bringing on line new developments in exploration, so we can replace some of those reserves that have been depleting in the mining industry up north.

To that end, the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, in partnership with groups such as Save Our North and others that speak to this proposal, has been working to address some of the concerns to try to change the really systemic problems we have within the industry itself.

The Save Our North committee brought forward five particular points to the government that need to be addressed to try to fix some of the systemic problems we have in the mining industry. One of them was the question of permitting. In the past, when you were looking at getting permitting on mine lands, you had to approach three various ministries in order to get the permit to do that work. They asked us to bring forward a one-window approach, and last spring we signed agreements with the Ministry of the Environment, the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of Labour in order to bring that to a one-window approach through the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines.

One of the other things they had talked about was the question of incentives. We just recently, in September, released a document called New Directions in Minerals Incentives for Ontario, to be able to bring forward a good discussion within the industry about how best to tailor-make incentives for the mining industry so that they're the most effective possible.

On that note, we've had really good response from the mining industry; it's been a very constructive dialogue. Some really exciting times, I think, are coming in the future in regard to that whole initiative. I just want to say that, because this government really believes it's important that we support the mining industry and forestry industry for people in northern Ontario.

I speak of this for the simple reason that I think people need to recognize where this particular motion comes from. It comes from the sense of alienation of the people of northern Ontario because of the way they've been viewed from Queen's Park. Some of that is real and some of it isn't, but there's obviously a message coming through this motion, and I think most people in the north would agree.

So I ask members in the House to think on that a little bit, even though they may have some difficulty with regard to the timeliness of this motion; that's understandable. Obviously the decision of October 26 in regard to the referendum debate really decided the question of what happens with this bill, and it's not the vote in this House that will really make the difference. But I ask people to at least support the bill on its principle, because the principle is something that I think is acceptable to most people, and it's very important, especially if the Senate ends up being the body which will have the power to make decisions around resource-based industries for the province. With that aim, I will support this motion.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): It's my pleasure to take part in this debate in the chamber this morning. I would first like to say that I have some difficulty with respect to the proposed bill from two different aspects.

The first aspect I have difficulty with is that it does not include the federal riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka. That perhaps is a problem that this party here has had, the provincial Liberal Party, consistently failing to recognize Parry Sound as being part of northern Ontario, and it's done it again here in this proposed private member's bill.

The members may be interested to know that Parry Sound-Muskoka is indeed considered, by the federal government, to be part of northern Ontario. In fact, it has rather good representation on the Fednor board and takes part in those programs; indeed, it does now with the provincial government as well, for the most part, with the exception of a couple of ministries, which I am still pursuing.

Having said that, the other aspect of this proposed bill I have difficulty with, despite the fact that I consider myself to be a northerner and from northern Ontario, is the idea of a quota system. I am not in favour of quota systems when you elect people, for anybody. I'm not in favour of quota systems for women, I'm not in favour of quota systems for racial minorities and I'm not in favour of quota systems for geographical regions. I think I've been fairly consistent in that.

When you are electing people, you are electing them, hopefully, on the basis of merit and representation, and the person the electorate has the most trust or confidence in is indeed the individual who should be elected.

Having said that, though, I have no problem with, for example, setting out constituencies for election to a Senate. Perhaps that is the best way to address the problems I just heard my friend talking about, to ensure that northern Ontario, which does have special interests and does have special concerns and often is overlooked -- I don't care what government has been in power, be it Conservative, Liberal or New Democratic, as we've seen in the last 26 months. The ministers from the north certainly have a problem getting their message through to the powers that be, be it from treasury or wherever, and getting their fair share. A lot is extracted from the north in terms of taxation etc, and not even as much as is taken out is given back in terms of expenditures in northern Ontario.

Perhaps the best way to address this problem, not only for northern Ontario but, I say to my friends from southwestern rural Ontario and I say to my friends from eastern Ontario, perhaps the best way to address an elected elected Senate would be to indeed have election of senators on the basis of geographical regions or constituencies. That would ensure that every part of the province gets representation.

There are more important things, and I know I'm going to hear the people from Metro Toronto screaming already, "We have some three million people out of 10 million people in the province, and therefore we should have half the Senate seats." Well, first of all, there's no such thing as a perfect representation by population, even within this chamber. I represent a riding that's the fifth largest in the province geographically, for example, but I'm sure is way below the provincial average in terms of population; indeed, a lot of my fellow northern members experience the same difficulties.

You have to be able to represent your constituents, and your constituents aren't just individual people. Quite often they represent geographic areas of the province, obviously, but they also represent, for example, a rural background, or an agricultural background in the case of a lot of southwestern and northern Ontario, eastern Ontario as well, for that matter.

That's perhaps the best way to address the problem we have before us. I do support the principle of what the member for Timiskaming is saying, because I understand his frustration, as indeed a lot of us from northern Ontario do, and I think we also have to appreciate the problems that are particular to other regions of the province as well, such as eastern Ontario and southwestern Ontario.

1040

I would also like to say that even under the current system, where the province of Ontario currently has some 24 senators, who are appointed, I think northern Ontario quite often has been shortchanged in its representation in the upper chamber in Ottawa. This doesn't speak well of either existing or previous federal governments' approach to making sure that northern Ontario interests are adequately represented. As we know, the Charlottetown accord has been denied by the Canadian electorate at large and we also can see that there may not be, in the near future, an elected Senate in this country. I would urge the federal government to at least, if we're going to continue with the current system for the time being, to make sure that the region of northern Ontario is adequately represented in that chamber, in the Senate.

I understand where a lot of people are coming from with respect to wanting their special interests represented in a Senate. I have received correspondence, as I'm sure my other colleagues from the north have, from Save Our North, for example, asking that no less than 50% of the senators, or three, under the Charlottetown proposal, be elected from northern Ontario.

I just want to say that, while I have some sympathy for my fellow northerners, I don't see how you can justify having three out of six senators in the entire province come from the region of northern Ontario, as indeed I don't see how you can justify having three of them come from Metro Toronto or any other region of the province.

Interjection: His bill says two.

Mr Eves: I know his bill says two, but Save Our North says three. I understand their frustration and I understand their concern, but then I say to them, "What are you going to say to the people in southwestern Ontario or eastern Ontario, or Metro Toronto, for that matter?"

I note that the leader of the Liberal Party, Ms McLeod, opposes a quota system. She made that quite clear in a quote in an article in the Globe and Mail on September 11 of this year, talking about allocating half the Senate seats to women. "'I am extremely concerned that the Premier seems to have made a unilateral commitment to a quota system,' Ms McLeod told a press conference."

Interjection.

Mr Eves: I understand that, but it's still a quota system. I think you have to remain consistent in these things. As much as some people might not understand this, I am against the quota system, as I said, for elected representatives. I don't think that works. If you want to divide it up into constituencies and you want to make sure different areas of the province are represented, that's one thing and I fully support that; in fact, I think that would be the only way to do it. If you had a province-wide system of electing senators, then the people coming from the most moneyed and populous areas of the province -- let me put it that way -- would obviously have a tremendous advantage, and probably virtually every senator would be elected from the Metropolitan Toronto or at least the Golden Horseshoe area.

I don't think that's what a Senate is supposed to be there for. A Senate is supposed to be there to protect different regions, not only of the country but indeed individual provinces, and a Senate is supposed to be there to protect minority interests etc. That is the whole reason why a Senate is part of our bicameral system in the parliamentary system we have, in the first place.

So I am fully supportive of the member's principle. I have a couple of problems, obviously, as he's not included Parry Sound-Muskoka in his definition of northern Ontario, but I am fully supportive of the principle that, as a region, northern Ontario has indeed been underrepresented in the past in the Senate, when it was appointed -- and perhaps that will continue to be the case for the near future, at least. In the future, if indeed we do have an elected Senate, which I firmly believe we should have if we're going to retain that body, then I think every geographical area of the province should be represented and northern Ontario certainly should be no exception.

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): It's a pleasure for me to participate in this resolution this morning, An Act to provide for Representation of Northern Ontario in the Senate of Canada.

Let me start off by saying that I must disagree strongly with what the member for Fort York, or what we know as "Trawna" up north, has said. He indicated that the train has left the station. If he'd done a little bit of research he would have found out that the federal government has taken the train out of northern Ontario. It has not only left the station but it has left northern Ontario.

I think that points to a very important fact: that people from the Toronto area are not really familiar with what's happening up there. I must say that I'm quite disappointed when I hear statements such as that from people who represent this area without much research going into it, without much background of the issue or knowledge of the issue. I hear that every day from this government and in this House and it concerns me greatly. So again, I think it just points out the importance of what the member for Timiskaming is trying to bring forth.

Yes, we know that the referendum is over, it's past, it's history, it's on the back burner, but I think we have to make a statement in this House that we need effective representation in not only the provincial government, in the federal government, but also in the Senate, a very -- well, we're not sure really what kind of an institution, but an institution that I see as very important to this country today and I'm sure we'll find out how important it will become over the years to come. But again, we're hearing from all of our municipalities suggesting that we have to have on the record the fact that we do need representation in that body.

I'd just like to go on to quote from the Toronto Star. It's August 16, 1992. The headline reads, "The Abandoned North." Let me just quote a few lines from this very important article. It was an article written by somebody here in Toronto. It's an article written around Timmins, a city in northern Ontario: "More than a year ago, a group of Timmins-based geologists realized that the lifeblood of their industry -- mineral exploration and development -- was draining out of Canada to South America, especially Chile, and also to Mexico. More shocking, the geologists realized also that no one seemed to know or to care." I think that points out a very important fact: that often in northern Ontario we are forgotten.

The article -- again, a very good article -- goes on to quote Alan Pope, a former Conservative provincial cabinet minister: "A most forceful expression of this sense of abandonment comes from Alan Pope, former Conservative provincial cabinet minister and now a lawyer in Timmins. He says: 'We've fallen off the political map. It's as if the nation has decided, out of guilt about resource extraction, that the north now belongs to us alone, no longer to it.'"

I think there's a very important message in that quote from a former provincial cabinet minister who served at one time in this House. We've fallen off the political map. I think that says a lot.

The member previously spoke about the mining industry -- as most members in the House will know, an industry that's very near and dear to me, representing an area which has possibly two of the largest gold mines in North America. When the member goes on to tell us all about the beautiful things that are happening in the mining industry, all he has to do is take a look at the facts, the statistics that are before him. Revenues from mining in 1989: We looked at $7.3 billion in revenue from mining for the provincial government. In 1990 that decreased to $6.4 billion. In 1991 we're looking at $5.1 billion. I can't emphasize the importance of the drop in that revenue and the importance that the government must look at that industry, an industry in the north and one that I really feel would be promoted by an effective Senate.

We talk about cancellation of flow-through shares, cancellation by the federal government of an extremely important program that was put in mining throughout northern Ontario, put in prospectors in northern Ontario and boosted the economy in northern Ontario like nothing else before. I must say, people were excited about the program, people saw it working, and all of a sudden the federal government has again ignored the needs of northern Ontario by dropping that very important program.

If we take a look at employment in mining and again how important the mining industry was to us when at one time it employed an estimated 30,000 people -- that's going back to the early 1980s -- I say today that we are down to approximately 20,000 northern Ontarians being employed in that industry now. If the federal government can't see the importance of that program to us in the north and can't see what's happening in the mining industry throughout the north, I think we need maybe a little bit more of a voice.

1050

The member for Timiskaming indicated earlier that out of 24 senators we're now down to one representing northern Ontario. I don't think that is effective in any way in representing those people of the north, those people who face unemployment rates of 18% or 20% throughout. I have communities in my riding that face up to 80% unemployment, and I am sure that there are many members, especially the member for Fort York -- Toronto as we know it up there -- who have never been to a place, a village, a community in my riding with unemployment of 80% to 85%. I'm sure he just can't imagine what that community would be like.

Again, I think we have to bring that forth not only to this provincial level of government but it has to be brought forth in an effective manner to the federal government. I must say we can only do that through effective representation, not only in our federal and provincial governments, but again, effective representation in the Senate, whatever form it might want to take following the back burner of the referendum when it does again come to the forefront.

I must say that many of the communities throughout my riding have put forth some support for this important resolution. They know that the referendum is a dead issue now, but they know this lack of representation that we're facing in the north.

In conclusion, I would just like to thank the member for Timiskaming for bringing forth this very important issue on behalf of northerners, on behalf of the northerners who represent the province in this House and, as I say, on behalf of the many people who cover 90% of the land mass of this province. Even though we're a small percentage in population, we are a large land mass. Again I thank the member for bringing this issue on to the record here in the provincial Legislature.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The time allotted to the opposition has already been exhausted; you used your 15 minutes and so did the government. There are five minutes left. If anybody wants to use it, you're free to do so. If not -- would you like to use it?

Mr Ramsay: Yes, I would.

The Deputy Speaker: Fine. Is there unanimous consent? Agreed? Agreed. So therefore you have seven minutes.

Mr Ramsay: The first thing I'd like to do is thank all members of the House who have agreed to unanimous consent to allow me to use up the extra time the Progressive Conservative Party had let to this House this morning on private members' business. I appreciate that.

The next thing I'd like to do is to thank all those members of the House who contributed to this debate. I obviously want to give special thanks to the members for Kenora and Algoma-Manitoulin, who made the case with me today. I'd also like to thank the member for Cochrane South for speaking and contributing to the debate and agreeing with the principle of this bill. I appreciate that very much. Also, to the member for Parry Sound, I certainly sympathize with some of the things the member for Parry Sound had said and I'd like to address some of those issues.

I must say that when I had considered bringing this bill forward, the biggest question for me was, where do you draw the line? Where do you draw the geographic region of northern Ontario? Since this had to be formulated in regard to federal ridings, as that's how we would elect a Senate -- through federal election in our federal constituencies -- I had to make that line based upon federal constituency borders.

So that proposed a bit of difficulty for me, because instead of having to go with the definition of northern Ontario as defined by the province and the government of Ontario, I had to find my own border. What made it very difficult for me was the inclusion of the area of Muskoka. I would just like to say to my good friends who live in Muskoka that it's one of the most beautiful areas of Ontario; I have a lot of good friends there.

Most of us in the north don't have that northern relationship with the people of Muskoka as it's so close to the city of Toronto and southern Ontario, so it was very difficult for me to include Parry Sound and Muskoka as a region of northern Ontario. Also, we're not resource-based in Muskoka as we are in the rest of northern Ontario, so we found that a bit difficult.

In conclusion, I would just like to comment on the remarks made by the member for Fort York, the first member today to respond to this private member's bill. Quite frankly, it really saddened me, and I guess I would have to say "Touché," with regard to why I'm here today as one of the representatives from northern Ontario, bringing forward a bill such as this that espouses the principle of northern representation. I say "Touché" because the first member who gets up is a member from one of the most populated areas of downtown Toronto, to say that northern Ontario shouldn't be getting this sort of special privilege and that this matter is not important. I have to tell you, as a member from northern Ontario, that this matter is very important, and in a sense it is very important because northerners want to have a say.

We don't, in northern Ontario, want charity. We want to be able to live our own lives and to have strong representation and to provide a livelihood for own families and especially for our children, because our problem is that we do not have the opportunities in northern Ontario and our children leave us. That's something that doesn't happen as much in any other region of Ontario as it does in the north, and that's the sad thing.

This bill, if the member would have looked at it more closely, is really a cry from the wilderness, from us who represent northern Ontario. It's a cry to be recognized, a cry to be represented in one of the chambers of our political system here in the country, the Senate of Canada. So it's a cry that we no longer want to be dependent: dependent upon big business, big unions and big government. We want to be able to provide our own livelihoods for ourselves and our families.

I will be here in this House as long as the people of Timiskaming allow me the privilege to be standing in my place and speaking on behalf of northern Ontario. I think it's a great challenge for the members from northern Ontario to do that, as we're tremendously outnumbered, 16 in the 130 members that we have here. But I see that as my job, and I will continue to do that while I have that privilege.

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

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL

Mrs Witmer moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 76, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act / Loi modifiant la Loi sur les relations de travail

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): You have 10 minutes to make your presentation.

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): This bill, which I first introduced on November 7, 1991, makes the secret ballot vote mandatory for certification, ratification of a collective agreement and the decision to strike.

You may ask why I am putting this bill forward. It's most appropriate that I put this bill forward particularly today, as we vote this evening on Bill 40, because the right to a secret ballot vote has been requested by thousands and thousands of groups and individuals throughout the province as we debated labour law reform. Yet this government has refused to include this request in the Bill 40 reforms.

Today this government has one final opportunity to demonstrate to the people of this province that it is responsive to the people's concerns. I'd like to read a letter that I received from a gentleman in Guelph. I have to tell you that I have received several hundreds of letters and communications. He says as follows:

"I have been manipulated by unions and businesses alike during 20 working years. I never believed I had all the facts on the rare occasions I was allowed to cast a vote. If you truly want workers to exert control over their own destinies, give them the right to a secret ballot vote whenever possible. By making this a mandatory provision, you will force businesses and unions alike to ensure that the workers receive all of the information necessary to make an informed decision. This provision will fulfil Mr Gord Wilson and Mr Mackenzie's stated intent -- specifically, to advance the interests of working people, to make the workplace more open, responsive and democratic and to eliminate threats to these worthy goals."

He concludes by saying in his letter to Bob Rae: "Please demonstrate your belief in the ability of Ontario's working people to make rational decisions when provided with complete, factual information."

1100

That's one of the reasons I am putting forward this bill today. He reflects the feelings of thousands of workers in this province. I'm also putting this bill forward because it is an attempt to restore balance and fairness to labour relations reform and to restore some of the workers' rights which have been removed by Bill 40.

Under Bill 40, the ease by which a union can be certified is such that employees who do not want to belong to a union must join. The bill does not require a secret ballot, it eliminates post-application petitions and it eliminates the adequate-membership-support condition in the case of a perceived unfair practice. In the process, this legislation is going to give the Ontario Labour Relations Board the power to certify a union even if the required level of support is not met. In short, the amendments in Bill 40 will alter the certification process from determining the true wishes of employees to facilitating union certification.

I strongly believe that if we are to have the fairness and the equality that the Minister of Labour has talked about for almost two years, all workers in this province should have the right to a free and democratic vote. Workers should have the right to decide for themselves, free of any interference or intimidation from any source, whether or not to have a union represent them, to accept a contract or to go out on strike. Obviously, a secret ballot vote is the only fair way of allowing them to do so. Furthermore, our society has long recognized a secret ballot vote as the only truly satisfactory way of enabling one to freely express one's opinion. Why is this government so opposed to a secret ballot vote?

As I said before, Bill 40 restricts the right to oppose unions by taking away an employee's right to revoke a membership card after the union has applied for certification and to petition against the union's application. Further, under Bill 40, only 55% of the employees in a bargaining unit need to sign cards in order for the union to be certified. What about the other 45% of the people who may not want to join a union? Their freedom of choice has been eliminated. They will be forced to join the union. What about the workers who change their minds after signing the union card? They do not even have the same rights and protection as a consumer dealing with a door-to-door salesman. The consumer, at least, gets a three-day grace period to change his or her mind. It is unbelievable that employees who sign a union card will not, under Bill 40, have the same basic consumer rights that the rest of us take for granted.

Given that Bill 40 seriously infringes on freedom of choice in joining a union, the certification process must be amended to ensure that it respects the fundamental principles of fairness, freedom of information and protection of privacy. All employees must have freedom of choice through a secret ballot vote. A secret ballot vote is also important because certification of a union dramatically changes the workplace. When a union is certified, it is granted exclusive bargaining rights, and the individual workers lose any individual right to bargain with their employer. It is a critical choice that workers must make, and it should be made as fairly and as honestly as possible.

The same argument applies in the case of ratification and strike votes. I am surprised that this government has not exhibited faith in the collective judgement of workers. Why is this government so afraid of properly conducted secret ballot votes? It is time to change the law if we are to move forward in this province. In all other decision-making situations, we allow individuals the freedom to choose after hearing all sides of an issue.

We have political campaigns that try to do that. We have advertising promotions. We have independent consumer product evaluations. We have many laws to protect the individual's right of free and informed choice in such situations. Now is the time to fully extend those same protections to every individual in the workplace. The employee must have the opportunity to make his or her choice by means of a secret ballot vote. There will then be no doubt that whatever position is taken is the freely expressed view of the people involved, and that, I would like to tell the government, is going to strengthen the credibility of the union that is representing the employees.

You're going to tell me, and you've already said, "We have some votes." Yes, I know that some unions do have secret ballot votes, but it's not mandatory. Surely now is the time to move forward and take a look at what's happening in the rest of the world. It's time for this government to recognize that individuals have the right to make their own decisions about their own futures. The time has come in Ontario for self-determination in the workplace.

People working in this province today are informed and are able to think for themselves. They are able to understand the consequences of joining or not joining a union and they need to be given the opportunity to express the choice. I ask this government today, why do you continue to deny the people in this province the freedom of choice? Why do you deny them the basic democratic right of a secret ballot vote?

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): I'm pleased to speak against this motion this morning. First of all, it's incredible to me as I listen to some of the conversations that I've heard over the past 22 months on this basic secret ballot vote argument, and most of it is because they talk about -- and I'm going to quote here from the member opposite -- "having faith in the collective judgement of the people who are going to be making the choice as to whether or not they want to join a union." That's exactly why we are not going with a mandatory secret ballot vote and why we oppose it and will oppose it to the nth degree.

In spite of years of lobbying by the business community for mandatory secret ballot votes, neither the Progressive Conservative government for the some 40-odd years that its was in power nor the Liberal government for the five years that it was in power ever changed it to a mandatory secret ballot vote. They certainly had the opportunity. The question to ask, I guess, is, why didn't they do it when they were in power?

Secondly, the thing is that the experience of mandatory secret ballots is probably most expressed in the United States of America. There it's very evident that there is no democratic process allowed. The only industrial democracy in the world where it is used is the United States. BC just threw it out last week. In fact, what has happened is that they have ended up with more terminations during an organizing drive, with a steady increase in the interference in the balloting and certification process, resulting in a 750% increase in unfair labour practices alone, just in that. Industrial specialists have claimed that and have stated, no matter what their political stripe, that the secret ballot process impedes the collective bargaining process.

The free expression of the individual people is that in signing the cards they are saying, "I want to join this particular union." I have the sense when I listen to some of the people talking about mandatory secret ballots that a union organizer walks into the plant one day and says, "I've come to organize you and we're going to organize you in the next 24 hours and no one has a chance to change his mind or anything."

The reality of that is that, first of all, union organizers from the larger unions don't have access on to the floor of the plants. So someone has to come to them and ask them: "We'd like to join the union. How do we go about doing that?" Then those people within the store or within the plant or whatever it is that's being organized have to go and find out who's working, what their names are.

1110

They have to do an awful lot of work in trying to go and see these people and they usually don't do it in the workplace, because the employer frowns upon any kind of union organizing being done in the workplace, and people are usually penalized for doing so. So it's done after hours, in their homes, wherever they can meet so that they can, unfortunately, sign these cards in a clandestine manner.

But the opposition seems to want to have its cake and eat it too. They want all the organizing still to be done by the union organizers, but then they want a mandatory secret ballot for everything, regardless of what percentage of union cards are signed. In the Ontario Labour Relations Act right now, if it's 45% to 55% there is a vote. Anything over 55%, it's an automatic certification, they get the union.

That's saying that if there are 100 employees and the organizers sign up 90% of the 100 employees and then they bring it to the Ontario Labour Relations Board and the board decides that 30 of those cards aren't valid, they're down to 60; they're automatically certified. If they find out that 50 of those cards aren't valid, they're down to 40 and they can't form a union. But if they find out that there's something between that 45% and 55%, then they send it back and the whole workplace votes, in a secret ballot manner, on that certification. So we do have a form of mandatory secret ballot, and I think the arguments by the opposition are specious.

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I'm pleased to join in the debate on this bill. Let me say at the outset that it is an amendment which the member has brought forward at the committee stage as we dealt with Bill 40. At that point in time, I had indicated and signified my support for the amendments and certainly would signify my support for the bill.

I do have some reservations in doing so. As I believe it is an important piece of legislation in bringing forward the secret ballot or the right of a worker to freely choose as to how his workplace is to be governed, I do not believe it goes far enough. In that respect, I think it is important to note that under this legislation, if there are 45% of union cards signed by workers, that would trigger a secret ballot vote.

We in my party brought forward an amendment in this area but lowered the trigger point from 45% to 30%. In other words, if there were 30% of the men and women in any one workplace signing union cards, that signified to us a significant level of support which could and should warrant a secret ballot vote, where the workers, all workers, would be able to decide how their workplace is to be governed, and the decision would be carried by a majority.

As a result, I support the principle embraced in the legislation. I would certainly like to have seen the legislation altered to allow a reduced threshold before a secret vote was triggered, but that is not the position of the Progressive Conservative Party. I do, however, support the legislation.

I am quite certain, however, that the government members will not be supporting this piece of legislation. The parliamentary assistant has already indicated that they won't. The NDP members did not support a lowered threshold of union support from 40% to 30%, so I can't imagine how they would support something in the area of 45%.

But I do think this particular piece of legislation is important, as it speaks to a principle, and the principle is, are we ready as legislators in this province to give to workers in this province the right to decide how their workplace is to be governed? It is not a magical and mystical principle. The question is, are we as legislators ready to allow workers to decide how they wish their workplace to be governed? Not as we in this chamber feel their workplace should be governed or how we in this chamber dictate how their workplace is to be governed, but rather to put in process the framework under which workers can make that decision.

It is abundantly clear to me that the NDP government is not ready to take that step. If they were ready to take that step, they would have agreed to changing Bill 40 to allow a lower threshold and giving to the workers of this province the right to decide by a majority vote, with full protection against coercion and intimidation, how their workplace is to be governed. But they are just not prepared, if not ill-prepared, to take that step.

I listened yesterday to some of the debate that went on in the chamber on Bill 40. I noted that a number of comments were made by NDP members on the rights of workers. We are here today on Thursday; today is the day that Bill 40 will most likely pass into law, notwithstanding the very deep and genuine concerns of many hundreds of thousands of people in this province. It seems to me that it doesn't matter how many times you say it. it just doesn't seem to sink in to the government members: It is not a question as to whether one is in favour of or opposed to unions; it is a question in principle, Madam Parliamentary Assistant, of whether the government is going to allow workers to make that choice.

Bill 40 takes away the rights of workers in how their workplace is to be governed. If there is anything that people in this country, let alone this province, understand, it is the right of democracy, the right of majority rule. It is clear that Bill 40, not only in the organizing situation but in a variety of other ways, takes away the very basic right that many people share in this country, that is, the right to decide by a majority rule how their workplace is to be governed.

We of course brought forward amendments dealing with giving workers notification. It is one thing to say you have rights under the Labour Relations Act, but the question is, if you do not give to workers notification of what their rights are, then those rights, I suggest, are hollow indeed. They are there, for workers to look through the Labour Relations Act, but it seems to me that if we want to build a more harmonious relationship of cooperation and consultation, we must make it mandatory in legislation that workers be given notice of what their rights are: what they can do, what their employers can do, what organizing unions can do, what their employers cannot do, what organizing unions cannot do, and the penalties if an unfair labour practice takes place.

It seems incredible in this year of 1992 that a government would vote against giving workers that type of notice. The record will show that the NDP government members voted clearly against that notification of workers in this province.

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): You're absolutely right.

Mr Offer: Now the government members on the other side say I'm absolutely right; thank you very much. Absolutely, they did vote against giving workers notice of their rights under the Labour Relations Act. They voted against enhancing and protecting the rights of workers in an organizing drive. They voted against making certain there were protections for workers in the area of intimidation and coercion and they voted against giving to workers the democratic right to decide how their workplace is to be governed.

1120

They did so, I must say, by characterizing the opponents to Bill 40 and to the principles embraced in the bill before this Legislature as somehow a hysterical response to labour relations change. I won't dwell too long on that area, but we all know there isn't an NDP member who does not stand up on this bill at some time or another and say: "Boy, that darn big business community. They were there with billboards and they were there saying how difficult the labour relations changes were going to be." But you never heard the same concerns voiced by the government members over, for instance, the ads put out by the Ontario Federation of Labour or the Steelworkers union on this issue. If the government members were so concerned about one group putting out a message, why were they not concerned about another group putting out a message?

I must say, I was less concerned with that. I hope the people who are watching will recognize that if there is a group or an association or a community that has a concern with a piece of legislation that's brought forward by any level of government, I would hope it would still be permissible in this province that they could express those concerns in the way in which they feel is most appropriate within the bounds of law.

I am very concerned when government members see this as somehow a slap in the face, that goodness gracious, some people who were opposed to a piece of legislation had the audacity to take those concerns in the way they felt was best able to reach the general public. I was not concerned, in many ways, with the business community doing that. I was not concerned in the way in which the Ontario Federation of Labour or the Steelworkers brought forward their position on the bill.

I felt, and still feel, that in a hopefully free society, individuals, groups and associations would be able to do that without for some reason incurring the wrath of government members who say, "How dare you issue a freedom as to your position on a particular piece of legislation?" It is absolutely frightening when a government stands up, member by member, and says, "Goodness gracious, I saw terrible billboards, I saw terrible publications, I saw terrible advertisements." What were they? They were just a group of people who had concerns about a piece of legislation and how it would affect them.

I never heard the government members stand up and say, "Not only was it bad for the business community to do that, but I think it was also bad for the OFL or the Steelworkers to bring forward their position on the bill." I disagree with that also. I think groups and associations, within the bounds of law, should be able to bring forward their concerns in the way they think is necessary.

I believe the reaction government members have had to people expressing their own concerns, expressing their own opinions on a piece of legislation, is one which is absolutely shocking to many people across this province who take freedom of speech, freedom of choice, as something that is the example for all others to follow. I do hold this government accountable. I hold this government in the most critical terms when it thinks it is absolutely necessary to castigate and criticize groups and associations for, my goodness gracious, having an opinion that -- let's hold down the fort -- is different from the government members'. My goodness, the height of arrogance is across the chamber at this point in time.

So we are left with a principle, a principle which is embraced in this legislation: Are we ready to allow workers the freedom to choose how their workplace is to be governed? Are we going to allow workers to make an informed choice to decide what is in their best interests, to decide how they wish to be governed, to make that decision free of intimidation and coercion? Are we going to allow a piece of legislation which embraces that principle to move forward or are we going to have it cut down by the government?

I believe this principle is one that should go forward. I have indicated to the member who has brought forward the legislation that though I agree with the principle, I am a little concerned with some of the substance around it. I would have liked it to have gone further, but I believe that notwithstanding my concerns, it is still one heck of a lot better than the way in which the government is seeking to move in the area of Bill 40. It is an issue of workers' rights. It is an issue of workers' choice. It is an issue of freedom of workers in this province to make a decision on how their workplace is to be governed. I am content to leave that decision up to the workers of this province. This bill and the principle under it does so, and I will be supporting this legislation in principle.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I will be supporting this private member's bill by my colleague Elizabeth Witmer, who is our Labour critic. I'm very pleased she's brought it forward, because it's very much a response to requests we heard as we sat through the Bill 40 hearings. The bill is designed to protect individuals' rights to decide, free of interference; a very simple concept. They wanted to be free of interference and free of influence from any source, whether it be the union or the company, whether they want to go on strike or whether they want to sign a contract or whether they want to in fact be a member of a union.

It goes to the fundaments of democracy. Anyone who cares about the democratic process and wants to ensure that the true wishes of an employee are known should not have any problems with this bill. I notice that my colleagues on the New Democratic side seem to be heckling a little bit. They don't like this democratic idea.

I'd like to quote from Ramsey Clark from 1990. He was speaking about the US Democratic Party, but I think it goes very much for this New Democratic Party. He said, "The Democratic Party is a party in name only, not in shared belief."

That's more and more abundantly clear every day. This is simply to allow workers to express their choice. They want to be able to express their choice -- they told us in Bill 40 -- as to whether certification should take place. It's a question of whose rights are more important, the employees' or the union bosses'? Quite obviously, from the comments we're hearing from NDP members, they think the union bosses' are more important. The rights of employees should always outweigh the rights of trade unions but, apparently, under the NDP that is not the case.

I'd like to quote from Professor John Crispo, when he said: "I know why unions don't want votes. They can't win them."

Let's just examine the circumstances under which the few votes exist today in unions. Typically, a strike vote is taken six or more months before a strike occurs and the workers are just giving, in principle, backing to the union. They are not talking about the details of the union contract. Often they're quite outraged when they have to go out on strike, but feel they have to.

1130

The question of fairness and equity for all workers should be the guiding light in deciding how you vote on this. Should workers have the right to decide in a free and democratic vote on issues that affect their livelihood? I don't think there can be too many doubts about what that question is. It's very simply, are they allowed to choose their own destiny?

The perceived good of greater unionization does not justify infringing on employees' civil liberties, as indeed we have seen under Bill 40. This will restore some balance, because Bill 40 takes away the rights of individual workers. It takes away the right to petitions to get out of unionization when they have in error signed to join a union.

They've taken away the right of certification only where the employees agree. Under Bill 40, certification can take place where it's considered that unfair labour practices have occurred. These may have occurred through an error on the employer's part, which is particularly prevalent with small companies that don't have the expertise in negotiating that large unions do. We're not talking about large employers; we're talking about small employers.

This government has allowed itself to be more concerned with maintaining and indeed enhancing the power of union bosses, not just at the expense of employers but of the workers too. This government is being controlled by special interest groups -- we've seen this over and over again -- particularly union bosses.

Quite frankly, Bill 40 is payoff time for the NDP, for the support it has received over the years, the money which is checked off from union contributions and goes to the NDP. A lot of workers, as we've seen in certain test cases, object to that money going to the NDP.

Our laws protect consumers against high-pressure sales tactics. If you buy a settee and three days later you decide you've made a mistake, you can go back and say, "No, I didn't want to do this." But this government does not want to allow members of a union the same kind of protection as consumers of products, which cost an awful lot less than the payments made to a union over the years.

Bill 40 is an unacceptable violation of the most democratic rights and freedoms we've come to expect. It's only that union membership is a payoff to the NDP.

Governments spend money informing consumers as to their rights, yet this government does not want to allow those rights to be extended to those who inadvertently join a union or who may be in a union and don't want a strike. That seems to be fundamentally unfair. Democracy: a very simple process where the majority of people decide, something this government has consistently denied to workers of this province. I will be supporting Mrs Witmer's bill.

Mr Hope: It's one good morning to be participating in this debate, especially when I read the bill. Where do you begin?

We've been going through this for five weeks and I hear the Liberals and Tories talk about democracy and the rights of individual workers. I remember a bill called Bill 208, where workers wanted to exercise their right and their democratic right to shut equipment down that was unsafe for them and could cause death. But the Liberals and the Tories, in their dramatic way, said, "No, the employer will tell you whether that workplace is safe or not, or that machine is safe." So it's hard to get the balanced perspective. It's amazing when you find out when they're in government what they say.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. If you want to make any comments, do so from your seat. The member for Chatham-Kent.

Mr Hope: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's unfortunate they have to do that, but again, when we talk about workers' democratic rights, when they talk about the protection -- I read this piece of legislation. They talk about the right to vote. Well, it says, and I heard the comment made, that it protects the employer and the employee in their democratic rights. Who's going to protect that individual who wishes to join a trade union or an organization -- forgetting how the chamber of commerce is an organization -- to represent his interests in that workplace?

We sit here and look at this piece and it says it's going to protect everybody's rights. What about the individual who is coerced by a supervisor and put on dirty jobs? How do you prove that, changing around? How do you protect the democratic rights of those individuals who want to exercise -- inside the workplace, being threatened with their paycheque each week? How can the individual make a good decision, having a paycheque waved in front of his face when they're saying: "If you vote against the union you'll keep your paycheque. If you vote for the union you'll be searching for new employment come the end of the year"?

It's very disheartening to hear some of the comments coming from the Liberals and the Tories. What I hear out of their mouths is that they're saying the workers of this province are stupid people. That's the reference they're making to the workers in this province. They're calling them stupid individuals.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. You've had your chance to voice your opinion. It's now his turn. The member for Chatham-Kent.

On a point of order?

Mr Offer: On a point of order, yes, Mr Speaker: The member made a statement as to what the Liberals, I being a representative, stated. In fact, that could not be further from the truth. We believe the workers should have --

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Chatham-Kent.

Mr Hope: One of the other important issues is about individuals having the right, when they do sign the card, to allow them to exercise their rights without coercion. One of the important things is that an individual always has the right. I believe the working force of this province is well educated on trade unions, as we see in our own communities, what trade unions do when they sit on United Way boards of directors and provide community programming and help out there at the social service end of things, fighting for workers. So the knowledge base of individuals around unions is very high.

One of the issues that I think is very important is to make sure the workers themselves have an ability to exercise, without having -- it's bad enough that they have their paycheques threatened. When we talk about the individual having the right to determine what goes on in the workplace, if it wasn't for a federal policy that's come into place called free trade, when we talk about giving workers individual rights, when we see plants that are making profits closing, those workers in that workplace don't have a say, because the company tells them what's best.

I'm sorry to say that when I read this, it does nothing. You can see where the Liberals and Tories are coming from. They're supporting the business community, hopefully, the same ones who are telling us jobs are being lost through this legislation, the same ones who, I clearly remember, in 1988 were telling us about all the jobs that were going to be created under free trade. I remember that.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): Come on. You were still in high school. You were on that six-year course.

Mr Hope: Maybe I was still there in high school.

Mr Jackson: You were.

Mr Hope: Unfortunately, the Tory members think they're so knowledgeable, but we saw what happened with Tory policies when they took place on free trade in 1988.

There's one important thing I really want to say. I support recycling programs, and this is what I think should be done with the legislation.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I'm pleased to rise and speak in support of the bill put forward by my colleague the member for Waterloo North. The member for Waterloo North's bill seeks to give workers democratic rights that do not exist in the current Labour Relations Act.

The bill requires unions to hold secret ballot votes for certification, for ratification of collective agreements and for all strike votes. The secret ballot vote enables workers to decide for themselves, free of intimidation or harassment, whether or not to have a union represent them, whether or not they want to accept a contract or whether or not they wish to go on strike.

1140

Under the NDP's labour reforms, the certification process is shifted from an emphasis on determining the true wishes of employees to an emphasis on facilitating unionization. Post-application petitions, which currently represent the only way in which employees can articulate their desire not to join a union, will be eliminated under the NDP's Bill 40. A secret ballot would help restore what Bill 40 eliminates: the right of workers to have choice. A choice on whether to join a union, a choice on whether they want to agree on a contract and a choice on when to go on strike or to go on strike.

A government that pretends to represent Ontario workers seems to have lost sight of the most important issue confronting labour in this province and that is finding and maintaining a job. Each day we lose 500 jobs in this province. There are now more than 609,000 people in Ontario collecting unemployment insurance and 1.2 million collecting welfare. Adopting a secret ballot might alleviate some of the concerns of business that Bill 40 is designed to promote and facilitate unionization.

Business already feels under siege with the replacement workers provision of Bill 40. This provision severely limits the number of employees who can perform work that needs to be done during a strike. This will do great harm to an employer's ability to continue to operate during a strike and fill customer orders. Even employees who voted against a strike would be forbidden from crossing a picket line to return to work. So much for workers' rights.

In the two minutes remaining, I just want to quote from a number of concerned people in my riding. Jim Rennie of Collingwood writes: "My company, Rennie Publications Inc, has grown from a one-man operation to an employer of seven to eight people in Collingwood during the 1980s. We have another big expansion in the works for this summer. Trust me, if the NDP brings in this labour law, I will start a US branch plant and publish this new venture from there. I cannot and will not expand in Ontario in the face of these proposed regulations."

Ken Havens of Collingwood writes: "Small business in the last few years has been the brunt of unpopular legislative decisions, but the latest change to the Labour Relations Act, if passed, would have profound effects on our already fragile provincial economy. Even though small business operators are a minority in a voter line, they have to be heard. Colleagues aware of the act share my views and many will begin dismantling and perhaps moving their assets."

Jean Smart of Creemore writes, "If this law comes into effect, I will probably lay off all of my staff and work it alone with one employee, probably my bookkeeper, to be sure your tax dollars keep going in." She's writing to the Premier. "This would be a loss of six jobs."

The list goes on and on. My colleague's bill -- my colleague from Waterloo North -- gives workers rights and sends a message to the business community and to individuals that someone at Queen's Park is listening. This bill represents just one of some 94 amendments put forward by Mrs Witmer on behalf of the Ontario PC caucus. Workers want jobs. Bill 40 kills jobs. The greatest dignity you can give an individual is the opportunity and the dignity that comes with a job. Bill 40 does not do this and it should be scrapped.

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I'm delighted to have this opportunity to speak in favour of Bill 40 and against the amendments suggested by the member for Waterloo North. Throughout the debating of amendments to the Labour Relations Act, both in this chamber and in the wider world, there has been a kind of unreality. In Bill 76 we have a continuation of that unreality. Those who oppose Bill 40 are like Don Quixote: They're tilting at windmills. The disastrous act that opponents have conjured out of thin air does not exist. What we have in reality is a very reasonable bill, a bill that has been modified as a result of a long and thorough process of consultation, a bill that contains nothing that is not already operating well and without dire consequences in other jurisdictions.

I know that working people in my riding and all over the province have been asking that certain injustices be put right. They wanted some obstacles to unionization to be removed and they wanted no repeats of the situation where, when a workplace was struck because workers had no other recourse in order to get fair treatment, busloads of replacement workers could be brought in. The confrontation caused by this practice sometimes led to a deteriorating situation, violence and injury. Workers knew that if they were to be able to bargain fairly with their employers and if relations were to be cooperative and friendly, this situation had to be avoided.

Instead of a reasoned reaction to these moderate and reasonable changes, we have witnessed deliberately induced and carefully orchestrated hysteria. Vast sums of money have been spent and experts have been hired to spread lies about the probable consequences of Bill 40. Far from the provisions of this bill endangering the economy of Ontario, it is this hysterical opposition which might prove a self-fulfilling prophecy and become the direct cause of job loss and damage to the economy in Ontario.

Small businesses in my riding have written to me and visited me because they were concerned about this bill. They believe that union organizers will be on their doorstep the day after the bill becomes law, that they will be forced to pay wages they cannot afford and that their businesses will be ruined. But the supposed facts and figures which are motivating them are phoney.

Small businesses have been subject to unionization for a long time. There will be no drastic change. I can only advise those business people to resist panic, continue to treat their employees as the fellow human beings they are and work with them for the success which benefits employer and employee alike.

I am puzzled as to the relevance of Bill 76. It has supposedly two purposes: to provide that representation on strike votes and ratification votes of a collective agreement is mandatory in all cases and to require secret ballots in all such votes. However, the Ontario Labour Relations Act already requires a secret ballot vote where membership support is below 55%. Bill 40 does not change this. The act already provides that when dealing with votes or accepting a contract, any employer may require its final offer to be submitted to a secret ballot vote before a strike or a lockout begins.

Also under Bill 40 there must be a mandatory strike vote by secret ballot resulting in a show of support by 60% of those voting in order for the replacement provisions to apply. It is already customary for union constitutions to require that strike votes be taken before a strike is called. So what is the fuss about?

This bill is as insubstantial and unwarranted as the rest of the opposition to Bill 40. I suggest that those who view labour as a mere commodity should have their noses rubbed in what that concept, if freed from laws and regulations -- and, yes, unions -- really means.

They could start by reading John Steinbeck's great novel, The Grapes of Wrath, the story of what happened to a hardworking family of Oklahoma sharecroppers when tractors took over and they became mere encumbrances on the land that they worked. What is the point of modern technology, of higher productivity, if it doesn't lead to shorter working hours and a higher standard of living for all, but instead to the impoverishment of the many and the advantage of the few? On those terms, "progress" could become a synonym for "disaster."

We need to dismiss the campaign against Bill 40 as the mirage it is and keep moving towards greater fairness and greater prosperity for all. I look forward to the passage of Bill 40. Essential services will not cease to operate; jobs will not be lost; businesses will not be destroyed. Bill 76 is an irrelevance and I shall not be voting for it.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Burlington South.

Mr Jackson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'm very delighted to stand and respond in support of my colleague the member for Waterloo North.

First of all, let me say that I admire the work she has done in communicating very clearly and cogently the issues and concerns around Bill 40. I also admire her commitment to the principles she believes in.

I've known my colleague for many years. Prior to her arrival here, I watched her as a trustee on her local school board and I knew that she brought with her at that time a sense of balance between the interests of the teachers' federation, the interests of the children she served, and her taxpayers. She comes very much from that kind of a background and an understanding and awareness, and she has applied it today to something she believes very strongly in, which is democracy and the right of privacy and protection under the law in order to exercise your voting franchise.

1150

It's interesting that not one NDP member discussed this issue. They wanted to talk about the fearmongering around Bill 40. I don't wish to talk about Bill 40; I simply wish to talk about what the issues are around the democratic right of a vote for a worker in this province.

Why is it that the labour union bosses are so frightened of losing control of their membership? I have to believe, and history will show, that left-wing radicalism is no better or no worse than right-wing radicalism, wherever it is exercised on the face of the Earth. Frankly, when we can go to any number of Communist countries who take their manifesto directly from Marx and Engels and others, it's very clear that democracy is an inconvenience. They're very proud of the fact that, "We have democracy, we have a ballot box, but there's only one candidate." We know that history shows that balloting and democracy are a great inconvenience to socialism.

Let me illustrate my point. The fact of the matter is that on the issue of Sunday shopping in this province this party stood by its principles and said, "We will not support it." But what have they done? They've been playing poker with the future of retail workers in this province. What do they do? They say, "Look, we'll pass Bill 40 for you union bosses but we'll abandon the workers in the retail sector." That is the kind of brokering and trading that is going on with the leadership. They're losing thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars in union memberships because of unemployment. Do they want to sit down and talk about how to resolve that problem? No. Their interests are, "Let's get out there and certify a couple of hundred thousand workers and get our bank accounts topped up." That's what this is about, and you would play with the principle of democracy.

This so-called social democratic party would play with the fundamental principle of protection of a secret ballot in order to control those kinds of offensive outcomes and brokered deals behind the backs of rank-and-file workers in this province. They know, each and every one of them, that those kinds of deals --

Mr Hope: Tory policy. Your federal Tory policies.

Mr Jackson: The member for Chatham-Kent -- it was interesting. You talk about waving a cheque in front of their face. I just remind the member, a noted parliamentary assistant, that we're still trying to figure out what he does around here, but he certainly has a big paycheque waved in front of him from his party bosses who have told him how to vote on this issue. The issue is about democracy and the protection for workers who wish to become unionized or who wish not to become unionized in this province -- nothing more, nothing less. It's a vote on democracy, and we're going to vote for it.

The Deputy Speaker: Mrs Witmer, you have two minutes.

Mrs Witmer: I appreciate the debate that has taken place and I'd like to assure first of all the member for Sudbury that the Ontario PC Party, of which I am a member, will certainly introduce a mandatory secret ballot vote when we are elected in the next election. I pledge to make that a priority.

I'd like to also thank my colleagues from Burlington South, York Mills and Simcoe West for their support of my motion this morning. I would like to say to the members in the opposition: I have brought this motion forward this morning on behalf of individual workers in this province. I have not brought it forward because of the business community. It's because of the letters and communications I have received from working people throughout this province, working people like my own parents, and I would like to tell you that this government needs to recognize that individuals do have the right and are very capable of making their own decisions about their own future, and that the time has come in this province for self-determination in the workplace.

People working in this province today are well informed, they are able to think for themselves, and they are able to understand the consequences of joining or not joining a union. Because of this, they need to be given the opportunity for a secret ballot vote. When you are making changes now to labour relations reform, let us truly move forward into the future and recognize workers, recognize that they are able to make their own decisions about their own futures.

I say to this government today: Demonstrate to the people that you do care about freedom of choice; demonstrate that you do care about democracy. Give them the right to a secret ballot vote.

The Deputy Speaker: The time allotted for private members' business has expired.

NORTHERN ONTARIO SENATE REPRESENTATION ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR LA REPRÉSENTATION DU NORD DE L'ONTARIO AU SÉNAT

Bill 84, An Act to provide for the Representation of Northern Ontario in the Senate of Canada / Loi prévoyant la représentation du Nord de l'Ontario au Sénat du Canada

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will deal first with ballot item number 29, standing in the name of Mr Ramsay. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mr Ramsay has moved second reading of Bill 84, An Act to provide for the Representation of Northern Ontario in the Senate of Canada. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Pursuant to standing order 96(f), the recorded vote on this ballot item is deferred.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL

Bill 76, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act / Loi modifiant la Loi sur les relations de travail

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will now deal with ballot item number 30, standing in the name of Mrs Witmer. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mrs Witmer has moved second reading of Bill 76, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

This vote is also deferred.

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1157 to 1202.

NORTHERN ONTARIO SENATE REPRESENTATION ACT / LOI DE 1992 SUR LA REPRÉSENTATION DU NORD DE L'ONTARIO AU SÉNAT

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Will the members please take their seats.

Mr Ramsay has moved second reading of Bill 84, An Act to provide for the Representation of Northern Ontario in the Senate of Canada.

All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain --

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Kormos, you have to take your seat, please. You cannot be in the House without taking your seat, sir.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Then I'm sorry, sir; I should be escorted out.

The Deputy Speaker: I have no other choice than to ask --

Mr Kormos: I don't want to vote --

The Deputy Speaker: Sergeant, will you please remove the gentleman from the House.

Mr Kormos left the chamber.

The Deputy Speaker: I will repeat the second reading. Mr Ramsay has moved second reading of Bill 84, An Act to provide for the Representation of Northern Ontario in the Senate of Canada.

All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing until their names are called.

Ayes

Arnott, Bisson, Brown, Callahan, Daigeler, Eddy, Haeck, Hansen, Martin, Miclash, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), Offer, O'Neil (Quinte), Poirier, Ramsay, Sola, Villeneuve, Wilson (Simcoe West).

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please rise and remain standing until your names are called.

Nays

Abel, Carr, Carter, Cunningham, Dadamo, Drainville, Farnan, Fletcher, Frankford, Harnick, Harrington, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jackson, Jamison, Johnson, Klopp, Lessard, Malkowski, MacKinnon, Mammoliti, Mancini, Marchese, Marland, Mathyssen, Mills, O'Connor, Owens, Rizzo, Stockwell, Sutherland, Tilson, Turnbull, Ward (Brantford), White, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Witmer.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 19; the nays are 40.

The Deputy Speaker: The ayes are 19; the nays are 40. I declare the motion lost.

Mr Remo Mancini (Essex South): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: This is private members' hour. We've never had a roll call done by party, and I resent the fact that this roll call was done by party.

The Deputy Speaker: You have a valid point. It was a mistake by the Clerk and we apologize.

Interjection: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: You have no point of order. You have been named. I have asked the Sergeant at Arms to remove you, and this is my decision.

Interjection: You don't know whether I've got a point of order until you let me articulate it.

The Deputy Speaker: You have been removed from the House, and the order sticks. Sergeant at Arms, please.

Interjection: Am I being denied the opportunity to vote on this issue?

The Deputy Speaker: You have been asked to leave the chamber.

Interjection: God bless. Incredible.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I think this is an issue of importance to all the members in this House. I have previously been in the same position as the member for Welland-Thorold, where there are two votes being taken and I have not wanted to be in the House for one of those votes. I'm sure it must be an option for a member to be in the House for one vote and not the other. Mr Speaker, I simply ask you to give a ruling on how it can be facilitated that a member may vote on one vote when it's being recorded and not another.

The Deputy Speaker: To the member for Mississauga South, you have an extremely valid point, but I must point out to you that when the member for Welland-Thorold was sitting in the gallery, I asked him to come down, which he refused to do. Because of that negative response on his part, and in my opinion, also not observing the decorum in this House, I named him and I asked the Sergeant at Arms to bring him out.

The member should be aware that if you don't wish to vote on an item, like this morning, you stay outside the House. Then after the vote is cast, the doors are opened. It is then for you to come in, the doors are closed and you must take your seat. This is quite clear in the orders.

It's extremely difficult for any Speaker to evict a colleague. At the same time, my responsibility is to make sure the procedures are followed very closely. That's it.

1210

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: On behalf of many members of this House, it should be noted that I don't think it was the intent of the member for Welland-Thorold. It was just a misunderstanding and I think he was confused and that's why he was asked to leave.

Also, I'm not certain that when you asked him to leave that you did name him; I didn't hear you say, "The member for Welland-Thorold." But you may have done that and Hansard will show it.

I think many of us are confused as to the procedure this morning. I've been here for five years and I did not know this.

The Deputy Speaker: Please take your seat. You raise a very valid point. On the other hand, you have to make a decision when an incident occurs. I may not have said that I named him. On the other hand, it's always that you have the power here to decide if Mr Kormos should be brought back in and I leave that up to you. I have named him afterwards and I don't want to play with that. These procedures are extremely strict, but at the same time, I just want you to be assured that my decision, as far as I'm concerned, was made, and I want to maintain it that way.

Mrs Marland: Mr Speaker, as the person who raised the original point of order and speaking as someone who has been in this House for eight years, I did not know the explanation until you gave it, that we were allowed to come in and leave or come in after the first ballot, because I've never been aware that the doors were physically unlocked between the two ballots.

Now, having that understanding, after my eight years, I'm hearing other colleagues in this House agree with me that they didn't know those were the rules. Knowing that the member for Welland-Thorold was elected at the same time I was, I would move unanimous consent that the member for Welland-Thorold be permitted to return to the House at this point and take his chair for a vote of his choice.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I want to bring to the members of the assembly just the one point, that the Speaker is in a difficult position. I understand what the members are saying, but I feel it's important that we maintain the decision of the Speaker because he has the responsibility to keep decorum in the House. I'd ask members to keep that in mind, as much as I agree with some of the things they're saying.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): In all matters of parliamentary democracy, the Speaker's decision is final and the members of this House will respect that decision. That is very clear and at no point would a single member advocate that you relinquish that historical responsibility of the Speaker now to determine, in some form of straw vote or motion, whether or not one of our members, one of our colleagues, should or should not be here.

We can, Mr Speaker, because of your nature, prevail upon you to reconsider the decision you made, which, in fairness to you, was difficult because there was not the order and the decorum in the House at the time. You were put in a difficult position and we believe that on review of Hansard and with the guidance of the Clerk, you would determine that the member for Welland-Thorold was in the process of raising a point of order. We believe, sir, that he was not given an opportunity to raise that point of order, but he had by his attendance in the House made it abundantly clear that he wished to vote on this important issue.

In summary, the members of this House very much will support your final decision in this matter, but you have within your power, sir, the opportunity to review your decision, and your decision only, and to invite the member back to the House, since he was not named, and then convene the vote. I would ask, Mr Speaker, simply if you would consider that recommendation from the members of this House.

The Deputy Speaker: I have asked for help from the Clerk and, of course, he said it is my decision.

I don't like to evict a colleague from the House; it's not a pleasant duty. On the other hand, to be fair, to be fair to anyone, I think now the message would be abundantly clear that when a vote is conducted on a Thursday morning, you're allowed to stay outside of the House for the first vote. The doors are then opened after the vote. You can come in and vote on the second vote. We did that. So I will abandon this decision and will allow Mr Kormos to come back in.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will now vote on Mrs Witmer's bill.

Mrs Witmer has moved second reading of Bill 76, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing until their names are called.

Ayes

Arnott, Brown, Callahan, Carr, Cunningham, Daigeler, Eddy, Harnick, Jackson, Mancini, Marland, Miclash, Offer, O'Neil (Quinte), Poirier, Ramsay, Sola, Stockwell, Tilson, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Wilson (Simcoe West), Witmer.

Nays

Abel, Bisson, Carter, Dadamo, Drainville, Farnan, Fletcher, Frankford, Haeck, Hansen, Harrington, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson, Klopp, Kormos, Lessard, Malkowski, MacKinnon, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), O'Connor, Owens, Rizzo, Sutherland, Ward (Brantford), White, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 23; the nays 37.

The Deputy Speaker: The ayes are 23; the nays are 37. I declare the motion lost.

All matters relating to private members' business have been exhausted, and I will leave the chair until 1:30 of the clock.

The House recessed at 1219.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1331.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

NATIVE YOUTH SUICIDE

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I rise today to bring to the attention of members of this Legislature the state of emergency that the Nishnawbe-Aski Nation has declared due to the significant rise in suicides and suicide attempts within their first nation community.

Suicides by northern native youth have reached alarming proportions. It is tearing at the social and cultural fabric of first nation communities. In the past year alone, 11 native youths have committed suicide within this nation's area of responsibility. During recent visits to the northern first nation communities in my riding, there were many concerns raised about the mental and emotional health of youth. Due to the characteristics of life in a northern community, young people are susceptible to boredom and restlessness, which robs them of their sense of being and belonging.

Grand Chief Bentley Chee Choo has made repeated urgent appeals to both the federal and provincial governments for cooperation to assist in ensuring appropriate opportunities to help young people develop into positive and productive members of their communities. To date, the required support and cooperation have not been forthcoming.

We need to go beyond simply treating the effects which these suicides are ravaging upon the community; we must find ways to cure the illness. Once again, I am calling on this government to respond immediately and in a positive and cooperative manner to the requests of Grand Chief Chee Choo and other first nation leaders and bring an end to this tragic epidemic.

ANTI-TOBACCO LEGISLATION

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): Just last week, Dr Stan Hill, the past president of the Ontario Lung Association, reminded me that this government has not come forward with one of its promises. More than 120,000 children join the tobacco market each year in Canada, more than 40,000 in Ontario. Of all the 15-year-olds currently smoking cigarettes, tobacco use will kill eight times more than all car accidents, suicides, murders, AIDS and drug use combined.

Every month that the introduction of the promised anti-tobacco legislation is delayed, 3,000 children will join the tobacco market in Ontario. Most of these children will become addicted to tobacco products and about one third of these will die from their dependency. Some 13,000 Ontarians die annually due to tobacco-related illnesses. Over 30,000 have died since the government assumed office.

In 1991, the NDP government promised to deliver anti-tobacco legislation for Ontario. It was promised again by the Health minister and by the Treasurer in the 1991 budget to justify the large tobacco tax increase. Minister, the facts support anti-tobacco legislation.

As the member for London North, I strongly urge the government and the Minister of Health to quickly introduce anti-tobacco legislation before we lose more lives to this most unfortunate addiction.

I think we should all commend the Lung Association for Ontario for the good work it does and for the good advice it gives us as elected members.

LITERACY

Mr Mike Farnan (Cambridge): I would like to congratulate the Cambridge Reporter, the daily newspaper in my riding, which has sponsored a series of seminars to train teachers to use newspapers in the classroom as part of their literacy program.

Recently, 10 city elementary teachers participated in such a program, led by Jennifer Densure. All of them said afterwards that they would start using the newspaper as a tool to make classroom lessons relevant to topical situations.

Through this seminar, the teachers now envision further using the newspaper not only to help direct classroom discussion in social studies, geography and math classes but also to inform them about their community, about city services and parks and about the environment.

I am drawing attention to this project today for two reasons: It is Literacy Week. By giving a real-world application to students' newly acquired reading skills, it may help some students stay interested in reading and develop a reading habit. Secondly, this activity will make current events awareness and discussion a part of children's lives.

I'm sure all members of the House would want to join me in commending the daily Cambridge Reporter on this fine initiative.

CHILD CARE

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I rise today once again to bring to the attention of this Legislature the absurd priority-setting of the NDP government. The victims in this instance of ideological insanity are the children and parents of Ontario.

Nearly a year ago the day care sector was told that subsidies had been virtually frozen except for a very few specially targeted spaces. At that time, in fact on that very same day, an allocation of $75 million was put aside for the conversion of child care centres from private ownership to non-profit, tax-supported spaces. This $75 million brings not one new space for mothers and children in need in this province.

Municipality after municipality has passed resolutions disagreeing with the NDP policy of conversion. They see the waiting lists grow while available spaces in their communities go unused for lack of subsidies. Individual potentials continue to be unrealized. The Ministry of Community and Social Services' own documents state that access to service continues to be one of the most persistent problems in the children's service system, yet this NDP government continues to spend its very limited resources on conversion for conversion's sake -- ideological insanity -- rather than on the provision of much-needed subsidized child care. This is simply an ineffective and unacceptable response to the needs of the children of this province.

SPECIAL SERVICES AT HOME PROGRAM

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I rise today to remind the Minister of Community and Social Services of the ongoing crisis in the special services at home program in my community of Kitchener-Waterloo.

The Ontario government has cut back on the amount of relief for more than 30 families in Kitchener-Waterloo who care for their developmentally and/or physically disabled children at home. This has caused tremendous hardship for their families.

I would like to draw the minister's attention to one case which was recently reported on in the Kitchener-Waterloo Record. Ms Deb Moskal, a single parent who is currently studying to become a social worker, is trying to raise her son Robert, who suffered a stroke after birth, is brain-damaged and cannot use the left side of his body.

Ms Moskal has been receiving support from the special services at home program to have a trained worker help care for Robert 20 hours a week. She has now been told that she will have her level of support reduced to only 15 hours a week. This will save the government $2,000 this year, but this reduction will force her to reduce her course load at university and means she will have to be on welfare one more year because she has to delay her graduation. Welfare costs $12,000.

When the NDP was in opposition it understood that home-based care is more humane and economical than life in an institution. I ask the minister to remember that humanity and provide the resources for this program.

MICHELLE WRIGHT

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): I stand in the House today to congratulate a former constituent of my riding of Essex-Kent: Michelle Wright. This woman, born in Chatham and raised in Merlin, has achieved recognition for her singing and songwriting talents on a national level.

In September, at the Canadian Music Awards, Michelle Wright won the best single for "Take It Like a Man," best female vocalist, best backup group, best county video, as well as the celebrated Country Music Person of the Year.

Ms Wright, as anyone who watched the World Series will remember, sang the national anthem in Toronto, spurring the Blue Jays on to victory. She is a source of pride for the community of Merlin, for Kent county and for this country. I congratulate her excellence and wish her continued success in the future. She has made us all very proud in the rural community of Essex-Kent.

1340

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): The Minister of Municipal Affairs is announcing today that the NDP government is proceeding with legislation to give Metro Toronto the power to make decisions about taxation in the city of Toronto. As a member representing the city of Toronto, I am totally opposed to both market value assessment and this plan. For the NDP government to give Metro's plan the green light with such unholy haste is not only irresponsible; it is obscene.

The minister can talk all he wants about municipal autonomy, but I can tell this government one thing: If you agree to let Metro council run roughshod over one of its largest member municipalities, then the people of Toronto will remember; we will remember a government that is willing to wash its hands and say that the destruction of Toronto is Metro's responsibility.

I ask the minister: Where are the economic impact studies of this plan? Where are the studies of its impact on jobs? Where are the studies of its impact on business? Where are the studies of its impact on the people of Metro Toronto?

This scheme affects the largest municipality in Canada and billions of dollars in taxation, with estimates coming out daily on the devastation it will cause the city of Toronto. Yet -- can you believe it? -- there are no studies of its impact. It is incredible that this minister and this government intend to rubber-stamp it anyway. If this NDP government truly cares about the city of Toronto, it must demand that real impact studies be done. This government must also agree to public hearings; 600,000 people in the city of Toronto demand nothing less.

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): Ontario Hydro has reached a new apex of economic disarray and turmoil. Currently, Hydro is saddled with a $36-billion debt. When asked to account for this fiscal disaster, the NDP government's only response is to blame past administrations.

They blame past governments for the cost overruns at Darlington, but the fact remains that it was an NDP-Liberal coalition government that placed a moratorium on Darlington. They delayed the construction for two years. That moratorium, along with the anti-nuclear sentiment perpetrated by the New Democrats, is the problem that has led us to delays in the production of Darlington. This, in turn, brought about cost overruns.

Now that Hydro has a $36-billion debt and customers are paying for it, the government must put aside its anti-nuclear ideology and bring Darlington and Bruce A generating stations into full capacity. Both of these plants are capable of producing energy at a very low cost level. Darlington will generate power at an average cost of 4.5 cents. Bruce A will generate power, after it's rehabilitated, at 2.8 cents. Both of these prices are well below the average price of 5 cents per kilowatt-hour.

FIRE PREVENTION AND PUBLIC EDUCATION AWARDS

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): On behalf of the government of Ontario I would like to acknowledge the 1992 Fire Prevention and Public Education Award winners. In total, 20 groups and individuals have won the award for giving generously of their time, energy and resources to promote fire safety and prevention.

Leaders in the fire service across Ontario will tell you that fire prevention and public education are essential to saving lives and protecting property. That's why it's important to recognize the organizations and people who have won the 1992 fire prevention awards. What they have done is extremely important. They have not only helped to save lives but have also worked to change the attitudes of people in this province towards fire. We're talking about people who care enough about their families, their friends and their neighbours to join with the government in working for the safety and wellbeing of others.

On behalf of the government, I extend to you, the 1992 fire prevention award winners, a heartfelt thank you for your actions and your help.

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to raise one small thing that was omitted in the statement. I'd like to recognize some of the recipients of the Solicitor General's awards. They're seated in the gallery right at present here.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I would like to draw the members' attention to the fact that for the past several weeks, a group of 24 very exceptional young people have served the members, this chamber and indeed the assembly. This is their last day as your pages. I would ask you to join me in congratulating them on doing an absolutely superb job on our behalf. Thank you for what you've done.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

SKILLS TRAINING / FORMATION PROFESSIONNELLE

Hon Richard Allen (Minister of Skills Development): Ontario's industrial policy framework emphasizes the government's commitment to building sectoral partnerships between government and industry. Today I am pleased to announce a new sectoral agreement on training for an important sector of Ontario's economy, the auto parts manufacturing industry.

Les ententes sectorielles sont un moyen efficace de former les travailleuses et les travailleurs des divers secteurs de l'économie ontarienne. Elles demandent aux travailleurs et aux travailleuses et aux employeurs de se concerter pour trouver des solutions communes aux besoins de formation de l'ensemble de leur secteur.

Elles permettent aussi d'orienter l'économie vers le genre de partenariat, de liens et de réseaux dont parle le cadre pour la politique industrielle de l'Ontario.

Joint training strategies developed through sectoral agreements meet the precise needs of workers and employers and anticipate emerging skills requirements. They also facilitate mobility within the industry because workers have the opportunity to learn skills to industry-wide standards.

They also help increase private sector investment and human resource development through training, an important objective for the government in establishing the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board.

Several other industries are already beneficiaries of this joint labour-management approach to training. Workers are currently, for example, receiving training under sectoral partnerships in the electrical and electronics sector and in the plastics industry. Training will soon begin in the tourism and hospitality industry as a result of a traineeship program I announced in September.

Sectoral agreements are an attractive approach for government. These agreements place the responsibility for planning, developing and funding training programs with the people best placed to make joint decisions: the workers and employers in industry.

Therefore, I am pleased to announce that the government of Ontario, the government of Canada and the Automotive Parts Sectoral Training Council have signed a three-year agreement amounting to $18 million for training in that sector. Ontario's total contribution over these three years will be $6 million. The federal government and the sectoral training council will be contributing $6 million each.

We cannot neglect training in the automotive industry, because it is a critical component of Ontario's economic health. Despite global restructuring in the industry and the trials of individual automakers, our province is the second-largest manufacturer of cars and trucks for the joint Canadian-US market.

The independent automotive parts industry is a significant player in this larger industry. It employs 44,000 Ontario workers and contributes $14 billion to the Ontario economy each year.

Of the 350 independent auto parts firms operating in Ontario, most employ fewer than 20 workers. Individually, these firms have a limited capacity to mount training programs. Working together, they can achieve a great deal.

Training under the agreement is being jointly developed by workers and employers in the industry and will begin in January of next year. The program will address industry needs and be operated by representatives of the workers and employers though the Automotive Parts Sectoral Training Council.

The two co-chairs of the Automotive Parts Sectoral Training Council are with us today, and I would ask the Legislature to recognize Ms Carol Dickson from the Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association and Mr Bruce Davidson from the Canadian Auto Workers. Seated with them are several others from the industry, and I'd like them to stand and be recognized.

1350

The training made available under this agreement will be available to 10,000 workers in the sector under the life of this agreement. It will raise the awareness level among workers of the nature and magnitude of the changes that are overtaking the auto parts industry. Technical and work organization skills will be stressed through training in four foundation areas: mathematics, communications, problem-solving and analytical skills, and computer usage.

This agreement is good news for the industry and for Ontario. It increases private sector investment in training and it strengthens codetermination between workers and employers in a key manufacturing industry.

I'm pleased to inform the Legislature today that we are currently negotiating new training agreements with workers and employers in several other key industries, including steel, wood products and food processing.

These agreements represent important elements of the economic renewal agenda in Ontario.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Municipal Affairs: I think it's important to inform the House today that the government has decided to introduce legislation later this month that will permit Metropolitan Toronto council to implement its interim tax package. It is clear that Metro council is responsible for its own deliberations and decisions. A duly elected council has reached a decision after considerable debate and compromise, and the province must respect that this is the responsibility of local councils.

Metro's tax package for 1993-97 is a compromise after almost 40 years of growing demands for reform of the system. For the tax assessment period 1998-2002 we expect Metro to develop a tax package that is fair and protects healthy urban centres.

Both Metro and the province understand that this is an interim plan only. Before the reassessment is updated in 1998, we expect that there will be a number of changes to the relationship among the province, municipalities and school boards regarding the funding of local services.

I want to emphasize that what the province is enabling Metro council to implement is not full market value assessment. The legislation will not give Metro council the power to implement full market value assessment in 1998. I'm going to repeat that, because it's absolutely essential to what the province is announcing today: The legislation will not give Metro council the power to implement full market value assessment in 1998. It will, however, allow Metro to seek provincial approval for any significant tax reforms as they are to be implemented.

We have heard the concerns of the city of Toronto and other municipalities, their concerns about their future, and we have heard similar concerns from other communities in Metro. During the next several years, the province will work with Metro and other communities to examine the full impact of any future property tax reform. The Ontario government will work with Metro on a full social and economic impact study of further property tax changes. As well, the province's work on tax reform will continue though the Fair Tax Commission, education finance reform and the disentanglement process.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I'm pleased to be able to rise today to comment on the Minister of Skills Development's announcement of the $18-million sectoral agreement in regard to skills training with the automobile industry.

I would think all of us in this House would agree that this agreement today is timely. Of all the sectors in manufacturing in Ontario, I believe that right now automobile manufacturing and the parts industry is one of the ones we're most concerned about.

In fact, let's hope this is not too late. We know that we now see the major companies in North America in the midst of restructuring their automobile assembly and parts manufacturing in North America. We're very concerned that this government is not doing enough in going to these companies and saying, "We want you to do business in Ontario."

This, I think, is a good sign, and I salute the minister on making this sectoral agreement with that industry. We've got to make sure the industry knows that we want it to stay here and that we care about it, because we want jobs in Ontario and good solid manufacturing jobs like this.

I would also ask the minister to move with great swiftness and great speed on the other sectoral agreements that he is starting to work on. The steel industry for sure, as he notes here, is one that is long overdue. The wood products industry, environmental services, food processing and manufacturing: We have to make sure that we can secure the manufacturing base of Ontario. It is very important.

Besides that, I would like to bring to the minister's attention the situation in Ontario now where we have over 600,000 people on the social assistance rolls. There are people who aren't involved in any of these main manufacturing sectors who find themselves underskilled and do not have the skills to obtain the jobs that are out there today. We've got to make sure we give them hope.

I think the minister is working on what he thinks might be the answer, and that is the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board project. We are not seeing that main initiative from this government yet. In fact, it's falling behind. I don't know if the wheels have come off this vehicle that he's trying to make for training, but we've got to get on with it. We've got to make sure we've got a strong training vehicle in Ontario.

As I've said before, I would ask the minister maybe to make an advisory group at first, because I think you're trying to build this vehicle, make it all comprehensive, and it's taking so long to get it off the ground that I'm worried about those people who are not being given attention right now.

I wish you would get on with all the different sectors and get on with OTAB and an advisory committee, and let's get on with skills training for the workers of Ontario.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): In response to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Minister, you will know that MVA is a very important issue, not only in Metro but right across this province. I think your statement today has added more confusion than ever before by now saying that this is only an interim tax package and it's not full market value. I think this very controversial and emotional issue is creating more confusion. Now people in Ontario will really question the intention of the government of Ontario when it comes to market value assessment in other municipalities.

It's also interesting that back in 1991 the Minister of Revenue was supposed to be the minister responsible for market value, and it's now in the hands of the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Is there some kind of a deal that was cooked up? I don't know.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Cooked up. Too many cooks in the kitchen.

Mr Grandmaître: Cooked without an e. Cook without an e.

We haven't seen the legislation and I think the legislation is much more important than the message or the statement of the minister today, and I repeat, a very confusing statement.

The minister can rest assured that we will cooperate with the government, with all its confusion, and we'll try to straighten it out. The Liberal caucus is interested in participating in a reasoned debate through public hearings in a committee of this Legislature.

Again, I think the Minister of Municipal Affairs, through the eyes of the Minister of Revenue, is confusing a very, very emotional issue in Metro. While the Premier is away, this government has its problems with the Metro police force. Now it is creating more problems with Metro, and the Premier is away washing his hands of his responsibilities.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): It gives me a great deal of pleasure to stand in the House today and say that the independent automotive parts industry is a very significant player in the economy of this province, employing some 44,000 people and contributing $14 billion to the Ontario economy.

I would also like to say thank you to the Automotive Parts Sectoral Training Council, especially Ms Dickson and Mr Davidson and all the other key negotiators in the work they've done in the coming to fruition of this very important first agreement, in my view, for sectoral training, which is so important to our province. I'd also like to say that it's extremely important that the private sector does become involved.

At this time I know the minister will join with me in thanking the federal government for its involvement once again, the provincial and the private sector. I mean, what more could be ask for? That's exactly how things should work.

1400

I will say that a lot of work had been done by the Premier's Council, and it's nice to see that after people have given so much of their time we do in fact respond to one of the very important recommendations on the sectoral training. But I will warn the minister that the Premier's Council, although it did make this recommendation, did talk about a bipartite board. The board under OTAB is extremely more complicated than that, and I think that during the hearings on the legislation we will have an opportunity to give our best advice in that regard to the government and to the minister. We need to do that.

In closing, the other thing I'd like to say is that in Bill 40, unfortunately, you should know that the auto parts will be affected by replacement worker provisions. The industry has invested millions in the development of this just-in-time delivery, and Bill 40 will threaten the viability of the automotive parts industry.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I wish to respond to the statement today that was made by the House leader indicating the NDP cabinet support for market value assessment.

I'm particularly distressed that there was no statement today from the Minister of Revenue. Let's be up front, let's be clear. If ever the people of this country, of this province and of the city are being fed up with politicians and saying: "Give us the facts. Tell us what's happening" --

This isn't about enabling legislation. It's not about enabling legislation, one government to another. This is market value assessment. It's a tough issue. It's a difficult one. It was difficult for us to deal with. It was difficult for the Liberals to deal with. It's been difficult for you to deal with. But at least be honest about what we're dealing with. It's market value assessment.

Secondly, my House leader asked you not to delay looking at this. I read your statement today and you say things like: In the future, five years from now, if there's another change, we will have "a social and economic impact study of future property tax changes," that we want to "examine the full impact on any future property tax reform."

You've known that this was coming down the pike every day you've been in office. Why haven't you for the last two years done an economic study on this, an impact study? Why haven't you, instead of treating market value assessment in isolation, looked at it, as other issues should be looked at, in conjunction with the whole combining of impacts that are coming down the pike? Why haven't you understood that the heart, the core, of our capital city, of this province, of this country, is being threatened? It is being threatened every day. Why haven't you done an impact study on these changes in conjunction with the other changes that are happening?

Why, for example, will you not live up to your campaign commitment to scrap the commercial concentration tax? Here's a tax that is taking $100 million a year, more or less, right out of the city of Toronto -- more, in fact, coming out with that tax than will be shifted from this market value assessment plan. You have an opportunity, if you had planned, if you had treated it seriously, if you'd been honest about what is happening, to do a full impact study on this great city of Toronto, on what's happening with the downtown core, the heart and soul of our province, and our country, really.

You could have done this if you had been honest and said: "This is about market value assessment. How does that fit in with all the other things are happening?" You should now be sending this out to hearings, as we asked you to do, right now, not waiting till after next week but right now, so we can hear from people who have not been heard from on this debate.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member's time has expired.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to ask for unanimous consent of the House to speak to Remembrance Day.

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed.

REMEMBRANCE DAY

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): As a young boy, before the Second World War, I used to go with my father to the Remembrance Day parade. We would march along the streets and stand with others, six or seven deep, in front of the town's war memorial.

It was a sight to stir a young boy's heart. There was the chatter of snare drums, bouncing over the bass drums, and these martial airs made us onlookers stand a little bit taller, a little straighter, and they still do that today, over 50 years later.

At the appointed moment of silence, old men stood still, with glints of gold and silver on their chests, flashing in the November sun. A single trumpet then sounded to mourn the thousands who could not be present but who made being there possible for us.

This coming weekend we will once again celebrate Armistice Day in our own towns and villages. The pomp and circumstance of yesteryear we don't find too often these days, but one can't go back, and that itself is a grace.

Time has taken its toll on the veterans and each year they are fewer, but those who remain are still proud. They lack crispness in their step perhaps, but we don't notice that.

So this coming weekend, we honour our veterans from campaigns in the North Atlantic, northwest Europe, Italy, North Africa and the Pacific. We also honour those who gave their lives at Dieppe, Hong Kong, the Battle of Britain and the Normandy invasion. We also honour those who gave their lives in the First World War and in Korea. We honour those who have given their lives in peacekeeping actions.

Thousands never returned, but their contribution to the betterment of mankind can never be measured.

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): I'd like to add a few words to the comments of my friend Gord. I believe I am the only Korean veteran in the House, and in June of this year I was invited by the Korean government to revisit our positions, to revisit some of the area where I had stayed for a period of nine months. This was in 1953; I was young then.

What struck me when I walked through the graveyard and looked at the stones, with the ages of 18, 19, 20, 21 and an oldie at 30, is how important it is to celebrate those young men and women who gave their lives to defend the principle of freedom, to respond immediately to the call of duty and to do so in a way that is extremely difficult to describe.

I served with the Royal 22nd Regiment. I served also with some colleagues from the Princess Pats, the Royal Canadian Regiment, the artillery. We were able among ourselves to create a real bond of friendship, and we were serving one cause. Recently, for the more than six months, the more than two years, we talked about unity, let me tell you that if only Canadians could follow the example given by our Canadian troops of what unity is all about, I believe strongly that many of our problems would be eroded, would be gone, would be taken away.

Unfortunately, as the population ages, people forget so easily, not by intention, but forget to think of the people who did give their lives, who sacrificed their lives, who without any hesitation responded again to the call of duty.

1410

On behalf of my former colleagues from the armed forces, on behalf of Gord, who understands clearly what service is all about in the armed forces, I want to be sure that none of us in this House will hesitate, when you meet a veteran, to say thank you to him, because he risked his life and he did so with pride.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Every year at this time we wear poppies on our lapels. Every year we hold ceremonies to commemorate our heroes who fought to rid the world of tyranny. But every year fewer and fewer of those brave men and women are still with us at the ceremonies.

Remembrance Day comes and goes, and life continues. For those of us who are old enough to have memories of the world wars and the Korean conflict, the pain and pride endure. Having grown up in England, I have searing memories of the air raid bombing of Liverpool. I have only a child's remembrance of my father, who never returned from the theatre of war, but happily, I also have a husband and relatives who proudly served their countries and are still with us today.

For younger people, though, the horror of war comes alive only from stories, history lessons, movies and books. It is harder for them to understand the significance of Remembrance Day. We must never forget that history is about living; it is for the living. Remembrance Day is about keeping alive the memories of war for the lessons they teach us, and to honour our forefathers and mothers, whose sacrifice in war is part of our heritage.

When we pin that poppy on our lapel, we must remember that it symbolizes the blood of hundreds of thousands of Canadians who made the ultimate sacrifice. We must remember that some communities lost almost all their young men in battle. Virtually every Canadian town has a memorial to its war dead. Remember too that Canada's soldiers risked their own lives to ensure that we, their children, would live in freedom. They brought us the peace that has blessed the western world through most of our lifetimes.

If you have the opportunity to visit Flanders fields, where the acres and acres of crosses bring home the immensity of the loss of life in the world wars, you could read the moving poem, In Flanders Fields, by Canadian John McCrea, one of our heroes who died in the First World War. It is a simple yet powerful message for us all, and as such I would like to read his poem.

In Flanders fields the poppies blow

Between the crosses, row on row,

That mark our place; and in the sky

The larks, still bravely singing, fly

Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago

We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,

Loved and were loved, and now we lie

In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:

To you from failing hands we throw the torch; be yours to hold it high.

If ye break faith with us who die

We shall not sleep, though poppies grow

In Flanders fields.

As McCrae's poem says, if the spirits of those who perished in war are to rest in peace, we must keep their memory and their cause alive. Even when all the veterans of the world wars and the Korean conflict have passed on to a greater existence with God, we must continue to hold Remembrance Day services to commemorate them and their struggle for peace and freedom, for wars continue to cause grievous pain and suffering today in less fortunate parts of the world. The loss of loved ones, starvation, sickness, bombing raids, mortar fire, wholescale destruction of communities, death camps, prisoner-of-war camps -- in too many places, these horrors are still part of the routine of daily living. We have a responsibility to help these areas achieve the peace that has blessed our lives.

Today there are more than 2,000 Canadian troops helping to bring peace to troubled areas of the world such as Bosnia, Cyprus and Somalia. In the tradition of the soldiers who served in the world wars, they are committed to ending oppression peacefully. They are dedicated to achieving peace and freedom, even if it costs them their lives. These peacekeepers of today connect us with the peacekeepers of our past.

When we commemorate those who served in earlier battles, we also recognize Canada's modern defenders of the peace. Like our police forces and fire forces who risk their lives to save ours, we owe them all our deepest gratitude and respect.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I would invite all members, and indeed our visitors in the galleries, to stand for a moment of silent, thoughtful, prayerful reflection.

The House observed a moment's silence.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): Mr Speaker, today we had a very significant financial report released showing our first six months' financial picture in the province. I would be asking the House for unanimous consent for the Treasurer to make a statement on these numbers and give the opposition an opportunity to comment on them. I wonder if I might move unanimous consent.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for the Treasurer to make a statement? Agreed. Treasurer?

ECONOMIC POLICY

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): I'm quite happy to make a statement as long as you feel it's not setting a precedent, since it's never been done before. But I'm quite prepared to make a statement.

The second-quarter Ontario finances released today indicate a $595-million decline in expected revenue for the province for the year, resulting largely from decreases in provincial retail sales tax and personal income tax receipts. Although our expenditures are well on track, the revenue outlook has put a lot of pressure on our fiscal target, and we now have to do everything possible to find additional savings to help us meet our budget plan.

1420

The revenue losses are a result of the slower-than-expected economic recovery documented in the Ontario Economic Outlook released earlier and preliminary information recently received from the federal government on personal income tax collections.

The revenue problem also affects other Canadian jurisdictions. We are taking immediate steps to reduce spending further in order to make up these losses. We made a commitment in our budget to reduce spending and we have kept that commitment. The Ontario Finances reports expenditure reductions of $355 million to date this year.

These savings are in addition to those reported in the 1992 budget. At that time, savings were identified from improved productivity and efficiency measures in government operations, including the commitment to reduce the size of the public service by at least 2,500 over the next two years.

Significant savings were also realized from other program reviews. This past year the program review process we undertook was very successful. It helped us reduce growth in spending by $4 for every $1 we raised in taxes, while still meeting our priorities to create jobs, preserve essential services and control the deficit. That process is an ongoing one. We have a number of very tough decisions to make, both this year and in the coming years.

We are imposing restrictions on external hiring and further restrictions on spending, effective immediately. All ministries have been directed to review their spending and identify further savings to meet the budget plan.

Dealing with this revenue loss is one of the major fiscal challenges this government faces. We are redoubling our efforts to contain costs and reduce spending so that we can meet our medium-term fiscal plan and our priorities for the future.

Thank you for this opportunity, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I take it the member for Scarborough-Agincourt would like to respond. Because what was given was unanimous consent for the Treasurer to make a statement, we would require unanimous consent for responses. Agreed? Agreed.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): Actually I think Hansard might record that I said unanimous consent for a statement and for the opposition to respond, but I am pleased to respond. I'll assume we have five minutes, Mr Speaker, each of the opposition parties. The reason I was anxious is that this is very bad news. I think it's tangible evidence that the Rae government's economic plans are not working. We see revenue dropping on every front. This is very serious for the people of the province of Ontario: personal income tax revenue dropping, corporate tax revenue dropping, sales tax revenue dropping, employer health tax revenue dropping.

In our opinion, this is not all of the bad news. In our opinion, there is more bad news to come. As we look at the revenue numbers, we think the Treasurer will finally have to acknowledge that the $1.2 billion he has in here as revenue from the federal government is unrealistic. The federal government has said, "You're not going to get all of that," and we should not continue to show that.

We also see here that the government has identified an additional $550 million of expenditures. The way they've been able to maintain the $9.9-billion deficit is by putting a fudged number in there. The only way one could see those sorts of reductions -- and I hope the Treasurer will have an opportunity to comment on this -- is to once again do exactly what they did last year and further delay capital. We can see the beginning of that. They've already delayed about $125-million worth of capital.

All of the caucus will recall that when the Treasurer got up with his job program, the major part of it was capital: "We are going to create jobs through capital." We now see significantly less money being spent on capital this year than last year. We've said this all along. You've got to come clean with the people of the province. There are fewer jobs here in construction as a result of this budget.

Our first comment -- I assume I have five minutes -- is bad news for the people of Ontario. The Rae economic plans are not working. Second, we do not believe these will be the final numbers. We are convinced you will not get that money from fiscal stabilization. We continue to demand evidence that you have some expectation of it; we don't get it from you.

The federal numbers on corporate tax revenue are down. I believe it's 25%, 27%. The Treasurer continues to plan for corporate tax revenue growth.

The last thing I'd like to say is that the way we will get ourselves out of this economic mess is to get the economy going. Every single one of Premier Rae's economic renewal plans is on the rocks. It is more than a coincidence that later today we will vote on final reading of Bill 40. You can say what you want, there is nobody in this province who does not believe that is going to cost jobs. The number of jobs is subject to debate, but that will cost jobs. So that's not working.

The second thing the Premier promised long ago was training. We have not seen the training programs the Premier promised.

The third thing the Premier promised was his Ontario investment fund. That's on the rocks. Where is it?

The fourth thing the Premier promised was an active worker ownership program. That bill has been passed, but the people who were supposed to participate in it said they don't want to be any part of it.

Mr Speaker, when you ask why we are continually on the government, it's because we say, "Come forward with the economic plan the Premier promised a year ago." He hasn't brought that forward.

For the people of the province of Ontario, we see bad news, and only time will tell. In our opinion, this is not an accurate reflection of the numbers. The Treasurer will choose to disagree with us. We do not think you are going to get more than a fraction of the fiscal stabilization money.

The teachers' pension money, $500 million, was due on January 1. The Treasurer delayed it for three months. Do you know what that's going to cost the taxpayers of the province of Ontario? At least $3 million. For what reason? For no other reason than the optics of Premier Rae, who is now winging his way to Japan, being able to say that he has a deficit below $10 billion. The taxpayers of this province are going to pay out of their pockets $3 million in extra interest payments just to delay that payment that was due on January 1 to April 1.

Every time people come to the Legislature and say, "Listen, we want help from the government," and you say you don't have it, I will point out that Premier Rae insisted on spending an extra $3 million on interest payments purely for the optics. No wonder the public is cynical.

To wrap up, I appreciate the Treasurer giving the statement today. As I say, only time will tell who has the accurate numbers. The economy of this province continues to flounder, and the plans the Premier promised to get the economy going again, which we are anxiously awaiting, haven't been brought forward. So we will continue to press the government for that, we'll continue to press the government to come forward with the real financial picture and we'll continue to press the government to get this very difficult economy turned around.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): It is certainly discouraging, I'm sure, for many Ontarians to look at this particular second-quarter report. This just proves once again exactly how wrong the Treasurer has been and continues to be.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): Spot on.

Mr Stockwell: The spot-on quote this Treasurer offered this House some months ago is a passing joke now; spot on in his revenues and spot on in his expenditures. Mr Treasurer, this is another example of just how bad your revenue projections are and just how badly your expenditure projections have worked out.

It certainly is discouraging to see the personal income tax side down considerably, the retail sales tax side down considerably, the corporate tax down and the employer health tax down. When these four significant players for revenues for government constantly are being reduced, it only means one thing: (a) there is no consumer confidence out there, and (b) if there is no consumer confidence out there, it's because so many people are losing their jobs. They're losing their jobs and they don't spend any money.

1430

There are no corporations to tax, and as we fall back to the Agenda for People, this government's claim that it taxed the fat corporate people who have been avoiding tax is another example of exactly how far off base this government was. Every time we receive a fiscal forecast from this Treasurer, all it proves is how totally inept he is at controlling or projecting the economy of this province.

It's not just the $9.9-billion deficit, a number that they simply fabricated one day in the corner office. This is the government that does budgeting by setting the deficit and then figuring out what its revenues should be, and that's the scariest part of all. They insist on pretending that the deficit of this province is still at $9.9 billion.

Mr Treasurer, who do you think is honestly going to believe the figures that you've put forward today? Maybe yourself, maybe your cabinet and maybe your caucus; beyond that, sir, no one. No one believes you're going to get the $1.2 billion this year from the federal government; no one believes it. No one believes, besides of course the Minister of Health, who probably would believe anything, that you're going to sell properties or holdings for a total of $1.2 billion this year. That accumulates to $2.4 billion that you will not receive.

You've now told us today that you are $550 million short and that in the next six months, on a partial budget year, you are going to reduce the expenditures of this province by $550 million. Mr Treasurer, I don't believe you can do it, I don't believe the private sector believes you can do it and I don't think there are very many people in this province who think you can do it. I'll tell the Treasurer why they don't believe him. They don't believe him because he made the same boast last year, and last year the deficit came in significantly higher than what he predicted it to be. It came in significantly higher because you didn't make the cuts that you claim you made.

The simple fact is we're going through the same charade this year that we went through last year. I would have thought by now, for the sake of the unemployed, for the sake of the people on welfare, for the sake of the people who are losing their jobs, that you would have figured out that that trick doesn't work, that you would have put in place programs to get the people back to work.

The most insulting part of this second-quarter interim statement is that the capital works program that this government stood up and defended every day in this House, the capital works program that it claimed was going to jump-start this economy, isn't even being spent. There was $500 million attributed to this account, and so far this year they've spent $136 million. It doesn't exist.

The Jobs Ontario fund is a figment of the Treasurer's imagination. The sad reality is that there is nothing worse than people who have no hope, but what you're doing, Mr Treasurer, is building them up with false hopes and then bursting the bubble. Jobs Ontario doesn't exist.

I've got a few points to make, Mr Speaker. It may take a little while.

The Speaker: No. Would the member for Etobicoke West please take his seat for a moment.

There was an agreement and, while there isn't a precise time that's put on the clock, I would ask that members be reasonable with respect to the amount of time used. I kept track of the time used by the Treasurer as well as your colleague from Scarborough-Agincourt. I'd ask the member for Etobicoke West to respect that tradition.

Mr Stockwell: I didn't hear that five-minute motion; I only heard unanimous consent to respond. As far as I'm concerned, we have till 6 o'clock.

The Speaker: Would the member for Etobicoke West take his seat. As much as we all may enjoy hearing from the member for Etobicoke West, he does not have till 6 o'clock to address his comments to the Treasurer. I ask him to respect what his colleague, and in fact the Treasurer himself, have already done. Could he take another few moments to complete his remarks?

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Are you ruling that there was unanimous consent for five minutes for each of the parties? There was no such agreement. The Treasurer stood up and asked for unanimous consent. I believe we can get Instant Hansard if you want it. The Treasurer stood up and asked for unanimous consent to make his statement.

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health and Minister Responsible for Substance Abuse Strategy): He did not.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Eves: Somebody -- Mr Phillips, I believe -- stood up and asked for unanimous consent for the Treasurer to make his statement. The Treasurer and everybody in the House accepted it. Then the member for the Liberal Party stood up and started to respond to the Treasurer's statement. There was never a five-minute time limit put up on that clock for the Treasurer to speak; there was never a five-minute time limit put up on that clock for the Liberal Party to answer. There was never a five-minute limit put up, and that has never been agreed to. What has been agreed to, with all due respect, sir, is unanimous consent for the Treasurer to make a statement and unanimous consent for each of the opposition parties to respond, with no time limits. That is what has been unanimously agreed to.

The Speaker: The member for Parry Sound is absolutely correct. All I was drawing to the attention of the member for Etobicoke West was the fact that traditionally in our House, when there has been unanimous consent for a statement to be made and for there to be responses, and that to occur outside the normal time allotted, there has been, it seems, a general agreement not to abuse the practice or abuse the opportunity. The member for Scarborough-Agincourt quite properly kept his remarks within a reasonable length of time. Indeed, I'm now expecting, as I think the House would expect, that the member for Etobicoke West, who has been recognized to make a few comments, would similarly offer a few comments and not abuse the opportunity to respond.

Mr Stockwell: I don't intend to abuse the opportunity of responding at all. I just want to get on record some of the concerns that I have with this second-quarter expenditure. As it was fitting just yesterday that I be allowed five full minutes to talk about labour legislation, I think it would be fitting today that I give a very clear and distinct overview of the situation that this province is in. That may take some time.

I was speaking about the Jobs Ontario fund. The Jobs Ontario fund was set up through capital accounts that were in fact taken from previous capital accounts and put into a slush fund. The capital expenditure of this government was never, ever increased. They took money from capital accounts, on-line budgets, and put it into the Jobs Ontario fund.

A perfect example is Transportation. The Transportation budget was reduced by capital expenditures and moved over to the Jobs Ontario fund. This was an account that was set up to help get Ontarians back to work, but not one new dollar was appropriated. To add insult to injury to the people of this province looking for work, they moved the money from line accounts to the Jobs Ontario account, claiming it was going to create work, and then they didn't even spend the money in the Jobs Ontario account.

The savings that this government claims it made through efficiencies in its budget came from the Jobs Ontario fund that it claimed was going to put Ontarians back to work. That is a shell game, and a deceitful shell game, that is only being used to prop up the hopes of people looking for work, simply to dash them again for not spending the money.

Our staff today spoke with the federal government to ask about the $1.2-billion budget stabilization fund. This government has applied for $1.2 billion. The minister's office was very clear. I can't understand why this government doesn't just pick up the phone and get the same answers that we get when we ask the question about the stabilization fund. The $1.2 billion will not be transferred for certain this year, if ever, so it's a guarantee that they will not be getting their money. If we assume the $9.9 billion is accurate and the $1.2 billion is not coming from the federal government, suddenly their $10-billion deficit now becomes $11.1 billion.

1440

The Speaker: To the member for Etobicoke West, the member should know that the original statement by the Treasurer was approximately six minutes. His colleague the member for Scarborough-Agincourt utilized approximately seven minutes in his reply and the member for Etobicoke West has now utilized in excess of seven minutes. I would allow him another 30 seconds just to wrap up his comments and then we can get on with question period.

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: There was no amount of time allotted to each party.

The Speaker: The member has 30 seconds to complete his remarks.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): This is a point of order.

Mr Stockwell: Mr Speaker, this is a point of order. Do I have 30 seconds for my point of order?

The Speaker: What is your point of order?

Mr Stockwell: My point of order, Mr Speaker, is: There was no allotment of time set up for the government to make its statement, for the Liberal Party to respond to that statement, nor to this party to respond to the statement by the Treasurer.

Mr Speaker, I'm asking you on a point of order: Why is it that you're now arbitrarily setting a time as to how long this party may take in responding to a statement? It wasn't spoken to in unanimous consent and you --

The Speaker: To the member for Etobicoke West, the member will know that had the statement by the Treasurer been included during the time for ministers' statements, his response would have had to be included within the five minutes, as prescribed by the standing orders. The members obviously have had an additional advantage.

I have pointed out to the member that it would be inappropriate for him to abuse this opportunity. I would ask him to consider the traditions of this House and the fact that an offer was given to have a statement made and for a response from the other side. When we have statements during ministers' statements, the maximum time allotted is five minutes. I ask the member to not abuse the privilege that has been granted this afternoon, to wind up his remarks in the next few seconds so we can get on with the business at hand.

Mr Stockwell: Mr Speaker, I don't believe I'm abusing the privileges of this House. It wasn't a privilege offered by anyone but this House and it's not a privilege that can be revoked by anyone but this House. The action that was taken was unanimous consent to speak. There wasn't a time limit put on it, so the only way it may be revoked is by the House. I have the floor. It may not be revoked at this time.

The Speaker: No. The member for Etobicoke West is attempting to debate a ruling I've made. I am asking the member that if he wishes to conclude his remarks in the next few seconds, to do so. Otherwise, we will begin the next item of our routine proceedings. He has a few seconds to conclude his remarks.

Mr Stockwell: Mr Speaker, I am not debating this ruling you're making; I just don't know where the power lies that you can do what you're doing. That is what I'm asking, Mr Speaker.

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): He's the Speaker.

Mr Stockwell: I know you're the Speaker. I am fully aware you're the Speaker. The House gave unanimous consent to respond, with no time limits. Members may not be cut off.

The Speaker: The member must take his seat. It is time for oral questions and the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr Stockwell: Point of order.

The Speaker: Point of order, the member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Stockwell: Mr Speaker, all I can ask you, as I've asked in the past -- and I notice you've started question period now. It's a point of personal privilege, Mr Speaker. I ask that you respond with your ruling in writing once again so I can be very clear about what you're ruling on and where the precedent comes from.

The Speaker: I realize the member is -- I would invite the member to my office immediately following question period if he would like some explanation about the rules.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ECONOMIC POLICY

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Treasurer. We have now received the latest report card on the government's economic policies with the release of the second-quarter finances. Sadly for the province, the grade is an F. Equally distressing is that the Premier decided to jet out of the country, rather than face the reality that his plans for economic renewal are not working.

Government revenues are $600 million less than what you anticipated. There are fewer people employed. As a result, there is less income tax and less retail sales tax being paid. The companies that are still in business in this province aren't making much money, so they're not paying corporate income tax.

Treasurer, do you at least now admit that your government's economic policies are a disaster and that for Bob Rae's Ontario nothing is working, and that is particularly true for the 555,000 people who are unemployed?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): The leader of the official opposition has such an incredibly negative and opposition mindset. She doesn't seem to --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Laughren: I'm trying not to be partisan, Mr Speaker.

The leader of the official opposition certainly has every right and obligation to criticize the policies of this government. That's her job, for which she is very well paid. But I think it would serve her better and the province of Ontario better if she'd put Ontario's problems in somewhat of a perspective.

Ontario is not alone in having its problems on revenues. The federal government itself is going to have enormous difficulty this year meeting any of its targets. Other provinces are going to have difficulty meeting their targets. Other jurisdictions with similar economies to ours south of us in the United States are going to have difficulty meeting their targets.

This government, for the first time, has put in place some long-term economic strategies that are going to serve the province very well in the future, and perhaps in the supplementary she will ask me to detail some of those, because I'm quite happy to do so.

Mrs McLeod: I'm asking the Treasurer to simply respond to the very clear evidence that he's presented to us in his second quarter statement today. Your government's revenues are more than $500 million less than you predicted in your April budget. There are 555,000 people without jobs. The number of people who are out of work and receiving welfare has increased by 20% in the last year. A plant closes every three days.

These may just seem to be numbers that you've presented in this second quarter report, but behind the numbers there are these very real people. All you do in this government in response to those real people is to give lipservice to economic renewal, while you continue to play political games with your budget numbers.

Why don't you acknowledge that you are in a financial mess and that the only way out of it is to go back to the drawing-board and devise some workable economic renewal plans?

Hon Mr Laughren: It's true that our revenues are down this year, as we detailed. We're not trying to hide anything. It was detailed in Ontario Finances for the second quarter, released today, but that's certainly not a surprise to anyone, given the fact that the recession has been more prolonged and deeper than anybody thought it was going to be. As a member of the Liberal caucus, she knows that projections in this world are not always spot on. She knows that full well. She was a member of a government that had similar difficulties, as a matter of fact.

To address the problem about the economic policies of this government, we have moved away from the tradition in this province of simply putting all money into make-work projects that were here today and gone tomorrow and created only short-term projects. We have said we understand that the problems in this economy are long-term and structural in nature, as they are in other jurisdictions. That's why we have put an enormous amount of effort into training and adjustment.

Just one example: We are spending $930 million this year in beefed-up apprenticeship programs, the most that's ever been spent in the history of the province on apprenticeship programs. We're proud of that and that's a long-term structural strategy to address the long-term structural problems in the economy.

Mrs McLeod: Treasurer, you say you're not trying to hide anything from the people of Ontario, but it's quite apparent with these second-quarter numbers that your budget predictions were wrong. I ask you to cast your mind back, because we told you when you brought out your budget figures that your predictions were wrong, and we told you exactly why you were wrong.

I tell you today that you are going to be wrong again at the end of this year. You are counting on $1.2 billion of fiscal stabilization money, and you know you're only going to get a fraction of that. You still claim you're going to raise another $500 million by selling crown assets to your own land corporation. Treasurer, these fiscal tricks will only fool people for so long. By the end of this fiscal year, you're going to have to tell Ontarians what your government's and this province's real financial situation is. Why keep everybody waiting for another six months? Why not tell the people of this province now what the real financial situation is?

Hon Mr Laughren: That's precisely what the second-quarter Ontario Finances is doing. It's telling the people of this province that our revenues are down substantially. We understand that. We said in our budget on April 30 of this year that we were going to find in-year savings, expenditure savings, of $400 million across the various ministries. We've already achieved $355 million of that. On top of that, we imposed a 1% reduction in spending by all ministries.

We have done an extremely good job in managing the expenditures of this province. I'm going to tell you something else: Day after day, you and your colleagues and the members of the Conservative caucus are on their feet telling us that the deficit's too high, that we're not creating enough jobs, and the next day you're on your feet telling us we should be spending more money on program after program after program. Would you get your message straight, please?

The Speaker: New question.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Speaker, there are times when the frustration of being on the opposition side of the House and not being able to respond to statements which the Treasurer makes is beyond belief. Treasurer, I would defy you to find a situation in which we have called for you to manage the finances appropriately one day and called for you to increase spending the next.

My second question is for the Minister of Labour.

Hon Mr Laughren: May I respond to that question?

Mrs McLeod: Only if I'm given equal time, Treasurer.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for the Treasurer to respond?

Would the leader place her question, please.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My second question is for the Minister of Labour. Today the Premier leaves the province for 16 days. By the time he returns, more than 8,700 people in Ontario will lose their jobs, five more plants will close down and Ontario will have a new labour law.

Since day one, this government has consistently ignored our concerns and the concerns of business and of ordinary Ontarians about the effect this legislation will have on the province's economy and on jobs, and so I say to the minister one last time, will you share with the people of Ontario the information you must now surely have about how many jobs, how many businesses, how much investment this bill is going to cost Ontario?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I am pleased to respond to the question from the leader of the official opposition. I don't know where she's getting her figures on the numbers that will be gone -- she may have a crystal ball; I'm not sure -- or how many will lose their jobs. What we are sure of is that we have to change the climate in Ontario; that we have to start using, for the first time effectively, workers in this province and their abilities as part of the decision-making process and as part of the ability to make sure that we can compete in today's world.

Mrs McLeod: The question was what studies the minister has to simply show the impact this legislation will have before he rams it through this House today. We've been calling for a proper impact study ever since the government introduced this ill-conceived bill, and the government has simply ignored us.

More than two thirds of Ontarians have said they want the government to do a proper study of the impact this bill will have on jobs, and the government has ignored them.

Business representatives from across the province have said the bill will cost hundreds of thousands of jobs and will drive billions of dollars in investment out of this province, and the minister totally dismisses business too.

Minister, do you think that two thirds of Ontarians are simply being unreasonable when they ask for a job impact study? Do you think that the business people of Ontario are simply lying when they tell you that Bill 40 will cost this province hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions in investment?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I have difficulty in knowing how the leader of the official opposition can also accept the hundreds of thousands of jobs figure she's using, based on a survey that was not an actual survey; it was an opinion survey that included questions that are not part of the bill. So I don't know how you come up with the figures you're coming up with.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, perhaps not surprisingly, you've continued to refuse to respond to the question that's being asked. You refuse to hear what we've been telling you; you refuse to hear what business has been telling you; you refuse to hear what ordinary citizens are telling you: that no ideology is worth risking jobs, investment and the competitiveness of this province.

I have said that given the chance, I will repeal any provision of this bill that is driving jobs from this province. You are in government now. I know that you intend to ram this bill into law today. But if in six months or a year from now it is clearly costing jobs and investment, will you make the same commitment that I have made? Will you revisit this bill and make changes that might be required to prevent the loss of even more jobs and more investment in Ontario?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: When the leader of the official opposition talks about provisions of the bill, I'm not sure that she and I would begin to agree what provisions of the bill were causing problems, if indeed they were. I want to tell the leader of the official opposition that the kind of verbal campaign she is conducting and the comments she's making are more of a threat to jobs in the province of Ontario than anything that's in Bill 40.

ECONOMIC POLICY

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Treasurer. I'd like to go over your fiscal fantasy statement today, Mr Treasurer, on the second quarter financial statement. You're projecting $1.2 billion from the feds. This morning Mr Mazankowski's office confirmed to us, guaranteed 100%, that you will not get one cent. Mr Mazankowski has also told you this, that in this fiscal year, guaranteed, you will not get one cent. Yet you put it into your projections for the final six months of this year.

In addition, you are projecting a further $1.2 billion in sale of assets. Six months ago, you said you would sell them and you would get $1.2 billion; six months later, you haven't got 10 cents. Yet what you say here is that in the next six months you're going to do so much better, you're going to sell them all.

The final chapter in Floyd's fantasy is $550 million dollars worth of unspecified reductions, which is about $1.2 billion, annualized over a full year of reductions. You don't know how you're going to get them, you don't know where you're going to get them and you don't know when. Meanwhile, the ministers you plan to get them from are promising all their groups that 100% of the money will flow.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the leader place the question, please.

Mr Harris: Since the Speaker, who's been so consistent with his rulings today, totally ignoring the standing orders -- Treasurer, might I by way of a question ask you to come clean: Would you not agree with me today that the deficit is in excess of $12 billion?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): The leader of the third party should know that my fantasies have nothing to do with asset sales or fiscal stabilization.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): What are they?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation and Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs): Ah, Steve, you are so spontaneous.

Mr Mahoney: Come clean. I want to know. Is that on television, Floyd?

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Laughren: The leader of the third party, and the member for Mississauga West, with his childish rantings today, said that they've been told categorically that the Minister of Finance had said that Ontario was not going to get its $1.2-billion stabilization fund, which the federal government undeniably owes the people of the province of Ontario. I find that very hard to believe, because I believe Mr Mazankowski is an honourable man and would tell me, as the Treasurer of this province, that fact before he would let it be known to anybody else, if indeed he really was going to behave in such an unfair fashion to the people of the province of Ontario.

1500

Mr Mahoney: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The Treasurer just said that the member for Mississauga West made some childish remarks. I think he was referring to another riding, and I would like him to correct that.

Hon Mr Laughren: I apologize, Mr Speaker. I certainly meant that the member for Mississauga West was not doing any childish rantings today. It was the member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like the Treasurer to outline exactly what he meant by that comment, because I take offence. What are you talking about, Mr Treasurer?

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr Harris: The House leader for the New Democratic Party says, "Watch the tape." I think the Treasurer, if he watches the tape of my question, will find that I said that Mr Mazankowski's office said you will not get one cent in this fiscal year. You say you will get $1.2 billion in this fiscal year. Mr Mazankowski, his office, the federal Treasury officials have told you that if you get anything, it will not be one cent in this year. You know that, I know that, and you have purposely put something in here that is untrue.

By way of supplementary, I suggest that this Treasurer is out of touch with the economic realities of Ontario. Bookkeeping like we have seen here would get you thrown out of a job in the private sector and would probably have you charged. The numbers don't add up.

Treasurer, how many hospital beds are you going to close? How many kids won't have classroom space? How many more families won't have access to day care to make up for the missing millions and millions of dollars in this false statement you released today?

Hon Mr Laughren: Mr Speaker, I want to make it perfectly clear, because the leader of the third party has said that what's in Ontario Finances is untrue, that I find it strange that the Speaker would allow him to get away with that untruth in itself. However, that ruling is your decision, not mine.

I would say this: At no point has the federal government, its officials, or the minister indicated to me that we will not get $1.2 billion this year. I've said always that I've considered Mr Mazankowski to be an honourable member, an honourable minister, and I find it very strange that he would tell the leader of the third party, despite their ideological affinity, something he has not said to me. I just don't believe the member of the third party.

Mr Harris: The difference is that I asked him and you haven't. That's the responsible thing to do as the Treasurer of the province of Ontario.

Clearly this statement demonstrates that you've lost the fight against the recession, which is the fight you picked. You said, "We're going to fight the recession." Now we know as well that you've lost the fight against the deficit, which is the fight Bob Rae ran away from. As of 6 pm today, when you pass your Bill 40 -- thanks to the fact that the Speaker didn't uphold the standing orders -- you will have lost the fight for jobs. No wonder the Premier wanted to get out of the country today; no small coincidence.

Treasurer, Deputy Premier, later today I will be introducing a bill to repeal Bill 40. This, if passed, and if it's passed immediately, could be the start of recovery for the province. It could be the turning point, Mr Deputy Premier. I ask you today, will you support this bill? Will you join with me in my office later today to go over an implementation plan for New Directions so that together, you and I could put this province back to work?

Hon Mr Laughren: That is truly a scary proposal. No, I will not meet with him in his office later this afternoon. I'm very much aware of what his proposals would be. It would be one list of anti-labour legislation after another, and that's not where this government's coming from.

Further, if the leader of the third party is right -- if he is, and I've no reason to believe this -- and if the federal government decides to renege on its obligation to this province on the $1.2-billion fiscal stabilization plan, it will have a lot more to say about his federal Tory friends than it does about the budgetary policy of this government.

POLICE JOB ACTION

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): My question is to the Solicitor General. I want to say that we're encouraged to see that the minister will meet next Wednesday with the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association to try to resolve the conflict between the association and the government.

The Metro Toronto Police have stated several times that your regulatory proposal to require officers to file reports each time they draw their weapons in public is the straw that broke the camel's back. Given that the police have identified that one regulation as a key issue in the conflict, and given that you told the media that the Premier has authorized you to resolve this issue "however you see fit," will you tell the House whether at next week's meeting you're prepared to consider revising or rescinding this controversial regulation?

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General): I have been engaged in very meaningful discussions with the PAO, the Police Association of Ontario. I have now obtained agreement from the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association to join us at that table next Wednesday for fruitful discussions. I believe this substantially increases the opportunity to find a resolution that will bring this current impasse to an end. But I don't believe it would be appropriate for me to be trying to respond or to enter into discussions that perhaps more properly belong at that table next Wednesday.

Mr Runciman: Clearly, the Solicitor General remains committed to seeing this regulation come into force. There's a reason for that, and we believe it's a fact that this minister and many of his confrères in the government simply don't understand the frustrations and the pressures that especially Metro police officers have to face and feel on a daily basis. He apparently can never understand their concerns.

What I would like him to commit himself to doing today is going on patrol at least once or twice with Metro officers for an evening or two. This should not be a media event. He should let the Metro association choose the areas where he can accompany them, and he should try to do it before next Wednesday's meeting.

In 1988 the Ontario NDP reaffirmed a policy which states that "Regulations be revised to prevent the arming of police on routine patrols." That's right. It's in the NDP policy book. The NDP doesn't want officers to carry guns while on routine patrols. That's a policy of your party, Minister.

Will the minister tell the House today whether this policy is still one his party and his government support, and will he tell us whether he intends to at some point bring forward this policy?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I can't respond on behalf of the party. I can respond on behalf of the government and on behalf of the Ministry of the Solicitor General, which I represent.

Police officers in this province do have lethal force as part of their mechanisms to deal with circumstances that require it. I believe that is quite appropriate. They are armed, and in circumstances where it is appropriate to do so, they should in fact use those weapons.

In addition to that, they have less-than-lethal weapons at their disposal, and they would apply those in those circumstances that dictate those. Those judgement calls are made by professional men and women in our service, and I believe they do it appropriately. If there is some suggestion by some that these officers should be on patrol without such weaponry, I for one would not suggest that circumstance.

1510

Mr Runciman: It's difficult to know what this minister's saying most of the time when he stands up and responds to questions. I attempt to ask direct questions, but we certainly do not get direct answers.

The Solicitor General must realize that his proposed regulation to require officers to file reports each time they draw their weapons is just as unnecessary as the ludicrous policy of his party calling for no guns for officers on routine patrols. The Solicitor General has said repeatedly: "The reports on unholstering of weapons will not be used against police officers. However, the government has conceded that such reports can be subpoenaed as evidence against the officers."

Constable Craig Bromell of 51st division in Toronto is quoted in today's press saying, "As soon as someone is involved in a shooting, the special investigations unit is going to go back and look at these reports.... To a citizen, the officer comes across as looking...like some kind of hot shot."

Will the minister make three simple commitments today: (1) commit to going on patrol with Metro officers; (2) delay the implementation of the regulation on firearms reporting until an independent committee with front-line police representation can fully examine it; and (3) assure the House that his party's absurd policy to take guns away from officers on routine patrol will never see the light of day?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I indicated and responded as I did to the initial question that it is not the position of this government nor this minister that officers on regular patrol do so in an unarmed fashion. I don't believe that was the resolution that was passed at our recent party convention in Hamilton. I believe the resolution that was passed there had to do with the drawing of revolvers and reporting. I want to make clear that it is not the position of this government that officers not be armed when they are on patrol: They should be, they always have been and I suspect they will always be required to.

With respect to the other question, as I indicated, I'll be meeting with the associations. I really don't know what the problem with respect to filing a report is. Officers presently file all kinds of reports for all manners and makes of situations. Certainly at that situation, where you have a lethal weapon in your hand, that surely qualifies for a report to be made. I don't think that is particularly difficult or onerous, and certainly it's not intended to do anything in terms of eliminating the officer's potential to perform his or her duties.

Mr Runciman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The minister clearly suggested that I was misleading the House. This is a 1988 policy that regulations be revised to prevent the arming of --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. To the member for Leeds-Grenville, while I did not hear the Solicitor General use the term "mislead," if in fact the member feels he's been insulted, the minister may wish to respond. But I did not hear the word "mislead" having been uttered.

AMBULANCE SERVICES

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): My question is for the Minister of Health. Madam Minister, in my riding of Northumberland, and many others as well across the province, there has been and continues to be a huge outcry to save our ambulances.

Many municipal councils have passed resolutions urging you and your Premier to stop the killer cutbacks to our emergency medical services. I've had numerous phone calls and letters from my constituents demanding your government to keep this vital service intact. In fact, a citizens' group has been formed under the appropriate name of Save our Ambulances.

Yesterday, I met with Bob DeShane, president of the Lakeshore Emergency Service, the company responsible for ambulance service in Cobourg, Port Hope, Hamilton township and Hope township, where almost half the entire population of the county lives. That's approximately 35,000 people. Mr DeShane has told me that due to your government's lack of direction, he will be forced to cut a day car and also emergency onsite staffing by as much as two 12-hour shifts per day, replacing them with standby and callback. This will add a minimum of 10 minutes more to every response and surely endanger many lives in rural Ontario. Not only that, but Bob will be forced to lay off four full-time staff and part-time staff used for the day car.

I appeal to you, Madam Minister, will you get your budgetary priorities straight and help maintain essential emergency ambulance service in Northumberland?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health): I recall, in response to a question to the Treasurer and his response, that the Leader of the Opposition said there has never been an occasion when her party asked for spending and cuts on different days. Maybe she was right; they do it on the same day.

I would say to the member that the point she raises about the very important job that ambulance services do and the need for preserving front-line services is a point that I agree with her on.

Her facts are wrong with respect to budgetary priorities. I would point out to her that across the Ministry of Health budget, in terms of our own internal budgets, it was a zero this year that we planned for, and we transferred 1% to the ambulance services. So the operator she's talking about actually received a 1% increase in budget, not a cut to the budget, and that in fact was a higher allocation than we gave to our budgetary lines. I think that does indicate some sense of priority for emergency services within a fiscal constraint period.

Mrs Fawcett: When we get a little touchy about the budgets, I have to wonder. I mean, you must have some money left in your budget, you must have it allocated, and all we are asking you to do is to take priorities here and fund essential emergency services. It's interesting that the nine ministry-run ambulance services, which are having as much difficulty staying within that 1% cap, continue to be bailed out.

The minister will know that since August 1, Lakeshore ambulance service has been waiting for either approval to continue the excellence service it provides or Management Board approval to cut the services. Neither has come forth. There have been no decisions made. Now we are at the first week in November and Bob DeShane cannot cut the services to meet your budgetary requirements because Management Board won't make the decision, and he doesn't know how he can continue to maintain the fast, effective emergency medical service. What is your advice to him?

Surely, we cannot afford to play Russian roulette with our ambulance services in rural Ontario. Surely, it's far cheaper to link people to the sophisticated medical treatment they deserve and demand than it is to buy a CAT scan or put specialists in every hospital in rural Ontario. Surely, the minister would not deny social justice in an effort to support financial restraint.

What is your advice to the people in rural Ontario? What do you say to my constituents in Northumberland? Exactly what do you want private ambulance operators like Bob DeShane to do?

Hon Ms Lankin: Again I say to the member that she needs to get her facts straight. With respect to the ministry's budgets, we have had a 0% increase across the line budgets within the ministry. With respect to our transfer payments to ambulance services outside that are run by private operator-owners, in fact, we had a 1% increase.

What do I expect ambulance operators to do? I expect them to work with the Ministry of Health to attempt to manage within the allocations that have been set out. I can certainly indicate that in a number of areas of the province where we have had similar problems we have offered, as we have right across the province, to sit down with ambulance operators and their unions to try to work through examples of other ways of saving money rather than going to direct cuts. We've also looked at areas where in fact cuts have been proposed and tried to ascertain whether they are ones that could be lived with that wouldn't be of very serious consequence in terms of delivery of service.

Mrs Fawcett: They have to have your approval to cut services.

Hon Ms Lankin: Again the member is heckling over there and is going on about Management Board. Management Board has nothing to do with this; treasury board has nothing to do with this. I can say very clearly this is an issue within the emergency health branch. I, as minister, will give a final decision. We're willing to sit down with the people in that area who are running those services and attempt to work through some of these questions. The offer stands.

EAST OF BAY DEVELOPMENT

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): My question is to the Minister of Housing. Yesterday afternoon we had a typical Bob Rae dog-and-pony show in the media studio. At least the Minister of Culture and Communications had the courage to make her statement in the House; the Minister of Housing chose to make her statement in the media studio. I'm talking about the ballet opera house lands.

The ballet opera house lands are in the most valuable area of the city of Toronto in terms of real estate and this government has now made a decision to sell these lands at a fire sale price when the market is at its lowest, without waiting for a feasibility study, which it considers as part of the package, on the renovations to the O'Keefe Centre. Without all that information, this government has decided on the most expensive land in the city to build subsidized housing.

I would simply like to ask this minister why she is moving blindly forward rather than waiting for the feasibility study results and a better real estate market.

1520

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): First of all, I should tell the member that there is no fire sale of the property involved in the planning that is going on around the former ballet opera house site. What we had planned and what we are planning, and what I discussed yesterday in connection with the announcement by the Minister of Culture and Communications, was the development of three projects which will begin on the southern end of that property.

On the northern end, which is the section where it had been thought that we might have a ballet opera house, the planning will proceed with a mixture of housing, some of which will be market housing, in other words, privately developed and privately sold housing; some of it, which will be developed under our guidelines for affordable housing, will also be privately developed and privately sold, and some of it will be housing which we will be developing under our non-profit program.

Mrs Marland: I could understand that response if it came from somebody other than the Minister of Housing. The minister has to realize we're talking about three and a half acres here; we're not talking about 40 or 50 acres. It's so ludicrous what she's actually saying. The minister actually said yesterday, "It'll be a community that has some services built right in, possibly a park, recreational facilities and even a school." How is it possible to consider all of those things? What is the park going to be, 200 square feet? How can all those things be built into three and a half acres?

The main point of my question, and I think this is what I say to this government as keeper of the public purse, is that it has a nerve selling government-owned land for subsidized housing. I simply say to the Minister of Housing, would you please tell us what your vision is of community housing for families, that you would choose this site in the heavy traffic, heavy pollution, no schools, no facilities, in reality?

Let's be honest. Let's say we're selling it to our friends to build subsidized housing on the most expensive land in the city, instead of locating families where they can live in a good environment with clean air.

Hon Ms Gigantes: The member for Mississauga South has a vision of the downtown cores of our communities which is not my vision or the vision of this government. We believe the downtown cores of our communities across Ontario can be livable and that in fact ordinary people should be able to live in them. They should have access to all the facilities they need for community life in the downtown cores in this province.

I'd like the member to know that while I am in Toronto, I stay in a building that's across the street from that site. In that building there are families, there are children, there are dogs, there are cats and there is a school right down the street. She should come and walk with me and see the community that can live in this area, and she's going to like to see what we can develop as a community on that land.

RETAIL SALES TAX

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): My question is for the Minister of Revenue. I'm seeking clarification from the minister about used motor vehicles purchased privately.

A constituent from Peterborough recently purchased a derelict vehicle and proceeded to repair the vehicle, adding a new motor and other new accessories to the car in order to make it roadworthy. This constituent then proceeded to the local vehicle licence bureau, and was told, much to his chagrin, that he would have to pay the tax calculated from the Canadian Red Book value of the vehicle.

Obviously, the Red Book value of the vehicle did not reflect the true value of the vehicle when purchased. The sales tax assessed by the Red Book value was more than my constituent paid for the car. Can the minister tell me what my constituents can do to avoid this problem in the future?

Hon Shelley Wark-Martyn (Minister of Revenue): The used vehicle information program was introduced with the Treasurer's last budget and was the result of some studies that were done that estimated 20,000 curbsiders in the province of Ontario and also a loss of approximately $88 million to the provincial coffers.

The other issue that was brought to our attention was complaints from residents and constituents who were purchasing vehicles that weren't the vehicles they thought they were purchasing. They were vehicles that had liens on them, some that were used for taxis and they weren't told of it, and therefore had difficulty and had no protection as consumers.

That is what this information package and the new program are all about. To prevent the losses, legislation was introduced requiring that the tax be paid on the greater purchase price or average wholesale value as listed in the Canadian Red Book publication, which was approved by the car dealers in the province of Ontario, as the Red Book is the one most often used.

Vehicles that have been subject to excessive use or damage in an accident could be expected to have a reduced value. If you paid less than the Red Book wholesale value and this is supported by an appraisal, you can apply for a refund from the Ministry of Revenue for the amount of tax overpaid.

Ms Carter: On the question of appraisals, could the minister tell me who is eligible to assess and appraise the true value of used cars? Where would they get the necessary forms, and what is the process for having the appraisal approved by your ministry?

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): God knows.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Money, money.

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: Appraisals under this program can be completed by motor vehicle dealers registered under --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the minister take her seat. Minister?

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: Appraisals under this program can be completed by motor vehicle dealers registered under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act and holding a vendor's permit issued by the retail sales tax branch, whose primary business is selling motor vehicles; also independent appraisers who are recognized by insurance companies.

Appraisal forms are available from motor vehicle license insurers, the retail sales branch, field offices, Ministry of Revenue information offices and by mail from the Ministry of Revenue. These forms have also been provided to several motor vehicle dealers upon their own request.

The approval process for appraisals consists of ensuring that the appraisal form is fully completed and signed by a registered dealer or recognized independent appraiser.

Ministry staff from all three ministries involved are currently reviewing the results of the first month of operation of the new program, with a view to ensuring that our administrative rules are fair and reasonable.

SERVICES D'EXAMENS DE CONDUCTEURS

M. Jean Poirier (Prescott et Russell) : J'ai une question pour le ministre des Transports, s'il veut bien se brancher et bien écouter.

Monsieur le ministre, des propriétaires de companies d'autobus intercités et scolaires m'ont contacté récemment pour me décrire le cauchemar auquel ils doivent faire face depuis que votre gouvernement a dramatiquement coupé les services d'examens de conducteurs dans les bureaux de licence de la province. Grâce à vos coupures de services dans les bureaux de licence, ils doivent maintenant attendre plusieurs mois avant d'avoir un rendez-vous pour leurs employés désireux d'obtenir un permis leur permettant de conduire un autobus scolaire ou intercité.

Ces propriétaires ont des contrats avec des conseils scolaires pour transporter les élèves. Monsieur le ministre, voyez-vous le dilemme dans lequel vous placez les propriétaires et les chauffeurs ? Voulez-vous que l'on force les chauffeurs d'autobus scolaires non qualifiés à transporter des élèves puisque vous refusez de fournir un service adéquat d'examens de conduite ?

L'hon Gilles Pouliot (Ministre des Transports) : La question, comme vous l'avez bien sûr écoutée et entendue, est celle-ci : Est-ce que le ministre responsable pour les transports pour la province de l'Ontario comprend le dilemme ?

Non seulement comprend-il ce dilemme, mais je voudrais rassurer mon collègue. Ce qui se produit actuellement, c'est qu'on nous a demandé, à cause des temps non impossibles mais des temps difficiles ici en Ontario, à cause aussi des coupures budgétaires, de regarder en profondeur les services qui sont présentement offerts.

1530

Une voix : Ça fait deux ans.

L'hon M. Pouliot : Je veux rassurer -- Écoutez, il ne faut pas crier, là. Soyez calme.

Si on parle de gens qui doivent gagner leur vie, si on parle de chauffeurs d'autobus, notre gouvernement s'est engagé à rendre cette demande comme priorité. C'est donc dire que traditionnellement, si on avait une période, mettons, de quatre à six semaines, on doit reconnaître le besoin des gens qui doivent gagner leur vie, et on s'engage à le faire.

M. Poirier : Monsieur le ministre, on parle de trois ou quatre mois d'attente. Ces propriétaires d'autobus perdent souvent des montants frisant les 20 000 $ par année en permis d'opération. Qu'allez-vous faire pour corriger cette situation-là potentiellement dangereuse, où la vie des enfants pourrait être mise en danger, faute de chauffeurs qualifiés ? Pas cinq à six semaines.

Au mois de février, avec des rendez-vous vers 2 heures de l'après-midi, où les propriétaires des compagnies doivent prendre leur autobus, un autre chauffeur qualifié pour aller dans une ville jusqu'à 100 kilomètres de là, à 2 heures de l'après-midi, quand ils doivent être au conseil scolaire chercher des enfants à 3 heures, qu'est-ce que vous allez faire ? Ne parlez-moi pas de coupures, parce que s'il y a jamais un accident avec un autobus scolaire et qu'il y a des enfants qui sont tués, avec des chauffeurs non qualifiés, on s'en parlera sûrement. Je veux que vous me disiez comment vous allez régler le problème dans mes bureaux de licence, dans ma circonscription et ailleurs dans la province.

L'hon M. Pouliot : C'est une bonne question. Mais avant de répondre, cher ami, cher collègue, vous savez, il n'y a aucun ministre dans le passé ou dans le présent, qui se promène avec du sang sur les mains. Personne ne veut avoir des accidents. Nous sommes tous conscients. La sécurité des enfants, c'est primordiale.

Vous apportez à la Chambre un problème, un problème qui est vrai, un problème qui possiblement pourrait être résolu avec la bonne volonté du gouvernement. Je m'engage à le faire. Cher collègue, vous avez parfaitement raison qu'il est tout à fait inacceptable dans des cas présents que vous venez de nous présenter. Avec tout le respect qui vous est dû, je vais les résoudre, vos problèmes, immédiatement.

GAMBLING

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): Mr Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, who, as we know, is the minister responsible for gambling casinos in the province of Ontario.

We've just spent some time this week and last in estimates dealing with the subject of gambling casinos, and we discovered that there are at least three groups which will be devastated by the introduction of casino gambling in the province of Ontario. These include charities, the horse racing industry and compulsive gamblers. Yet the minister has not allowed these three groups to participate in her project team, which is studying the introduction of a gambling casino in the city of Windsor.

My question is, why have no representatives of the Canadian Foundation on Compulsive Gambling, charities or the horse racing industry been named to your casino project team?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): The project team is made up mostly of civil servants from the government. What we are doing -- first, let me correct the impression that the member left, which is that these three sectors will be devastated by a pilot project that will be started in Windsor. There is certainly no indication that that is going to happen.

What we are doing is working with the Ontario Racing Commission and our own people to do extensive consultations with the three sectors that he talked about, and we will focus in particular on the Windsor area, where the pilot project will be set up. As I already announced, this will be implemented carefully and we will have consultations.

May I add that, as the member well knows, we have been working with the horse racing industry lately on things like teletheatres and simulcasting and have come up with a new tax-sharing agreement with the racing industry. So we have been working with that industry and the other sectors for some time.

Mr Tilson: The record will show in estimates, Madam Minister, and you know it, that you have not been discussing with these groups around the province of Ontario. They are waiting eagerly for you to do that.

Your ministry has established a casino project team at a cost of $2.5 million to examine all aspects of the pilot project being established in Windsor. Of your 24 team members, why have four positions been specifically earmarked to deal with native issues, yet no positions are available to charities, the racing industry or the Compulsive Gambling Institute?

Hon Ms Churley: As I already said, the project team is made up mostly of civil servants who already work for the government, who have expertise in particular areas -- for example, Solicitor General, Attorney General, native affairs. These people have been brought together to bring their particular areas of expertise to the group.

As I said, they will be consulting with the people who deal with compulsive gamblers. They will be consulting with the charities. The Ontario Racing Commission, as will be seen in the record, has already talked with and consulted with the major stakeholders from the horse racing industry and will continue to do that, as it is doing right now in Windsor.

The positions that are dealing with the actual native aspect -- I don't think there are actually four, but may I say here that we are in the process of negotiating with the native communities on charitable gaming. We will continue the process of consulting with them in terms of our statement of recognition of dealing with them on a government-to-government basis and we will be continuing to do that.

LANDFILL

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Minister, as you know, 10 of the candidate sites by the IWA are within my riding, the riding of Durham-York. My community is obviously not a willing host. They don't want a dump. Minister, can you explain to me why my constituents have a 10-out-of-57 chance to win this landfill site in their backyard and why Kirkland Lake has been ruled out when it claims to be a willing host?

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment and Minister Responsible for the Greater Toronto Area): I'm glad to answer the question from the member, who I know has had particular pressure from his constituents and has certainly been very concerned about the decisions the government has made with respect to the location of landfill sites for the greater Toronto area.

I want to remind the member that our government has a commitment to that landfill site being found under the Environmental Assessment Act. He mentions the previous scheme to send waste to Kirkland Lake, but Kirkland Lake was one of a number of sites across the province. The site that had been identified in Kirkland Lake, an old open-pit mine half full of water, was going to be given an exemption from the Environmental Assessment Act.

If one is going to do a province-wide search for a landfill, you have to find the best possible site by a process of elimination. I very much doubt whether any of the people across the province who were targeted by the previous government as potential landfill sites want that to happen. In fact, what we are doing within the greater Toronto area is assuring that waste is disposed of as close as possible to the source of generation after we've done as much as we possibly can to reduce, reuse and recycle.

1540

Mr O'Connor: Last week there was an article in the Sun where the deputy chief administrator for the Metro council joint works committee talked about the fact that the cost of buying and preparing the abandoned mine in Kirkland Lake would only be $34 million compared to $300 million to obtain and prepare a new site in York. Minister, how can you ignore such a huge difference on farm land in these difficult times?

Hon Mrs Grier: I too read that story and was very interested in the figures it contained. We immediately contacted Metropolitan Toronto works officials to ascertain the source of the figures that were the subject of the story in -- I think it was -- a Toronto paper. It was interesting what we got back.

What we found was that nobody was accepting ownership of the figures that had been quoted, and it was very difficult to identify who in fact had been quoted and where they came from. Secondly, no studies had been performed. Thirdly, the costs that were estimated for Kirkland Lake were based on land costs only and were taken from an estimate that had been made several years ago when the owners of the Adams mine had made a non-competitive bid on the land costs for a York region site. They were derived by Metro works department personnel and were based on estimated land requirements, cost of land purchase and expropriation. There is no paperwork available on this breakdown.

In the opinion of the staff at Metro works, if true figures were to be derived, the costs of Kirkland Lake would be only marginally cheaper than the costs in York region, but what matters is the cost to the environment as well as the cost to the economy of the decisions we make. Reduction, reuse and recycling and landfill close to the source of generation --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the minister conclude her response, please.

Hon Mrs Grier: -- are the environmental solutions to those problems.

The Speaker: New question, the member for North York

Mr Charles Beer (York North): It seems to me that we're going to need a lot more room over here if the minister keeps giving those kinds of answers to questions that are being raised by members of her own party that she won't answer.

The Speaker: To whom is your question directed?

CAPITAL FUNDING FOR SCHOOLS

Mr Charles Beer (York North): My question is to the Minister of Education. Minister, I have in my hand a memorandum dated October 21 of this year. The subject is a capital funding proposal and it has gone out to the chairs of all school boards.

You will understand that this proposal, which calls for a fundamental change in existing educational capital funding policy, is causing a great deal of concern among school boards throughout the province -- as much concern, I might add, as the growing belief among school boards that this government is going to withdraw its promise to ensure a 2% transfer payment for school boards next year.

Minister, my question is simply this: Based on this memorandum that you've sent out, is it your intention to establish an educational capital corporation and to force school boards to debenture, to borrow funds for future capital construction?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): There has been no decision made on whether we will proceed with the capital corporation or in fact the whole issue of debenturing. That's exactly what the proposal is out there for. It's to get reactions from school boards. I've also discussed this proposal with the advisory council on finance, which, I remind the member, is made up of representatives from the various school board associations. We will look at the responses and we will then make a decision within the ministry and within the government about whether we are going to proceed in this direction.

I've indicated that there clearly is some attraction to us in moving in this direction, but obviously, before we make the decision we want to know the responses from the school boards and to hear from them any concerns that they might have.

Mr Beer: I'd like to draw the attention of the minister to an old document, to the Ontario budget of 1978, a budget brought in by the former Conservative government of the day. The Honourable Darcy McKeough in fact brought this in. It makes for some very interesting reading about capital funding in this province.

If you read that and you look at the proposal that you have now sent out to school boards, the intent is simply to move capital funding out of the budget so that the Treasurer can make it look as though the deficit is going to be a lot smaller than it actually is. The concern is not only that this is going to happen to educational capital but that the Treasurer is going to try to remove all $3.9 billion of the capital projects of this government out into this capital corporation.

Minister, my question simply is this: Can you confirm that in fact that is the intent of the Treasurer? How will this proposal help school boards other than ensuring that local ratepayers are going to have to pay increased interest charges on the debentures that they're going to have to draw? Can you answer that, Mr Minister?

Hon Mr Silipo: I want to be very clear with the member that the Treasurer of course will be able to more than adequately answer questions directed to him. What I can say to the member opposite is that there is no intention in any of the contemplation to the possibility of moving to a debenturing system to in any way reduce our obligation or our commitment to fund capital projects.

There would not be any intention, certainly, to force school boards to debenture their portion of the capital costs that would be available to them if we were to move in this direction. The debenturing proposal that would be there, if we were to proceed in that direction, would be for the portion of the capital cost that would be the provincial responsibility. We've made that very clear and I would certainly continue to make that very clear to school boards.

PETITIONS

GAMBLING

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I have a petition that is signed by some 300 or more constituents from my riding. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the NDP government is considering legalizing casinos and video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas there is great public concern about the negative impact that will result from the abovementioned implementations,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the government stop looking to casinos and video lottery terminals as a 'quick-fix' solution to its fiscal problems."

I agree with this petition, and I'm affixing my signature thereto.

LANDFILL

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition of 54 names from my riding of Dufferin-Peel. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Interim Waste Authority has released a list of 21 proposed sites in the region of Peel as possible candidates for landfill, 15 of which are located in the town of Caledon; and

"Whereas the decision to prohibit the regions of the greater Toronto area from searching for landfill sites beyond their boundaries is contrary to the intent of the Environmental Assessment Act, subsection 5(3); and

"Whereas the government has promised each person in Ontario the right to a full environmental assessment, including the right to a review of all options as it pertains to waste disposal in Ontario,

"We, the undersigned, protest and petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"That the Legislature of Ontario repeal Bill 143 in its entirety and allow a more democratic process for the consideration of future options for the disposal of the greater Toronto area waste, particularly disposal sites beyond the boundaries of the greater Toronto area where a 'willing host' community exists who is interested in developing new disposal systems for greater Toronto area waste."

I have affixed my name to this petition.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition signed by 32 residents of the county of Middlesex. They are petitioning the Legislature of Ontario in regard to the arbitrator's report for the greater London area. They respectfully ask the Legislature to set aside the arbitrator's report because it does not reflect the expressed wishes of the majority who participated in the arbitration hearings, awards too extensive an area of land to the city of London, will jeopardize agricultural land, the viability of the county of Middlesex and will jeopardize our rural way of life.

I have signed my name to this petition.

DRUG BENEFITS

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a petition signed by hundreds of residents in an area of Malton in my riding of Mississauga North which reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, on behalf of the senior citizens of this province, do petition the government of the province of Ontario to reconsider the long list of drugs and therapies which have been excluded from payment under Ontario's health plan."

This is a petition that has been signed by hundreds of seniors in the riding of Mississauga North and in the Malton area, and I sign my name to this petition.

INVESTMENT FUND

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I'm pleased to table a petition signed by approximately 1,000 constituents from my riding of Oakville South which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we, the undersigned, members of the Ontario municipal employees retirement system, do not want our pension funds invested in the Ontario investment fund; and

"Whereas we cannot jeopardize our retirement income by allowing the government to decide where our hard-earned capital should be invested; and

"Whereas it is very tempting to dip into our piggy bank without using the democratic process; and

"Whereas this is not how you protect the welfare of the worker,

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to listen to our concerns, and 'hands off' our pension funds."

1550

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Brad Ward (Brantford): I have a petition signed by over 1,000 hardworking men and women of Brantford, and it reads:

"Whereas the changing nature of Ontario's economy has altered the traditional employment patterns in the province; and

"Whereas the Ontario Labour Relations Act has not been amended in some time to reflect these changing patterns,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to immediately bring into law the proposed amendments to the Ontario Labour Relations Act, as outlined in Bill 40."

That's signed by over 1,000 hardworking men and women of Brantford.

POLICE JOB ACTION

Mr Hugh P. O'Neil (Quinte): I also have a petition which I would like to present today. This petition comes from the Trenton Police Association in the city of Trenton. It's signed by thousands of residents of the Trenton area, and of course it goes in support of our police officers. It's addressed to the members of the Legislative Assembly and the Speaker of the province of Ontario.

"As a citizen of Ontario, I give my full support for our police officers in their stand against the NDP government's new regulation, use-of-force reporting."

I support this petition that has been given to me and hope that the government changes its mind on the stand it has taken.

GAMBLING

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the NDP government is considering legalizing casinos and video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas there is great public concern about the negative impact that will result from the abovementioned implementations,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the government stop looking to casinos and video lottery terminals as a 'quick-fix' solution to its fiscal problems and concentrate instead on eliminating wasteful government spending."

I have affixed my signature.

UNIVERSITY ACCOUNTABILITY

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I have a petition bearing the signatures of 46 of my constituents who are concerned about the issue of university accountability. Using the more stringent accountability standards in New Zealand, Australia and the United Kingdom as examples, they petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"To make the accountability standards of universities in Ontario comparable to those Commonwealth countries."

They all hope that the current university accountability task force will produce results that address their concerns.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I have another petition signed by concerned residents of the city of Toronto.

"Whereas Metro Toronto council has passed an ill-conceived plan to bring in market value assessment in spite of the solid opposition of the city of Toronto; and

"Whereas we believe market value as the basis for property tax assessment in a volatile market such as Metro Toronto is the wrong tax at the wrong time in the wrong place; and

"Whereas market value assessment bears no relation to the level of services provided by the municipality; and

"Whereas if the province changes legislation to deny the city of Toronto the right to determine our own method of property tax reform, Toronto home owners, tenants and businesses will, in future, be left to the mercy of regional government; and

"Whereas Toronto businesses are already paying the highest property taxes in North America and our small businesses will be devastated by further increases; and

"Whereas the city of Toronto residents account for 29% of Metro's population but Toronto taxpayers foot 42% of Metro's bills,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario not to impose market value reassessment on the city of Toronto against the wishes of the people of Toronto, and to allow each local municipality in Metro Toronto the autonomy to determine our own method of property tax reform in our own municipality."

I have signed this petition because I heartily concur with it.

STABLE FUNDING

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I have a petition here signed by a number of farmers throughout Ontario. It's dealing with the proposal that's being put before the Minister of Agriculture and Food on stable funding and reads:

"Whereas two thirds of the farmers in Ontario do not belong to any of the general farm organizations and do not hold the concentrated numbers, they are strongly opposed to the legislation empowering stable funding in the province of Ontario."

I affix my signature to it.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Hugh P. O'Neil (Quinte): I have another petition which I would like to present on behalf of many constituents in my riding. This particular petition comes from members of the Eastminster United Church in the city of Belleville. It's re amendments of the Retail Business Holidays Act, the proposed wide-open Sunday shopping and elimination of Sunday as a legal holiday. It reads:

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition in the strongest of terms to Bill 38, which will eliminate Sunday from the definition of 'legal holiday' in the Retail Business Holidays Act.

"I believe in the need of keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of society in Ontario and cause increased hardship on many families.

"The amendment included in Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter (51 per year) from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

I have signed my name to this and I would like to present it.

ABORTION CLINIC

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I have a petition signed by some 300 plus constituents. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the government of Ontario has expressed its intention to use $400,000 of taxpayers' money to increase the security at the private abortion clinic of Dr Henry Morgentaler and an additional $200,000 of taxpayers' money to help rebuild this 'for profit' clinic;

"Whereas the Ontario deficit has risen to astronomical proportions, creating serious hardship for Ontario taxpayers, at the same time that programs and services are being withdrawn, including crucial health care and social service programs;

"Whereas all other private Ontario businesses are expected to provide their own security and obtain business insurance to cover fire, vandalism and other such calamities,

"We, the undersigned, while abhorring the violent act which destroyed Dr Morgentaler's clinic, do petition the Legislature of Ontario to immediately recant its intention to inappropriately utilize Ontario tax dollars on this private clinic."

I've affixed my signature thereto.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): With great hesitation I bring a petition forward from the congregation of St Paul's United Church. I hope the Clerk of the table will accept this. It says:

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition in the strongest of terms to Bill 38, which will eliminate Sunday from the definition of 'legal holiday' in the Retail Business Holidays Act.

"I believe in the need of keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of society in Ontario and cause increased hardship on many families.

"The amendment included in Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter (51 per year) from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

LAYOFFS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition to members of the provincial Parliament signed by several interested individuals. It says the following:

"Whereas the general level of unemployment in Ontario is extremely high and has caused severe hardship for individuals and families;

"Whereas hundreds of firms in Ontario have filed for bankruptcy and have had their employees join the ranks of those on the unemployment rolls;

"Whereas youth unemployment is higher in Ontario than in all other provinces;

"Whereas General Motors may announce several plant closings, with resulting job losses, this month, and the presence of the Premier in the province is necessary to persuade General Motors to keep all of its Ontario operations open;

"We, the undersigned, call upon Premier Rae to return immediately from his trip to Asia and to remain in North America to present Ontario GM workers' case to General Motors officials and to respond to important and urgent questions about the Ontario economy in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario."

I affix my signature to this, since I agree with the sentiments of this petition.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I have a petition here signed by a number of residents from the Amherstburg area and it is pertaining to the opposition to the Sunday shopping terms and making sure that it's taken out of the bill and the bill is defeated, and I do affix my signature to it.

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition to the members of the provincial Parliament. It reads:

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition in the strongest of terms to Bill 38, which will eliminate Sunday from the definition of 'legal holiday' in the Retail Business Holidays Act.

"I believe in the need of keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of society in Ontario and cause increased hardship on many families.

"The amendment included in Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter (51 per year) from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

I attach my name to that, as well.

1600

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I've got a petition here, and like many of those we've heard, it's to register a complaint against Sunday shopping. I'll read it to you.

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition in the strongest of terms to the proposed amendment to the Retail Business Holidays Act. I believe in the need of keeping Sunday as a holiday for quality of life, religious freedom and family time. The elimination of such a time would be detrimental to the fabric of our society in Ontario and cause increased hardship to many families."

"The amendment included in Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter (51 per year) from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

I support this and affix my name. Thank you.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LABOUR RELATIONS AND EMPLOYMENT STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT REPEAL ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 ABROGEANT LA LOI MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI A TRAIT AUX RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL ET À L'EMPLOI

On motion by Mr Eves, in the absence of Mr Harris, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill 93, An Act to repeal the Labour Relations and Employment Statute Law Amendment Act, 1992 / Loi abrogeant la Loi de 1992 modifiant des lois en ce qui a trait aux relations de travail et à l'emploi

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Mr Eves, do you have any comments?

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): Yes I do. Very briefly, we've had some advice from legislative counsel with respect to this particular piece of legislation, and the bill is worded in such a way that it will come into force on the day that the Labour Relations and Employment Statute Law Amendment Act, 1992, receives royal assent. If that happens to be today, I guess that's the day this bill will come into effect.

Very simply, the purpose of the bill is to repeal what is commonly known as Bill 40, which is the government bill that's being debated for third and final reading in the Legislature this afternoon. Mr Harris feels extremely strongly that this bill will be very detrimental to employment in the province of Ontario, and has made a commitment that if he were to form the government at some future point in time, he would repeal the legislation immediately. He gave the offer to the government today -- to the Treasurer, I believe, during question period -- that this bill should be repealed as soon as it is passed.

RAINBOW HALFWAY HOUSE ACT, 1992

On motion by Mr White, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill Pr68, An Act to revive Rainbow Halfway House.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LABOUR RELATIONS AND EMPLOYMENT STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI A TRAIT AUX RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL ET À L'EMPLOI

Resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to the motion for third reading of Bill 40, An Act to amend certain Acts concerning Collective Bargaining and Employment / Loi modifiant certaines lois en ce qui a trait à la négociation collective et à l'emploi.

Hon Shirley Coppen (Minister without Portfolio): I understand we have unanimous consent to divide the time equally.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Unanimous consent? Agreed. The member for St Catharines-Brock.

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): It is a privilege to be able to speak on this bill, Bill 40, amending the Ontario Labour Relations Act.

I was part of the Canadian Union of Public Employees for the better part of 14 years. During that time, I was part of several organizing drives. More than some in this House, I would say that I have participated -- I have considerable experience in fact -- in the certification process.

Organizing and certification: The simplest way of describing that process is that workers, individuals, decide for themselves whether they wish to join a union or not. I believe it is a democratic choice. Some would suggest that secret ballots are required. I disagree. My experience has shown me that workers are able to make that decision for themselves. Remember, I have just outlined the fact that each individual makes that choice. Once enough cards are signed, an application to be certified is submitted --

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): They have to vote publicly. Is that democratic?

Ms Haeck: Thank you, Mr Elston, but your comments really aren't required. And should an insufficient number be collected, a secret ballot does become the order of the day. Just for your information, Mr Elston, the member for Bruce, I personally have been part and parcel of a secret ballot vote to organize CUPE Local 2220 back in 1978, library workers. After the whole certification process was started, we went through a secret ballot.

Unlike some of you out there, I am personally very much aware of how the process works. I realize it is completely fair, completely democratic and very, very much representative of the workers involved, thank you very much.

I would like to congratulate the Ministry of Labour, which conducted that particular process in a very competent manner, just like any other election process this country runs.

Mr Elston: In 1972?

Ms Haeck: It was 1978, as a matter of fact. By the way, the union won.

During my union years, I was actively involved on the negotiating team. While some negotiations took longer than others, 90% of those negotiations were settled without a work stoppage. I have heard opposition members -- it's hard not to hear them, sometimes -- wax long about the fact that somehow the executive members take the strike decision for the membership. Untrue; absolutely wrong. I hope everyone here today will take to heart my personal experience. Such serious decisions are made by the membership, not the executive.

The opposition should remember that most negotiations are settled amicably. Union members do not take strike votes lightly, because the strike costs them, as individuals, money. Somehow, in all the rhetoric, and we do have lots of rhetoric coming from the opposition, I have heard little from the opposition recognizing that union members make a serious financial decision for themselves when they participate in a strike vote.

Throughout this process I have found myself offended by the misrepresentations, the misinformation, that has been generated in opposition to this bill. As a woman worker, I have found that unions empower workers. They are democratic organizations, far from the right-wing jargon that has been used by some in this House and beyond.

In the heat of the debate, I know that members of this House have forgotten that unions do a lot of good work in our respective communities, whether it's the United Way -- in St Catharines alone, over 60% of the dollars raised by the United Way come from the unionized workers in our community. Shall I also remind members that many unions across this province participate in something called the BEST program, which teaches workers basic literacy and numeracy skills. Just to remind everyone here, unions help their communities.

Further, basic health benefits and pensions have been and continue to be priorities for union memberships. To a large degree the social safety net this country enjoys is because of 50 years of hard, hard work by unions, working people and the NDP.

1610

Bill 40 enables workers to organize. So did the original piece of legislation, by the way, but Bill 40 addresses the concerns of part-time workers. CUPE Local 2220 in fact had a large proportion of part-time workers.

I have had business representatives tell me that the aspirations of part-time workers and full-time workers are different. Totally untrue; absolutely untrue. The part-time workers whom I know and with whom I have worked want to become full-time workers but don't have the chance -- and that's the only difference.

Can you believe that some suggest that because women part-time workers exist, they do not need or want pensions, that somehow it's just pin money, you know, that they're working for a good time? That's not true. Some go on to suggest that these bargaining units should be kept separate. That's really inappropriate. They have all the same aspirations.

My brothers and sisters within CUPE Local 2220, the St Catharines Public Library, have the same aspirations as each and every one of you. They want to work, they want to earn a decent living and they want to be able to provide good food and housing for their children, to be able to send their children to higher education. The union executive negotiated and continues to negotiate with the administration to achieve their aims.

By the way, this is a composite local. It represents full-time, part-time and even student workers, and it has done so since the early 1980s. Those members draft their contract proposal; they actually do that, Mr Elston, the member for Bruce.

Let me repeat: Those workers sit down and collectively determine their own course of action, and I believe this is democracy in action. There have been an awful lot of myths perpetuated around this legislation. Critics keep insinuating that this legislation will somehow mean a union in every small business or plant. Again, this is far from true. The effort of organizing is just far too intensive and complicated, really, to indicate that this is even going to be a possibility.

In my meetings with business representatives, I have reinforced with them my desire to see a less adversarial labour-management environment. The US system of labour relations that this province adopted 60 years ago has brought with it unnecessary labour strife.

I support Bill 40 because I see it as the means by which we as a province, and ultimately as a country, thanks to places like British Columbia and Quebec, will see labour and management working cooperatively for the benefit of all. I believe Bill 40 puts this province at the forefront of labour legislation in North America. Its time has come. I will be voting yes for Bill 40.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Quinte.

Mr Hugh P. O'Neil (Quinte): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I would like to thank you for recognizing me and allowing me to say a few words today on Bill 40, a bill that we expect this afternoon will be forced through this Legislature because of the rule changes which were made by this present government. I can tell you that I certainly do not agree with the words of the previous speaker. I think she comes from a certain perspective, that she does not take in the total picture of what's going to happen once this bill is put into a law.

I might also mention that later this afternoon, Mr Elston, the member for Bruce, will be putting forth an amendment to the motion on Bill 40 and will be asking that this bill be sent back to committee. I would ask that all the members of this House support this motion, because as all members are aware, even though there have been so-called hearings across the province, there are a lot of groups that have not had the chance to present their arguments about why they feel this bill should be definitely taken back by the government and not voted upon today. When this does come before the Legislature this afternoon, I would ask for the support of all members, because this is basically a very, very bad bill.

I also want to make a point, and I see the Minister of Labour over there sort of chuckling to himself. He will chuckle to himself today, but let me tell you that as statistics start to roll in over the next few days or the next months or the next years, he will see that the problems we have now will be increased because of this specific type of legislation, plus other moves that his government is making to make it very difficult to carry on business in Ontario.

I know they will tell you they see the opposition members and many of the groups that have appeared to make presentations and many of those who would have liked to appear as anti-labour, labour-bashing. But I'd like to relate something to you, because I feel many of the things that have been done by the unions over the last number of years have been very good things. Before I was a member of this Legislature, I was involved in different unions in Ontario, and I can tell you that I have also seen the perspective that the unions come from and the excellent work they have done.

I can also relate to you that my father was on the railroad for 38 years and was a very strong union person and worked very hard for his members. I also remember the circumstances where, at the time of his death, after he had served 38 years on the railroad, my mother was left with a pension of approximately $50 a month to support four children who were still at home with her.

I can see the job that the unions have done across this province and across this great country to help improve the workplace, to improve the benefits the union members have won, so I don't like to think that the comments I'm going to say today are anti-union. I'd like to look at it with the perspective that for this province and this country to be very healthy, we have to make sure we're going to provide jobs in Ontario. I think this type of legislation, along with some of the other legislation that has been put forth by the NDP government, is not good for the province.

I'd also like to relate that in the Quinte area, my area, in the cities of both Trenton and Belleville and in Sidney township, we have been experiencing part of what I feel is going to continue to happen unless this government withdraws this legislation. I know that in the city of Trenton alone we've lost almost 1,000 jobs over the last six months, and many of those jobs are union jobs. At Murata Erie we've lost approximately 300 jobs over the last six months. Three or four years ago that plant had over 1,000 employees. Now they've lost 300, the last 300, and the plant has closed.

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): Why is that?

Mr O'Neil: Why is that? I think it's partly because of the atmosphere that has been created by your government in destroying and turning away investment. I really believe that.

At Paperboard Industries, just north of Trenton in the Glen Miller area, we've lost 184 jobs, and approximately a third of that plant has been closed; Nestle foods, we've lost 140 jobs; Corby Distilleries, a couple of years ago we lost 170 jobs; Quinte Transport, in just the last short while we lost 80 jobs.

Mr Hope: It's economic.

Mr O'Neil: Well, you can say it's economic, yes, but you know --

The Deputy Speaker: Please address the chair.

Mr O'Neil: -- we have one of the greatest provinces in the world, or we had one of the greatest provinces in the world, and unless you create that atmosphere where you're going to allow people to continue to stay in business, or you're going to encourage them to come in and start up businesses, or you're not going to drive them out, you're creating an atmosphere where that confidence is lost. Sure, part of it is confidence. People want to know that they can stay in business and they can make things work. But as I say, it's my really firm belief that you are destroying part of that.

Some people would say today that we're really not in a recession, we're in a depression. If it wasn't for many of the government programs we have, some that we have and some in other parts of Canada, we would actually be in a depression. We have to be very careful to make sure that those numbers aren't increased because of legislation that we put forward.

I'd like to give you a little example. I had the chance about a year ago to be away on holidays. In this particular restaurant where we were, people sat down beside us and they started talking. When they knew I was a member of the Legislature in Ontario, and not of the government party, this person said to me: "You know, we have a large piece of land in the city of Toronto. We had planned on putting up a large complex there and employing approximately between 300 and 400 people."

He said: "We've been examining very closely the legislation that's been passed and the planned legislation, and I can tell you that we pulled the shovels out of the ground. We're not going ahead with the construction of that particular building and hiring those people, because we are really afraid we're not going to be on a competitive basis in the province of Ontario, particularly, in this case, in the city of Toronto, and provide additional jobs."

1620

Not too many people are without knowledge of the problems we have presently in Ontario with the high unemployment rate, the number of students unemployed and with many of the other problems we have. We know this legislation is not going to create one new job. As I just mentioned, it's going to deter people from expanding. Presently some of them are planning on moving out of the province. The whole atmosphere is a very bad one.

I think some of the members of the government seem to think that if we have a plant or a business, whether large or small, making a profit, that profit should be reduced and these profits should be taken away from these people.

Let me tell you that one of the reasons we have been so successful in the province of Ontario is that we have had many industries, small and large businesses, that have been making excellent profits. If they are good companies -- which I believe most of the companies in the province of Ontario are -- they are making sure they share those profits with their employees, that they are good employers, pay them a just wage and give them good benefits.

But I am afraid that sometimes the atmosphere and the feeling out there with some members of this government is that they feel those people have to be cut down to size. You have to tax them to the point where they can't stay in business, put in legislation or make it so difficult with some of your regulations that their costs have gone sky-high. Because of that we have over 500,000 -- approaching 600,000 -- people today out of work.

We have the large number of businesses per day that are going bankrupt. We see all of these problems and we have to learn that we have to cooperate with small and large businesses, manufacturing concerns today, to make it healthy for them so they can exist.

I say to you sincerely that this type of legislation you're bringing in under Bill 40 is really going to be the cause of additional layoffs, additional bankruptcies, additional closures and additional people moving out of the province of Ontario.

I ask the Minister of Labour to again examine this legislation and look at it sincerely. Consider the request made by Mr Elston that this go back to committee to further hear some of the arguments.

One of the points that has been made by the government is that this legislation will not create more strikes in the province of Ontario; it will not mean more days lost because of strikes.

It's not only the companies that suffer from this; it's also all those employees out on the street who are not in there making this wage.

Let me go back to the point about Quebec. It says here: "The only other jurisdiction in North America that has similar legislation is Quebec. It is predicted that strikes will increase, since unions can effectively shut down an employer's operation. In the period 1970 to 1977, which is an eight-year period, there were 64 more strikes in Ontario than in Quebec. From 1978, the year the legislation was passed in Quebec, until 1991, there were 652 more strikes in Quebec than in Ontario."

What does that tell you? What is this legislation going to do if it creates an atmosphere where there are going to be that many more strikes; those people are going to be out of work; jobs are going to be lost; companies are going to close?

I'd like to have more time to speak on this. I could talk for hours on it, but I implore the government, please create in the province of Ontario an atmosphere where people, businesses large and small and manufacturing concerns are going to be able to exist, are going to be able to make a profit so they can hire the people we want them to hire, so we'll get rid of approximately 600,000 people who are unemployed, so the plants won't be closing. I ask and implore you to please consider and please withdraw that legislation today.

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I want to preface my remarks today by saying that they are being made after careful deliberation. They are being made after raising legitimate and serious concerns about the impact of the proposed changes to the Labour Relations Act for more than 20 months in this House and introducing 94 amendments to the bill, amendments which, although they reflected the genuine concerns of the people through this province, were all defeated by this government.

As a result, Bill 40 today reflects only the original version, the original union-driven agenda. No other agenda item or other point of view was ever included. Is that compromise? Does that reflect true consultation? I would say not.

My comments are also being made because the government never bothered to ask the people in this province to identify the problems with Ontario labour relations or how best to solve these problems. Instead, from the outset, the government used the union leaders' wish list as the basis for change.

It is obvious that the government has conducted a well-orchestrated campaign intended to confuse Ontario residents about the real purpose and impact of Bill 40. Bill 40 is not, as the government claims, about balance and fairness, nor about giving rights to working people. Indeed, Bill 40 destroys the delicate balance and takes away the rights and freedoms of individual workers and provides absolutely no changes for employees who are opposed to being unionized. These new proposals serve only to give unions more rights without any accompanying responsibilities.

Bill 40 actually demonstrates a lack of faith on the part of the government in ascertaining the true wishes of the workers, particularly in the proposed new certification procedures. A union can now be certified if 55% of the workers in a bargaining unit sign a card indicating that they wish to be represented by a particular union. What about the 45% of the workers who don't want to join a union? What about the workers who sign a card and change their minds? They do not even have the same rights as a consumer dealing with a door-to-door salesman. The consumer at least gets a three-day grace period to change his or her mind. It is unbelievable that employees who sign a union card will not have the same basic consumer rights that the rest of us take for granted in Ontario.

Why is a secret ballot vote important to working men and women? A vote free from interference or influence is important because we know that there are presently not-so-legal tactics used by employers and unions alike. A vote is important to determine the real wishes of the workers, because certification of a union dramatically changes the constitution of a workplace. When a union is certified, it is granted exclusive bargaining rights and the individual workers lose any right to try to better their lot on their own. Therefore, it is a critical choice for workers and it should be made as democratically, fairly and honestly as possible.

The same argument applies in the case of ratification of contracts and strike votes. Why does this government lack faith in the collective judgement of the working people? Why is it so afraid of properly conducted secret ballot votes when it comes to important issues such as certification, ratification of contracts and strike votes?

Moreover, if they really care about workers, why have they not put a process in place which ensures that workers are provided with complete and balanced information about what is involved in joining a union: What are the dues? What does it mean to go on strike?

Although this government constantly talks about the need to inform consumers and is spending $1.7 million to inform consumers about the new rent control legislation, it refuses to provide the same type of information to workers considering unionization.

1630

No, the primary purpose of Bill 40 is not to give rights and freedoms to workers. Bill 40 is also not intended, as the government says, to enhance cooperation and harmony. Indeed, the government used a process that contributed to polarization and created an adversarial atmosphere from the outset. The process also created an uncertain economic climate which contributed to lost investment and jobs.

Ontario, long considered the business and industrial engine of Canada, continues to gain a reputation as a province that is increasingly hostile to private enterprise. Instead of consensus-building in the highly sensitive area of labour relations and establishing a tripartite task force composed of equal numbers of business, labour and government representatives to review Ontario's labour relations system and make recommendations for constructive changes, the whole agenda has been shaped by proposals drafted by the Labour minister on behalf of unions. There is not one proposal from any other group. The creation of a task force would have allowed for a thorough economic impact analysis, improved the business climate in the province and ensured that any reform stimulates investment and economic growth and therefore results in jobs -- jobs which the taxpayers in this province are desperately seeking.

No, this bill is not about improving cooperation and harmony. If that was the intention, the government would have used the tripartite process. They would also have taken the time to respond to the grave reservations expressed by those concerned about the impact of the bill. They would have responded to the arguments from the legal, business and professional communities. They would have brought labour and business together at the same table to discuss the issues rather than meet with each group separately in isolation. They would have used a process that acknowledges the fact that successful employment relationships are created; they cannot be imposed. The partners must always both believe that the process is balanced and fair, and this has certainly not been the case with Bill 40.

Bill 40 is not a response to an outcry for change. The government has never been able to demonstrate a need for these radical changes. We already have the most comprehensive labour legislation in North America, and people in this province do not see labour law reform changes as a priority. In surveys that have been done, they have indicated this over and over again. Their priority is jobs.

Unfortunately, studies show that this legislation will contribute to further job loss and discourage investment. Instead of taking the time to respond and address the serious and legitimate concerns of individuals and groups such as the children's aid societies and school boards that are concerned about the impact of this bill on the children they serve, the concerns of the municipalities, the concerns of the professional groups and the business community, the unique concerns of the different sectors in our province, this government has run roughshod over the legislative process in order to make its changes as quickly as possible.

They changed the rules. They did not allow all those who applied to appear before the public hearings. They did not allow time for a full public debate on the amendments. The 94 amendments introduced by the PC Party were never all even read into the record or fully debated. These amendments reflected the views of the people in this province and they were never heard.

If Bill 40 is not about fairness and justice, if it is not about giving rights and freedoms to workers, if it's not about creating harmony and cooperation in the workplace, if the government has never been able to demonstrate the need for these radical changes or responded to the legitimate concerns that have been raised, why are these specific changes being introduced?

The answer is simple. The changes to labour law encompassed by Bill 40 originated in November 1989 in a booklet published by the OFL called The Unequal Bargain. That booklet contains not only labour's rationale for the changes but also the political imperative for their passage. According to the OFL, the bargain between employers and employees is inherently unequal, and the employers' interests predominate in the labour market and in the workplace. In order for unions to grow, both in terms of numbers and power, it is crucial to change legislation and thereby "change the outcome of the unequal bargain."

According to the OFL in that document, neither the Liberals nor Conservatives have the political will to change the outcome of the unequal bargain. Organized labour must look to the NDP to accomplish their goal, because: "For New Democrats, changing the terms of the unequal bargain is the fundamental reason for political existence. It is the foundation of the alliance between the labour movement and social democracy."

For the NDP, then, the central purpose of amending the Labour Relations Act is to change the form, the function and, most importantly, the outcome of collective bargaining. Since they believe that collective bargaining per se has been dominated by management, it follows that any and all changes implemented by this government would have to be in the union's favour. By definition, there could not be anything in the reforms to favour management, and there is not.

If one believes, however, that the current system of collective bargaining is generally fair and balanced, it follows that the government amendments, which favour only unions, are unfair. Thus, this government came forward with a plan to present the changes to the Labour Relations Act in the guise of a consultative document, and it disguised the drastic changes that have been made as modest proposals.

The actual conception of Bill 40 was even given a bipartisan face. The Minister of Labour brought together two teams of management and union lawyers and asked them to report on reforms to the Labour Relations Act under the direction of Mr Burkett. The two teams, of course, were not able to reach consensus on anything, and two reports were issued, with Mr Burkett endorsing neither.

As could be expected, the Minister of Labour proceeded with only the union's half of the Burkett report and turned it into a cabinet submission that was leaked to the press last summer. However, that release was just a bargaining ploy. By starting with a truly outrageous set of proposals and by making so-called concessions from the original position, the government attempted to make the final demands appear reasonable.

However, the government's plan to show that Bill 40 was a compromise when it was introduced on June 4, 1992, was short-lived, and the true intent of the government was revealed on June 5. Barely 24 hours after the Labour minister introduced Bill 40, the government moved secretly to change the rules of the Legislature drastically and thereby limit the opportunity for the opposition politicians and the public to dissect the bill and expose its shortcomings and bias.

At the same time that Bill 40 was given second reading and was being sent to a standing committee for summer hearings, a well-coordinated public relations campaign was launched by the government and its supporters. The campaign took great pains to explain that seemingly the only objective of Bill 40 is to allow immigrant women and other disadvantaged groups to organize and fight for a better life. The campaign emphasized that the changes were modest.

The campaign masked the real purpose of Bill 40. The modest and minor changes spoken of by the government concealed the fact that the changing of the outcome of collective bargaining is the true intent of the legislation.

1640

How does Bill 40 seek to address the unequal bargain? Let us begin with the purpose clause. The purpose clause will serve to give unions almost everything they cannot get at the bargaining table.

In effect, the purpose clause, as written, will detract from serious collective bargaining because "differences" between unions and employers will be taken to the Ontario Labour Relations Board where the purpose clause ensures that such differences will be settled in the unions' favour. This purpose clause goes far beyond general principles. It goes beyond promoting the process of collective bargaining. It gives more power to third parties to impose settlements. Moreover, this purpose clause takes the supposedly neutral labour relations board and transforms it into an enforcement agency for union organizers.

I'd like to make one brief, additional comment about the purpose clause. It's extremely important to note an apparently innocuous change to the discussion paper, because I think it demonstrates as clearly as anything else the insidious nature of what has happened as the government made changes.

In the discussion paper, one of the purposes was -- and this is important -- "to promote harmonious labour relations, industrial peace and the ongoing settlement of differences arising in collective bargaining and under collective agreements between employers and trade unions." That all sounds like motherhood.

But what has happened? The words "arising in collective bargaining and under collective agreements" have been removed without notice or fanfare from Bill 40. Removing those words strikes a fundamental blow against fair collective bargaining because the new wording will allow unions to bring any complaint whatsoever to the board for resolution. It becomes apparent that Bill 40 makes a mockery of collective bargaining and puts all the power in the hands of unions.

Consider these additional points:

(1) In terms of a first contract, Bill 40 allows the organizing union to apply for an arbitrated settlement 30 days after a legal strike or lockout deadline, without going on strike or being locked out. There is no risk whatsoever. Why would a union bargain hard or even go on strike when all it has to do is to sit on its hands for 30 days and get a favourable settlement imposed on the company?

(2) Remember as well, in a case where the union has overlooked something, it can bring "a difference" to the board, whether or not it is in the agreement, and get new terms. Is this fair to the employer? In plain language, then, the provisions of Bill 40 mean that a collective agreement will not be a final document. It can be added to at any time the union wants.

(3) Even worse are the provisions under section 45 of the bill. Those provisions give additional, sweeping and final powers to the labour relations board and its arbitrators. These provisions would allow an arbitrator to override the terms of a collective agreement and reach out to any employment-related legislation. In other words, section 45 will allow arbitrators, at the behest of unions, to go on fishing trips. If a matter sought by a union is not in a collective agreement, the arbitrator can find it somewhere, whether it be the Pay Equity Act, the Human Rights Code, the upcoming Employment Equity Act or anything else. Wherever the union has to find support for its position, it will be found. Is this fair to the employer?

There is much more I could say about the specific provisions of Bill 40 and the new powers of the board, but I must go on.

I hope you will notice that what I have been saying has nothing to do with allowing disadvantaged people the opportunity to organize. We all support that. What I have been talking about deals with serious matters, serious implications of Bill 40 which simply cannot be characterized as modest changes about which no one should be upset. What I have been talking about are changes to labour relations law which arbitrarily diminish the historic neutrality of what is really the court of labour relations, the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

These changes should upset any fair-minded person, but they have been very carefully masked by a very carefully executed communications plan. The difficulty I've had and the difficulty most people have had who are concerned about the bill is that the issues contained in Bill 40 are so complex to the average person that the arguments are easily glossed over with simplistic slogans about helping poor people to organize.

It's interesting, because I've talked about the Ontario Labour Relations Board and the fact that the historic neutrality had been diminished. There is some proof of that. In an OFL newsletter entitled It's Time, they stated that one of the principal aims of Bill 40 is to "strengthen the Ontario Labour Relations Board to act on behalf of working people." That statement shows a fundamental flaw. The Ontario Labour Relations Board should not be working on behalf of anyone. It must be neutral, it must be evenhanded and it must be just. Both union and management must have equal access to its offices and its powers.

Let's move now to some of the issues that are better known, such as the provision to ban replacement workers during a strike or lockout. Here at least the government's intentions are crystal clear. The objective is to shut down a struck company as completely as possible and render the employer helpless.

The government has said that the ban on replacement workers is working well in Quebec and that there have been no adverse consequences. That is incorrect. The fact is that since 1978, Quebec, with a much smaller population and a smaller economy, has had more strikes than Ontario. Of course, the government tells us that the strikes are now shorter and less violent in Quebec, which has had a very violent labour history, but why wouldn't the strikes be shorter and less violent? The violence generally associated with strikes comes when striking workers attack replacement workers, and the banning of replacement workers obviously reduces that risk.

All the talk about reducing violence is propaganda. Strikes involving replacement workers are very rare in this province. In fact, of 94 work stoppages last year, only 19 used replacement workers. The real objective of banning such workers is to render the employer helpless. Of course strikes are shorter when replacement workers are banned. The company has no option but to capitulate to union demands or go out of business.

Another reason that the statements about Quebec are misleading is that while strikes may now be shorter in that province than before, there is absolutely no measure of the investment that might have gone to Quebec since 1978 but has not because of the labour laws. That's the question that must now be faced in Ontario. How many investors will refuse to locate or expand in Ontario as a result of these laws, and what will it mean for the economy?

1650

A study conducted by Ernst and Young estimated that almost 300,000 jobs will be lost, along with $8.8 billion in investment, over the next five years. Even though the government refuted these findings, it resolutely refuses to conduct studies of its own.

In addition to these studies, there is evidence from a business person who attended a meeting in Detroit at which the Deputy Minister of Labour attempted to explain Bill 40 to Michigan investors. The deputy was told very clearly that US interests would be very unlikely to invest in Ontario under such laws. But that testimony of course has been glossed over by the government.

Interestingly, the Ministry of Labour has never responded to the PC Party's freedom of information request on this Detroit meeting. If they have nothing to hide, why have they not made that information available to us?

Thus it appears that we are looking at a highly organized campaign, a campaign not intended to create harmony and cooperation in this province, but a campaign that from the outset has polarized business and labour and seems intent on driving them further and further apart.

Of course you don't hear that from the government. What we hear from the government is that Bill 40 is going to help some individuals get organized in order that they won't have to buy their own needles at the sweatshop. But there's more. What is at work at Queen's Park is a plan to tilt the delicate balance in favour of unions and give control to union leaders in collective bargaining.

Someone has suggested to me that this campaign to make changes in labour law could be called the Trojan Horse ploy. Why? Because the government's public statements appear to conceal the hidden truth about the intent of Bill 40.

What now? What's going to happen in this province after Bill 40 is passed at the end of this session? I would personally encourage people in this province to try to re-establish Ontario as a good place to work and invest. Our leader, Mr Harris, has tabled a bill today to repeal Bill 40 when we form the government and replace it with a process of cooperation and consensus between employees and management.

As for the government, it should have acknowledged the true purpose from the start. That purpose was partially confirmed by the Treasurer in an interview with the Windsor Star on October 2, 1992, when he said: "I can't imagine a social democratic government worth its salt that wouldn't bring in labour reform. I just don't think a study would have proven anything." No, obviously a study would not have proven anything if the original intention was always to introduce these radical changes, no matter what, and change the outcome of collective bargaining.

However, this government must still answer two simple questions for people in this province: (1) What will be the cost to the Ontario economy of these changes, and (2) how much investment has been and will be lost because of them?

From the beginning, the government has refused to deal with these questions in a meaningful and a measurable way. Surely, in a province where we are losing 500 jobs a day and where we have a welfare bill of $1 billion, we, the people of this province, deserve an answer.

Furthermore, I would urge the government to ease up in your drive to stack the score in favour of unions. Please, create a truly tripartite environment in which jobs and prosperity are the shared goals of all Ontarians.

In conclusion, I would like to take this opportunity to express my sincere appreciation to the thousands of individuals and groups who have tried to participate in the process, who sincerely thought their input might make a difference. We've tried to represent their views in our 94 amendments. We've tried to raise their questions of concern in this House. I would like to publicly thank those individuals and those groups for their input and their support; it's been invaluable. I'd also like to take this opportunity to publicly thank my leader, my caucus colleagues and my staff for 20 months of very hard work.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Further debate?

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I want to speak for a few minutes about my constituency and some of the people who have come from that area. I represent Oshawa, which is a large industrial community to our east, and the town of Whitby. Frankly, unions have meant a great deal to the working people in those areas, and have offered them dignity and hope and allowed them to participate fully in their community.

As you may know, industrial unions in our province had their start in my riding. In the midst of the Depression, the auto workers in Oshawa took a stand. They didn't wait until times had improved in order to organize; they organized when they needed to. When the company was asking for the fifth pay cut in a row, and General Motors was making, at that point, a $200-million profit, which in these days would probably be 10 or 20 times that number by equivalent dollars, they took action.

The local mayor, the local community, the police force, stayed neutral in this issue, but the Liberal Premier of the time called in the provincial police, called in the RCMP. And when he didn't have enough troops, he established his own group called Hepburn's Hussars, a group of vigilantes who bivouacked in the basement of this very assembly. Mr Hepburn and his hussars were unsuccessful. CAW Local 222 had its beginnings. However, Mr Hepburn didn't let that deter him. He said he'd won anyway.

It's always easy to make political hay by attacking workers' rights, with the wholehearted support of the provincial press. That was true then and it's glaringly obvious now. A lot has been said about unions. Unions are depicted somehow as the enemy of business, and yet we know that organized workplaces are the most productive in our community.

Even worse, sometimes unions are being depicted as somehow objects, as some foreign source that's going to contaminate our communities. Yet these unions are organized on the basis of the workers making a choice for themselves, for their rights and for their ability to negotiate. Every single union leader is not some imposed boss, but rather someone who's democratically elected. Those democratically elected unions negotiate for the rights and the dignities and the dreams of the people of their communities and their workplaces. If anyone doubts the democratic nature of unions, they should probably spend a few hours at Local 222, as many of my friends have.

I know some of the strikers from that first organizing effort. Several of them have passed away during the past decade, people like Art Schultz and Tommy Simmons, to name a couple. We should honour their contributions and their sacrifices.

1700

From my constituency have come a number of leaders in the labour movement: Cliff Pilkey and Gord Wilson, presidents of the Ontario Federation of Labour; my friend David Archer's father, David Archer; presidents of CUPE 1000, such as Sid Ryan, who is now president of CUPE Ontario, and Mike Stokes, also the former president of CUPE Ontario. Leaders of CUPE 1000 and CAW Local 222 are prominent in our community's life. With our government's new initiatives, such as OTAB, workers elected as representatives are now participating more fully than ever in their community's life.

This afternoon we heard the Minister of Skills Development talking about how auto parts training is going to be injected not by something that happened simply by consulting businesses, but by involving the elected representatives of those workers, a full representation. I think our government should stand proud with that kind of representation.

These labour representations, these organizations, have contributed substantially to socially progressive movements in our communities. We know that Canadian labour has supported day care, social supports and an inclusive agenda. I have here a document from the CAW talking about its support for pay equity, for child care, for a number of very significant political issues. I think we should stand proud and know that in every country in this western hemisphere where there are socially progressive communities and socially progressive governments, they are there because of a strong labour movement.

I want particularly to congratulate the labour council in my community, which is celebrating its 50th anniversary this month, and to again talk a little bit about our community and how rich it's become because of the full participation of those working people, people who would not have that strength, would not be participating, were it not for the fact they represent their workers and are part of a labour movement.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I look forward to hearing my colleagues.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Further debate?

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): Although I have only a few minutes to put on record my views with regard to Bill 40, I do not want to let the opportunity pass by without at least putting on the record the views that have been communicated to me in my riding of Nepean and also by other people in the Ottawa area.

Let me say first of all that last winter I consulted my constituents. I try to stay in close touch with the people who elected me. I asked the people of Nepean, through the householders we are allowed to send out: "How do you feel about unions generally? Should unions have more power, should they have less power or about the same power that they have at the present time?"

I should let you know that only 3% of the people who responded said that they should have more power. There were 43% who said unions should have less power and another 43% who said they should have about the same power as they have at the present time.

Frankly, as you can see, there's a fair number of people in my riding of Nepean who have some serious questions about unions in general and about the union movement. I personally am more in the field of those who recognize, as the previous speaker just said, the important place of the union movement in this province.

Even though I'm opposed to this particular bill that is being put forward, I wish to be very clear that I myself and certainly my party do feel there's a very significant place for the union movement in this province, in this country, in fact the world over. As the member for Durham Centre just said, and I agree with him, modern industrial nations have found the union movement a very valuable tool for progressive social legislation and I certainly do not want my vote against Bill 40 interpreted as a vote against the unions.

I must say, before I explain my own opposition to Bill 40, that I do not agree, for example, with the general manager of the Canadian Advanced Technology Association, who speaks for an important industry in my riding and in the Ottawa West area, the high technology area. In a recent article in the Ottawa Business News, he said the following, "Introducing unions into the technology industry would kill the creative process in the workplace, destroy entrepreneurial working environments and restrict the freedom employees have to make decisions and work independently."

Frankly, I am surprised at this position by an important official in a very important sector of our industry. I was a member in part of the committee this summer that was listening to people's reaction with regard to Bill 40. There was, to be fair, a certain distrust, a certain feeling that the unions do not have a place in this province, and I think that is false. I do think if there is a balanced presentation between what unions can achieve and what management can achieve, that's in the best interests of everyone in this province.

However, if we all recognize the place of the union movement, the question then becomes, what does Bill 40 do, what does it set out to achieve and do the provisions of Bill 40 likely achieve the objectives that the government has set itself?

Yesterday I was at a luncheon where the minister for industry and trade spoke and he clearly identified -- and the Minister of Labour has mentioned it, as well, in his speeches and in his documentation -- that the key objective of this bill is to improve the partnership between the unions and management and business.

Unfortunately, any fair observer must come and has come to the conclusion that this bill eliminates the balance and destroys the balance in favour of only one partner in the equation. Permit me to quote from a recent editorial in our community newspaper, the Ottawa Citizen, which says, "A partnership suggests a balance of powers, but what the NDP legislation would do is tilt the balance in favour of organized labour in several significant ways."

My own chamber of commerce, as well, in its presentation to the committee last summer made the very same point. They agreed in fact with the government that, yes, we should perhaps try to improve the relationship between labour and management. They agreed with that objective. However, they very strongly felt that the provisions of this bill were not at all in tune with this objective, and in fact, they would have the opposite effect.

1710

I've also received many letters from my constituents who make the very same point. One gentleman who wrote to me has a very long experience in the field of labour relations. In fact, he worked in British Columbia, in Quebec, in Ontario, Manitoba and Alberta. He was a consultant on labour relations in all of these provinces, and he served as a non-partisan member of the Canadian Labour Relations Board for a period of 10 years. He sent me a detailed examination of Bill 40, and here's what he had to say with regard to, in particular, the provision for the elimination of replacement workers:

"The proposals are so foreign to equitable collective bargaining as to constitute a denial even of the term 'to strike,' rendering the term meaningless. In the undesirable event of the adoption of the proposals there should be some new word coined to cover the situation, as a strike in which the government intervenes and places all the power in the hands of the trade union is not the situation which throughout the world is known as a 'strike.'"

If experts with a long experience in the field of labour relations come to this kind of conclusion, I think the government should listen and should take heed and realize what it is doing here. They want to reduce conflict, and if they want to be true to democratic principles, you can't reduce conflict by simply eliminating one partner. Of course you can reduce conflict that way, but is that a democratic means, to simply reduce, substantially reduce, the influence and power of one partner in the negotiations?

If the minister and the current government are really interested in substantially improving the position of labour, the workers and the union movement in this province, then I think they should look at what has developed in Europe. Very often they talk about how progressive the labour legislation is in Europe, and to a fair extent, I think that is true. But what is being done in particular in Europe is what is called codetermination. It's the sitting down together on the boards of corporations and of medium-sized businesses where labour is in fact represented in part of the economic decisions that are made by the company.

This is something that, to my surprise, I found out over 10 years ago our unions are not interested in, but I think the presence of the workers in the economic decision-making of this province would radically and appropriately improve the partnership. I feel that there is a place to make sure that the perspective of the workers who contribute their talents and their resources to our economic products is recognized in the economic decision-making process as well.

However, this particular bill goes in a very different direction and does not at all achieve the objective that it has set itself, to improve the partnership between business and labour, because what it does is simply take away the balance that we have had up to now.

Since there are only 10 minutes left for our party, I will have to conclude my remarks. I appreciate the opportunity to briefly speak on this bill and again would indicate my serious disappointment that this government, which is so interested in putting forward the human side of the workers, is moving in a totally wrong direction.

The Acting Speaker: I thank the honourable member for his participation. Further debate?

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): I feel that it's a great privilege and an honour to be able to participate in the debate on the Ontario Labour Relations Act. I think it will be looked upon as a great moment in history.

When I think about my father, who worked in Stelco in Hamilton, and look at the hard fight they had for the protection of workers, the struggles they had, and what an impact that had on the working people's families, I think this legislation is important.

Bill 40 will help to reduce the conflicts between the business community and working people. It's going to look at a reduction of the conflicts because it will bring a balance for the rights of the business community and the workers and will lead to cooperation. I think it will provide greater security. It will not only be a benefit for working people but, as well, a benefit for the business community because it will allow us to continue to maintain a high standard of living as well as good working conditions, and maintain a spirit of cooperation. I think that's very important.

As you know, there are many workplaces that have suffered from low wages and been taken advantage of by management. We have to look at how that impacts not only the workers but the families. There are other workplaces that are excellent, where management works well and where there is fair treatment for all. But Bill 40 is going to look at the situations that are not fair and the things that happen that are not acceptable. It will look to protect the rights of the workers but also to protect the rights of the business community.

I think Bill 40 recognizes and tries to establish a balance, to maintain a good quality of life in the workplace. The workers will really appreciate and work towards good production and maintain their employment as well. That will benefit business, because they will then respect the worker. At the same time, the worker will also respect the people working at management level because I think it will find a balance.

I am very proud that this province of Ontario has a resource of a highly skilled, high-level workforce, and I think we need to take this opportunity. We have lost a lot of highly skilled people in Ontario who have moved to the United States because there was not enough protection for the rights of workers. This bill will protect the rights of working people, those who have high skills, and I think it will maintain the cooperation.

Some of my constituents approached me with their concerns about the rights of business as well as the workers' rights. The Ontario government has to become accountable to reduce the conflicts that happen between management level and the workers, and to bring both sides to the table and cooperate in good faith, to share information and come together to find solutions.

Bill 40, when it is passed and becomes law, will help with future children and will look towards the reduction of conflicts for working people.

In closing, I would like to say that I am very proud of the government's commitment to accountability in maintaining the Ontario Labour Relations Act in the legislation for Ontario. I think, more importantly, that this will lead to a development of economic renewal, a feeling of prosperity and security and perhaps a good spirit of cooperation and working together; the business community and working people cooperating together. I think we can be very proud of the legislation as a model for not only Canada but North America.

1720

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): There's probably one thing that all of us in this House would agree on -- in fact, probably all people across Ontario would agree on -- and that's the fact that these are indeed difficult economic times in Ontario. I think we would probably also agree that during these very critical times, labour and management need to be able to work together to get Ontario's economy going again.

But instead of encouraging cooperation, the very cooperation that the minister, when he presented these proposals, claimed was one of the goals he wanted to achieve, what we've seen over the last month is that these legislative proposals have polarized labour and management to an extent never seen in this province before.

I don't think there's any question that we can see how the legislation has upset a balance between business and labour, a balance which had helped to ensure that 95% of all collective agreements in this province were settled without strike action being taken. I think we've seen that this legislation is clearly already driving investments from Ontario at the very time when we most need policies that will create a positive climate for investment in the province.

Our prime concern with this legislation has always been, and will continue to be, its impact on jobs. We have repeatedly noted in this assembly the study by Ernst and Young that suggests that Ontario could lose 295,000 jobs and $8.8 billion in investment during the next five years because of this legislation.

We recognize that every time we've raised this report, the minister has argued that he does not accept the report. They dispute the findings of the report. So we have said in response: "If you don't believe this report, do your own studies. At least be willing to take an honest look at what the impact of these proposals will be on jobs and the likelihood that these proposals will put more people out of business and more people out of work."

This minister and this government have refused time after time. In spite of requests from opposition parties, in spite of requests from business, in spite of the stated opinion of two thirds of Ontarians that it was reasonable to expect that the government would at least do its own impact studies, it has consistently refused to even contemplate doing that kind of study. They have been determined, with ideological blinders on, to move ahead with these proposals without really wanting to know what it might do to the very workers that they bring the legislation in to protect.

This is not a theoretical debate. We believe, and we believe we have evidence, that jobs in fact are being lost now as a direct result of the legislative proposals. We see Dare Foods in Kitchener, which has cancelled plans to open a new plant in Ontario as a direct result of this labour legislation. We see Long Manufacturing in Mississauga, which is planning to construct a new plant in Michigan rather than Ontario as a direct result of this legislation.

A survey that was conducted by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business found that almost 40% of its members would consider leaving Ontario as a result of this bill. Yet this government, which says that its first priority is jobs, is going ahead with this legislation, even though it will put even more people out of work.

We are tremendously concerned about the impact of this legislation on the ability to attract new investment. We're concerned about the impact of this legislation on the ability to keep existing businesses here. We are concerned that we are not going to be able to keep the jobs we now have, let alone create the new jobs that are needed so that the 555,000 people in this province who are now unemployed will have that chance to get back to work. Surely that is a concern for the workers of this province, and surely it should have been a concern for the government of this province.

But in addition to our concerns about the job impact, we believe that Bill 40 is an affront to the free choice of workers themselves. This government has denied workers the right to a secret ballot before union certification is granted. Under the legislation, the Ontario Labour Relations Board will have the authority to order certification of a union if the employer violates provisions of the legislation, even if only a small number of workers favour unionization. We see that part-time workers can be forced into a bargaining unit with full-time workers, even if the majority of the part-time workers want to remain separate. This is hardly democratic freedom of choice.

Our caucus has suggested a number of what we believe to be reasonable and positive amendments to Bill 40. The purpose of our amendments is to retain the balance that currently exists in Ontario's labour legislation and to foster an environment that will encourage job-creating investments in our economy.

We are opposed to the ban on replacement workers. There is no evidence that this ban is needed and we believe that its inclusion will have a devastating impact on jobs and on business. We have called for a requirement that a secret ballot certification vote be held in all cases where 30% of workers support unionization. We've suggested that separate unions for full- and part-time workers should be consolidated only if a majority of members in both groups vote in favour. We have suggested changes to the purpose clause of the act to restore the balance between labour and management.

We should not be surprised that none of these amendments was even considered. It has been apparent from the very beginning that this government was determined to push this bill through. It was apparent from the start of the process that this government had absolutely no intention of listening to concerns about this legislation, particularly the concerns of the business community.

The original cabinet submission clearly stated that the government planned to neutralize the business community's opposition to the labour legislation. The public hearings that were held this summer were a sham, because the government did not intend to respond to the concerns. They were prepared to listen only to those who already shared their views.

The government introduced insignificant amendments with great fanfare. At the last possible moment, it tabled 26 new amendments, which the Legislature's resources development committee did not even have time to properly consider.

But perhaps most distressing has been the government's imposition of draconian new rules designed to choke off debate on this bill and others. I do not believe for one moment that it was a coincidence that new rules were introduced one day before Bill 40 was introduced. The government knew it was not going to alter its legislation and it changed the rules so it could ram this bill through. The Liberal caucus voted against these rule changes and the Conservative caucus must surely now see the folly of its decision to vote with the New Democrats and allow these rules to pass.

Our test for this legislation, as it is for any legislation, is, what impact does this legislation have on the economy and on the need to get people working again? We need to create an environment in this province that encourages job-creating investments. We believe that this legislation is eroding confidence in doing business in this province, that it is costing us jobs. We do not believe that it addresses any real problem. We believe that it should at the very least have been referred to the committee of labour and management that this Premier appointed in order to look at how he could improve labour relations.

Since it appears this government is determined, in a very short period of time, to force this piece of legislation through, I can tell you today that we will be equally determined to repeal any or all parts of this legislation which continue to drive business out of this province.

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I feel privileged today to be the concluding speaker for our party on Bill 40, and I'm pleased to rise on behalf of the people of Wellington, whom I'm so privileged to serve, to speak against Bill 40 one last time.

In conclusion, I want to start off by saying that I want to commend our party's leader for his courageous stand against this bill, the way he has stood up on behalf of the principles he believes in, and for his courageous statement indicating to Ontario that if he is elected Premier in two years, he will rescind this bill.

I want to commend our critic for Labour, the member for Waterloo North, for her principled and rational opposition to this bill. The way she has comported herself in her efforts to present the alternative point of view with respect to this bill has been truly remarkable. She's done an outstanding job.

Our critic for Industry, Trade and Technology has also done a very good job of opposing this bill and putting forward the flaws for the consideration of the government, which it has ignored.

For the rest of our caucus in the PC Party, I feel that we have done our very best, but unfortunately, as we know, the government will within 15 minutes' time use its vast majority to ram this bill through.

Our caucus has based its fight on a number of different principles. We've been fighting for economic sanity in Ontario, we've been fighting for jobs for workers in Ontario and we've been fighting for the democratic rights of workers. We have consistently advocated, and we were the first party to advocate, on behalf of the secret ballot vote. My colleague the member for Waterloo North today presented that to the House on behalf of the workers of Ontario, and the NDP government defeated it.

1730

Bob Rae says his number one priority right now is the economy and jobs. But his actions betray his words, when he rams a bill through the Legislature which will destroy existing jobs in Wellington county and Ontario and inhibit business investment and job creation.

My prediction is that business and job creation in Ontario will remain stagnant, at the very least, for six months to a year as a direct result of Bill 40. This bill could not have come at a worse time, when the province continues to suffer through a severe economic downturn, much of which is as a result of policies of this government.

As we know, the government will pass this bill today. The bouquet of victory will be very sweet for them, I'm sure. But it will soon turn very, very sour as the jobs go away and as the people start to pull up stakes and leave this province as a result of this government's policies.

This is the most significant, the most important and the most devastating piece of legislation that will be passed by this government over the course of its mandate. I can only say to the people of Ontario: Hold out hope for two years from now, when hopefully a Progressive Conservative government will be in power to rescind this legislation.

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): I only have a very, very brief period of time, but I would like to just put into the record a statement about the impact this would have.

The government of the day takes great pride in pointing to Ford Motor Co and its recent investment in Oakville as a sign of the support it has in its particular legislative program. I'm sure most members will have the read the statement today by the new president of Ford warning the Premier, Mr Rae, as to the legislative problems of some of their laws.

I should also tell you that in a conversation I had with Ken Harrigan, the previous president and just retired chairman, when I questioned him about the fact that they had made the announcement on a program that I had worked on for over two years, he said: "If we had to put that plant into Oakville today, it would not go, because of the proposed legislation."

I think it's important that the people of Ontario know that. You can't have it both ways. Right now, there is a situation in Ontario where we are trying to compete with global economies. We have to be fair. I don't think anyone is advocating that we do anything to destroy the union movement, but there's got to be a level playing field, it's got to be fair, it's got to be equitable and it has to have a rationale that people can accept. At the present time, I predict there will be companies, that we will never hear about, that will look at the legislation, look at this jurisdiction and decide that this is not where they're going to come.

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I want to make it clear that I am very proud to stand here today on the occasion of third reading of Bill 40, the government's amendments to the Labour Relations Act. Once passed, this bill will become law on January 1, 1993.

Over the last 18 months, I have been honoured to carry out the government's commitment to update the act to reflect the new realities of the workplace and of our economy. Since the 1940s, when this law was first developed, successive governments have made changes and have passed amendments to fit the needs of the time, and that's what we're doing today.

The Labour Relations Act has not been reviewed in more than 15 years, and we all recognize that the face of our workforce has changed dramatically during that time. Since 1975 more than one million women have joined the workforce. Today 61% of all women in Ontario work outside the home. There has been an increase of more than one million workers in the service sector. Part-time work is much more common, and thousands of new Canadians are working at their first jobs in the province of Ontario.

What this government is doing is simply ensuring that there is a continuation of basic democratic rights: employees' rights to join an organization of their choice and a basic right for that organization to be able to bargain with the employer. These are not new rights. These rights go back decades in the history of this province. These are rights protected and encouraged by previous governments, and I am proud that this government is carrying on this great tradition. We must continue to recognize the enormous contributions workers make to the workplace, to the bottom line, to the economy and to society as a whole.

This reform has focused on four central areas.

First, we are updating the act to recognize the diversity of Ontario's workforce and workplaces. Right now, women and part-time workers face many obstacles to organizing and effective bargaining. The act was designed for large industrial plants employing, largely, male full-time workers.

The second goal is to promote greater cooperation and harmony between labour and management in the workplace. Measures in this area allow for greater ongoing discussion of key workplace issues on a number of formal and informal levels.

The third objective is to reduce the level of industrial conflict in the province by removing the flashpoints and obstacles that frustrate and aggravate effective labour-management relations.

Fourth, we are streamlining and simplifying procedures before the labour relations board and before arbitrators.

To develop these amendments, this government underwent a long, intense and comprehensive process of consultation with business, labour, community and women's groups. This has been the most extensive consultation in the history of this province.

One year ago, we released a discussion paper setting out options for reform, which served as a basis for our public consultation process. I personally travelled to 11 communities across the province and talked to more than 300 groups about their thoughts on labour law reform. We listened to groups representing business, labour, unorganized workers, women, immigrants, chambers of commerce. We studied 447 written submissions during this initial stage, and I found it a fascinating and instructive time for all of us who were involved.

Upon introducing this legislation, the government made substantive changes and fashioned amendments to balance the needs and interests of employers and employees. I have continued to meet with individuals and groups and we have listened to their concerns.

This past summer, the all-party standing committee on resources development scrutinized the legislation and heard submissions from more than 250 people. Once again, we responded by fine-tuning our legislation with over 50 amendments, based on what we heard at this committee stage.

Today we have a reformed law that is the product of compromise and reason. It is reform that contains the seed for a whole new era in labour-management and workplace relations in Ontario. Cooperation, contribution and participation are key to the new partnership, and Bill 40 is about making things a little better and a little more livable for working people. It's about labour and management working together to restore this great province to prosperity.

For that reason, it is deeply disturbing to see the kind of campaign that's been carried out against these reforms. It is disappointing to see advertisements that are blatantly misleading and factually incorrect. The level of rhetoric has been, frankly, surprising and unfounded. As most people know, it is far out of proportion to the true reach of these laws. It is wrong and irresponsible to turn modest labour law reform into a scapegoat for the deep economic problems that are being experienced right across the continent.

1740

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): You are being irresponsible.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: What does this kind of opposition serve? Whom does this kind of opposition serve? Not the people of Ontario and not the economy of this province. It does not form part of the constructive debate we have had on these proposals.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order, the member for Parkdale.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: It sends a message to both investors and working people. It erodes confidence through the most manipulative means possible. It is truly unfortunate, because the people of this province do want to feel good about themselves and their prospects. Instead, what we have is a sternly worded, one-note campaign that does nothing to restore confidence in our economy and in the future of the province. It perpetuates the kind of antiquated mindset that this reform is designed to avoid. The old adversarial system is obsolete and it's time we all understood that. I say that to the members across the way very clearly, and I want to tell them that Ontario deserves better than what we've had up until now.

Ontario's economic success will depend to a large degree on the extent to which labour and management develop a new dialogue and bring that into the workplace in Ontario. Real cooperation between labour and management does have a positive effect on productivity. As well, there are other benefits, such as more efficient management practices, reduced turnover, better training and increased investment in new technology. These are achievements that should become the norm if Ontario is to prosper in the future. This is why updating our labour laws is just one element, along with things like the Jobs Ontario funds, the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board and the $930 million allocated to training in the government's agenda for economic recovery.

These changes to the Labour Relations Act are the culmination of 18 months of hard work, extensive consultation, drafting and redrafting, discussion, heated debate, compromise and reform. As Minister of Labour, I think we have laid the foundation for a stronger atmosphere of mutual respect in the province. It is a testimony to the spirit and the energy of the people of Ontario that we have had a lively and constructive exchange on how to update and improve this law to fit the needs of today.

I want to tell you that I am very proud that we've taken these positive steps towards change and renewal and I am very optimistic that we can use this alchemy of energy and wisdom to forge a brand-new brand of labour-management relations in this decade. I want to say that it's time in the province of Ontario that, instead of following the line that I saw in one of the local papers not too long ago, that labour is just another commodity like a case of beer, an automobile or a refrigerator, we simply have to understand that our most valuable resource in this province is our people, is the training, is the expertise, is the knowledge they have and the contributions they can bring to the workplace.

I would hope, in spite of the disagreements we've had, that my colleagues across the way can understand that whether we've agreed or disagreed on this totally, what we now have to do in this province is to use this kind of positive direction to bring together once again workers and management and start developing a real future for the people in Ontario. We are not going to do that, I want to make it clear, with the kind of negative naysayers that we're listening to across the floor of this House today.

I think there are a majority of people in the province of Ontario who clearly understand that what we've had up till now and what has happened to our economy has not set the best example in economic terms, let alone labour-management terms, and we simply have to change that direction and start using our resources, all of our resources, and that includes our people.

I want to say very clearly that I'm proud of what we have here; I think it's going to be beneficial to the province of Ontario. I would be remiss if I did not point out that there are an awful lot of people in the ministry itself, on my own staff, who have worked exceedingly hard and exceedingly long hours through a very extensive consultation process and through some difficult times. I want to pay tribute to the people in the Ministry of Labour, to my own staff and to my colleagues and members who served on the standing committee on resources development, who also travelled the province, for the contribution they've made in bringing forward what I think is one of the real changes in the direction for the province of Ontario, Bill 40.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I'd like to respond to this stonewalling by the minister.

The Speaker: The member for Markham, as much as we all enjoy listening to your speeches, this is not the time. We have an order of the House for 5:45.

Mr Elston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I move that the member for Northumberland now be heard.

The Speaker: You could ask for unanimous consent.

Mr Elston: I wish to bring to your attention the fact that the standing orders, which you have talked about, would allow us to go on at some length. The reason you may think that we do not have any more time is if there was a time allocation motion under the auspices of the standing orders, which talk about having two full days available for third reading debate.

Mr Speaker, I bring to your attention the following information. In accordance with the standing orders, I filed a reasoned amendment to the third reading motion moved by the member for Hamilton East. Having done that, several members have spoken in relation to the amendment of that motion, and in effect we have not yet had two days of debate on third reading.

I understand that while the question to be put at the end of the debate is really the question concerning third reading, the intervention of another piece of business means that we should have more time to debate the motion and to debate this bill.

It seems to me that the precedents are quite clear, if you look at Erskine May or others who talk about reasoned amendments, that it is under the auspices of the rules and the debate around reasoned amendments that we can choose either to speak directly to the third reading or we can choose to speak to the reasoned amendment. If there has been time consumed speaking to the reasoned amendment, as there was on the first day, in which case I spoke to it and the member for Dufferin-Peel also spoke to it, and today as well we had the member for Quinte speaking to the amendment, it really means that we have not yet had two full days of debate on third reading.

In effect, Mr Speaker, it means people have an opportunity to speak to the amendment, and you cannot shut us off in speaking to the amendment unless those people have had a full opportunity of debating what is in front of us, and that is, when the order is called, the reasoned amendment together with the motion by Mr Mackenzie.

The Speaker: I understand the argument put forward by the honourable member for Bruce, but what I must tell him is that a special order of the House was passed. In that order, it specifies -- and there is no latitude for the Speaker -- that at 5:45 pm on such day, this being such day, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question etc.

What I must draw all members' attention to is that there are two items related to this which are on the order paper. Mr Mackenzie had moved Bill 40. Mr Elston, on November 4, moved a reasoned amendment. Under standing order 70, we must put first the question, "Shall this bill be now ordered for third reading?" Should that fail, then we will put the question by Mr Elston.

So the first question is, shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Elston: I fully agree that the first question to be put is in effect the one you have said, but that can only be put, sir, in accordance with two days of full debate on third reading. There has been an amendment to the motion on the floor. People have spoken to that amendment. My point with you, sir, is that you cannot put it unless we have had two full days, two sessional days, of debate.

The Speaker: To the member for Bruce, I fully understand his point. Indeed, if it were not for the special order of the House, he may in fact have a valid point, but the special order of the House sets aside two days. Two days have elapsed. I have no latitude. At this point, I must put the question.

Shall this bill be now read a third time?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. There is a 15-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1753 to 1808.

The Speaker: Would all members please be seated.

The question before the House is: Shall Bill 40 be now read a third time? Those in favour will please rise one by one.

Ayes

Abel, Allen, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Drainville, Duignan, Ferguson, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson, Klopp, Kormos, Lankin, Laughren, Lessard, Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), North, O'Connor, Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pilkey, Pouliot, Rizzo, Silipo, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Ward (Brantford), Ward (Don Mills), Wark-Martyn, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Ziemba.

The Speaker: Those opposed will please rise one by one.

Nays

Arnott, Beer, Bradley, Brown, Callahan, Carr, Chiarelli, Conway, Cordiano, Cousens, Cunningham, Curling, Daigeler, Eddy, Elston, Eves, Fawcett, Grandmaître, Harnick, Harris, Henderson, Jackson, Jordan, Kwinter, Mahoney, Mancini, Marland, McClelland, McGuinty, McLeod, Miclash, Morin, Offer, O'Neil (Quinte), O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poirier, Poole, Ramsay, Runciman, Ruprecht, Sola, Stockwell, Sullivan, Tilson, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Wilson (Simcoe West), Witmer.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 67, the nays 49.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The ayes being 67 and the nays 49, I declare the motion carried.

Resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, His Honour awaits to attend the Legislature to give royal assent.

1815

His Honour the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario entered the chamber of the Legislative Assembly and took his seat upon the throne.

ROYAL ASSENT / SANCTION ROYALE

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): May it please Your Honour, the Legislative Assembly of the province has, at its present meetings thereof, passed certain bills to which, in the name and on behalf of the said Legislative Assembly, I respectfully request Your Honour's assent.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals (Mr Alex D. McFedries): The following are the titles of the bills to which your Honour's assent is prayed:

Bill 25, An Act to amend the Provincial Offences Act and the Highway Traffic Act in relation to Parking Infractions / Loi modifiant la Loi sur les infractions provinciales et le Code de la route en ce qui concerne les infractions de stationnement

Bill 40, An Act to amend certain Acts concerning Collective Bargaining and Employment / Loi modifiant certaines lois en ce qui a trait à la négociation collective et à l'emploi

Bill 68, An act respecting University Foundations / Loi concernant les fondations universitaires

Bill 112, An Act to revise the Building Code Act / Loi révisant la Loi sur le code du bâtiment

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant Governor doth assent to these bills.

Au nom de Sa Majesté, Son Honneur le lieutenant-gouverneur sanctionne ces projets de loi.

The Speaker: Business statement? We won't say anyone forgot. There is no business statement.

It being past 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock, Monday following Monday next.

The House adjourned at 1820.