Report continued from volume A.
1740
CONSTRUCTION WORKFORCE MANAGEMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LA GESTION DE LA MAIN-D'OEUVRE DE LA CONSTRUCTION
Ms Murdock, on behalf of Mr Mackenzie, moved second reading of the following bill:
Bill 123, An Act respecting the Construction Industry Workforce / Projet de loi 123, Loi concernant la main-d'oeuvre de l'industrie de la construction.
Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): Today this House is taking swift action on behalf of the Ontario construction workers who are barred from working in Quebec.
Two weeks ago, Labour Minister Bob Mackenzie introduced the construction workforce management bill following several policy statements on the Quebec situation by Frances Lankin, Minister of Economic Development and Trade. Today, on behalf of Minister Mackenzie, I am pleased to move second reading of Bill 123.
Ontario construction workers and companies wanted to do work in Quebec, and they have faced serious discrimination for far too long -- 22 years too long. The numbers reveal the sad reality. More than 4,400 Quebec residents now do construction work in the Ottawa area, but fewer than 350 Ontario workers have managed to overcome the many obstacles that Quebec has put up against their working anywhere in Quebec.
Bill 123 places a restriction on employment in Ontario's construction sector. Those construction workers who are residents of a jurisdiction which discriminates against Ontario construction workers will not be allowed to work in Ontario. This prohibition applies to all construction in both the public and the private sectors. As Minister Lankin stated in this House, our approach is to level the playing field between our two provinces.
We expect our actions will convince Quebec --
The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Order. There's too much noise in the House. Please, if you want to hold a conversation, I would encourage you to go in the lobbies. If not, the member for Sudbury has the floor.
Ms Murdock: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I do appreciate that.
We expect our actions to try to level the playing field between our two provinces, and among the other provinces, will convince Quebec authorities to do their part in levelling the field, for in the end, Ontario remains committed to the elimination of all interprovincial trade barriers. Nevertheless, our present course must be to take action to mirror the effect of the Quebec trade barriers that discriminate against Ontario workers and Ontario companies.
Ontario has launched these actions on four different fronts, as outlined by Minister Lankin in her statements on September 27 and November 25. In addition to the labour mobility legislation, which is now before you with Bill 123, Ontario has put in place three other measures that have already had some success, as I will soon tell you.
I should point out that in Sudbury on Friday, we had a construction worker get up and tell the Premier that because of the statements by the minister in September and again on November 25, there has already been a change in terms of the contract work and the tenders put out by the provincial government. He was very, very pleased about that.
The measures that the minister mentioned in her comments were (1) the restrictions on bus purchases by Ontario municipalities, (2) encouraging municipalities, private sector organizations and construction companies to restrict their use in Ontario of Quebec contractors, subcontractors and construction products, (3) the new and restrictive guidelines concerning contracts and procurement for all new construction projects in Ontario's public sector.
As Minister Lankin has stated, Ontario pledges to discontinue all of the above actions just as soon as Quebec removes its trade barriers. Having said that, I'm proud to say that on the tenders that are going out on provincial public sector contracts, there is a statement that no Quebec contractors need apply.
Let me also repeat Ontario's commitment to work with federal, provincial and territorial governments. We are eager to continue multilateral, comprehensive negotiations to eliminate barriers within Canada. It is our hope that these negotiations will produce an agreement by June 1994.
As I begin to review the content of Bill 123, I want the honourable members to be mindful of the extremely high unemployment rate in Ontario's construction industry. In the Ottawa area, one of the most affected by Quebec's restrictions, about 25% of Ontario construction workers are right now without work. The problem has been aggravated by virtually unrestricted access to our construction jobs by workers who are residents of a jurisdiction that discriminates against Ontario workers. The large number of Quebec-resident workers employed in Ottawa-area construction has resulted in disruptions in the industry and has caused social and political tensions.
Enactment of Bill 123 responds to the adverse long-term impact of these problems on the province of Ontario.
Bill 123 permits the Ontario cabinet to designate jurisdictions where the employment of Ontario residents is unduly restricted because of discriminatory laws or practices. They can do that, as per the legislation, on a regional basis, so that if there is a particular region that is more affected than others it can be exempted or enacted, as the case may be. Workers from a designated jurisdiction are prohibited from working in construction in Ontario and employers are prohibited from hiring such workers.
Bill 123 allows exemptions, as I just mentioned, for affected workers whose skills are indispensable for a construction employer's operations in Ontario, but there must be no other Canadian who is available to carry out that work. The exemption would be for one year and it would have to be reviewed for any extension. You will find the language specific to that in the bill itself.
Violations of this legislation will incur fines of up to $2,000 for an individual and up to $10,000 for a corporation. Enforcement would be done by our Ministry of Labour health and safety inspectors under powers adopted from the Occupational Health and Safety Act.
The bill, as drafted, provides for the re-employment of injured workers regardless of residency, as outlined in the Workers' Compensation Act. That is an area that has been of concern to some people who have called. We are aware of those concerns that have been raised about the treatment of those entitlements in this bill. We will consult during the committee process with any interested party on the particular issue and of course we are prepared to consider possible amendments during the committee process. It is a difficult area, because if you're injured on the job you want to ensure that those benefits are maintained and also maintain our integrity in non-Ontario-resident employees. It's going to be an area that I'm sure will come up during the committee process.
There is broad regulation-making power authority in this bill. Exemptions can be granted by regulation, as I was saying earlier, even on a regional basis, in consideration of corresponding exemptions that exist in designated jurisdictions. It sounds very complicated but isn't actually, because there are other jurisdictions as well that have some provisions but not to the same degree of restriction as Quebec does.
This legislation will be reviewed three years after it comes into force and it will be reviewed annually thereafter. The reviews will be conducted by a person appointed by the Ontario cabinet, and that person will prepare reports which will be tabled in this House by the Minister of Labour.
Ontario has consulted with all the major stakeholders on these policies. Our government has met with representatives of industry and labour to listen to their views. Also, as Minister Lankin stated, Quebec labour and business groups were very quick to react to our initiatives. Many have called on their own government to change its policies and practices and to resume negotiations which ended in October.
There has been some discussion about that, and I would point out that this bill wasn't read for first reading till November 25, and despite the fact that Minister Lankin had stated that we were certainly looking at legislation at the end of September, even despite that being in the offing, the negotiations with Quebec ended before the legislation came into play.
The Ontario government is encouraged by some signs that the Quebec government is seriously reviewing these concerns. In response to requests from its own citizens, Quebec has made some minor changes to its policies and its practices. As well, as we've seen on the news in the past few nights, Quebec recently introduced labour legislation that, for Ontario, shows some goodwill. But the problem is that it would provide only very limited access for Ontario workers to jobs in Quebec and it does not deal with all of the issues we have raised.
In the end, Quebec's recent measures, Bill 142 in its Legislature, have been found inadequate for removing the discriminatory practices for Ontario workers. Ontario has had no choice but to reciprocate, although we do it reluctantly.
After final passage, Bill 123 would come into force on April 4, 1994, and it may be repealed at any time by proclamation.
In conclusion, let me stress that Ontario remains committed to bringing down interprovincial barriers. Ontario will continue to work alongside all other governments in Canada to achieve that goal. I want to repeat Minister Lankin's bottom line: Ontario will abandon its actions as soon as Quebec opens its borders to Ontario workers and Ontario firms. Therefore, I urge the members of this House to pass second reading of this bill and speed it on to final approval.
1750
Le Vice-Président : Questions et commentaires? Questions or comments?
Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): Mr Speaker, let me just very quickly applaud the member for her comments with respect to this bill. As you will know, there was quite a kerfuffle in this place quite some time ago about this kind of initiative, and I'm really glad to see that we're finally moving so that Ontario construction workers are given a fair shake in terms of gaining access to Ontario construction jobs, because as you will know, Ontarians couldn't go and still can't go, quite frankly, and gain construction work in the province of Quebec while a situation persists where a lot of Quebeckers are simply able to come into Ontario and have access to work and so on while Ontario workers are not being treated in the same way on the other side of the border.
Whenever you have to introduce any of these measures, it's not a good or fair thing, but at some point you have to take some initiative to at least try to create a situation where the other side is going to be responsive and where the other side is going to have to, at some point, come forward and say: "Look, we don't want this situation to persist. We want to have access to jobs in your jurisdiction. We're going to allow you access to jobs within our jurisdiction." What this does and says for construction workers in Ontario is, "We're going to improve your situation somewhat." It doesn't make it fair but it does improve their situation somewhat.
I thank you for having the opportunity to put these comments on the record.
Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): Very quickly, and from my perspective in Yorkview, the population in Yorkview is quite incredible. A lot of people, a lot of construction workers, have been very clearly waiting by their phone for a call from their employer to tell them that there's a job somewhere in the province that they are most eager to go to. They have been waiting and waiting by this phone. This bill will help them. This bill will give employers the opportunity to phone these people and say: "There is a job for you and here it is. Now get there."
It's predicted that almost 10,000 Quebeckers, quite frankly, are working in the province of Ontario. That's a prediction. I'm not sure how accurate it is, but if it's accurate this is startling: 10,000 Quebeckers in the province of Ontario taking Ontarians' work, a lot of them my constituents.
I'm quite proud of the government for doing this and having the guts to be able to stand up to other provinces in this country and say: "Enough is enough. You're not treating us the same way you're treating others and you're taking all our jobs."
This, for me in Yorkview and the construction workers in Yorkview, is a good news item. It's a win-win situation and I can't wait for those persons who've been waiting by that phone to go to a construction site somewhere, to get paid and not worry about their mortgage or any payments they may have had in the past. I can't wait for that person to answer that phone and get to that job site. Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity.
Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): This is just a great day for construction workers in the province of Ontario in more ways than one. We have just had the passage of Bill 80, which will protect the rights of individual members of construction unions and locals in allowing them to express their views. Now we have a bill here that helps secure jobs for construction workers in Ontario.
I think that shows great leadership on behalf of this government. I compliment the member for Sudbury on her opening remarks and the leadership shown by the Ministry of Labour and by the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade and the honourable Minister Frances Lankin there as well. This is a very positive move and it's a good day.
I don't support a bill like this lightly in terms of saying we need to do this because we need to show the people of Quebec up and kind of pick up on some of this anti-Quebec sentiment that seems to exist, and unfortunately some of the anti-French sentiment that exists. I know it exists in my own riding.
We need to send a message of fairness, and that's what this is really about, that all provinces within a federation need to try to develop equal rules. If Quebec construction workers can come and work in Ontario, then Ontario construction workers should be able to go and work in the province of Quebec or other provinces that may want to put in similar types of legislation.
Once again, it shows that the government is there to support the working people of this province, construction workers, those little people this party was founded on and has received so much support from. Despite claims from some critics out there, this party and this government do continue to work for the little people and for those hardworking and dedicated people who have helped to build this province.
The Deputy Speaker: Further questions or comments? If not, the member for Sudbury, you have two minutes.
Ms Murdock: I thank the members for their comments. I mentioned that on Friday I had construction workers tell me that they were very pleased this was happening and that this government was going do it. It's 22 years that they've been asking for the discriminatory practice to be discontinued. In 1978, the Ontario government did first reading and second reading on a bill very much like this in order to stop the discriminatory practice. It didn't go any further because there was some undertaking that Quebec was going to seriously negotiate.
There have been continuous negotiations with that province by other provinces, as well as Ontario. It is unfortunate, as the member for Oxford has stated, that we have to take this measure, but it's the only way, seemingly, that we're going to be listened to.
It has to change, because we've got all kinds of workers in this province who are without jobs in the construction industry and have no hopes of even looking elsewhere in the other province and are restricted from even going to Quebec. Yet we have Quebec workers who are paying taxes in Quebec, who are buying and building their homes in Quebec, but are earning their moneys and getting their benefits from the province of Ontario. That has to be, at the very least, reciprocal. So I'm hoping for everyone's support.
The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?
M. Jean Poirier (Prescott et Russell) : Félicitations à vous, Madame l'Adjointe parlementaire, mais malheureusement j'aurais bien aimé que le ministre du Travail et la ministre du Développement économique et du Commerce soient également présents pour écouter mes commentaires.
Contrairement à mon collègue le député d'Oxford, je ne crois pas que ce soit une grande journée. C'est un projet de loi qui est certes nécessaire, certes à point, mais malheureusement il est requis. Je dis «malheureusement» parce que ça ne peut pas être une grande journée lorsqu'une province prend des mesures contre une autre province. Je ne peux pas dire que c'est une grande journée ; je m'excuse. C'est peut-être un choix de mots, un choix de paroles, mais je ne ferai pas sûrement une célébration ce soir pour fêter.
C'est une mesure raide mais, comme vous l'avez mentionné, ce n'est qu'un miroir, une partie du miroir qui nous est retournée. C'est votre quatrième volet qui vise surtout le secteur de la construction, de l'achat d'autobus municipaux. Mais ne vous contentez pas de ces quatre étapes parce que, étant un député venant d'une région frontalière, je peux vous assurer, mes chers collègues, que ce ne sont pas seulement ces quatre volets qui vont régler le problème. Je peux vous le garantir. Ce n'est qu'un premier pas. Il y a bien d'autres choses à faire pour éliminer ceci.
1800
C'est un jour très intéressant de croire qu'une province comme le Québec, qui a si fortement appuyé le libre-échange international, puisse se contenter de barrières tarifaires et être tellement protectionniste de quasiment ne pas tolérer des échanges interprovinciaux. Je dis, ce n'est pas acceptable.
Mais il n'y a pas juste le secteur de la construction, soyez certains. Par contre, dans votre projet de loi, vous avez un problème, je crois, de définition. J'ai bien noté les termes que vous utilisez dans votre définition pour ce qui est de la construction. Mais moi, je peux vous assurer que dans ma circonscription, dans Prescott et Russell, il y a des gens qui font des travaux, qui sont reliés de près ou de loin à la construction, mais que vous n'avez pas identifiés précisément dans votre définition du secteur de la construction.
Je pense particulièrement aux paysagistes. Il y a beaucoup de paysagistes ces mois qui ont tenté d'obtenir des contrats au Québec. Ils m'ont raconté les péripéties, les difficultés, pour ne pas dire autre chose, qu'ils ont rencontrées en essayant d'obtenir des contrats au Québec.
C'est évident que nos commettants vont nous poser des questions, vont vouloir savoir, «Est-ce que je suis inclus dans la définition ou suis-je exclus par la définition ?» Donc moi, je vous dis que de ce que j'ai vu dans votre projet de loi, vous avez l'ouvrage à faire de rendre plus spécifique la nature du mot «construction».
Le vécu donc dans les comtés unis Prescott et Russell, dans Cumberland, dans Gloucester même -- les gens, au cours de la dernière année, m'ont fortement décrit les deux poids de mesures qui existent entre les deux provinces. Mais pour vous démontrer que ce n'est pas juste dans le secteur de la construction, je pense à ce paysagiste de Gloucester qui a acheté des pots à fleurs fabriqués au Québec, à Montréal, pour son commerce à lui.
Il a décidé, un jour l'année passée, de prendre son propre camion de son propre commerce, d'aller chercher ses propres pots qu'il a achetés lui-même pour lui-même dans une industrie du Québec. Il est revenu chez lui à la fin de la journée avec près de 900 $ d'amendes.
Ce n'est pas correct. Ça n'a rien à voir avec la construction. Mais vous devez reconnaître qu'un Ontarien qui se rend au Québec pour acheter des produits fabriqués au Québec pour son commerce en Ontario, a récolté près de 900 $ d'amendes de contravention parce que, entre autres, son essence n'avait pas été achetée au Québec, il n'avait pas les permis requis, il n'avait pas pris un camion du Québec pour faire transporter les produits du Québec chez lui en Ontario etc. Donc, moi je vous le dis : ne pensez pas qu'en jouant avec le secteur de la construction, vous allez clore le débat.
Ce n'est pas juste la maire, on le sait. Madame l'Adjointe parlementaire et bien d'autres, je vous ai entendu décrire et j'ai lu dans vos rapports que vous parlez des 4000 travailleurs québécois qui travaillent dans Ottawa-Carleton et des 350 Ontariens et Ontariennes qui travaillent au Québec. C'est peut-être vrai, mais n'avez-vous pas d'autres chiffres qui parlent des autres régions dans les comtés unis Prescott et Russell, à Cornwall, dans Stormont, Dundas, Glengarry, dans le nord de l'Ontario ? Vous qui venez du nord, n'avez-vous pas de statistiques pour nous dire combien il y a des Québécois qui travaillent en Ontario globalement, pas juste les 4000 d'Ottawa-Carleton, ce qui représente, évidemment, un contingent très important ? Mais ce n'est sûrement pas juste Ottawa-Carleton, quand-même.
Je regarde votre littérature. Pas une fois vous ne mentionnez Prescott et Russell. Pourtant, on sait très bien combien de Québécois viennent travailler dans Prescott et Russell.
Les propositions du Québec, c'est un premier pas également mais c'est nettement insuffisant. Ce n'est pas correct. C'est ce choix des onze régions, «choissisons-en une.» Les gens de Hawkesbury et de la région, par exemple, peuvent aussi bien aller travailler à Montréal que dans l'Outaouais québécois que dans les Laurentides. En voilà trois régions. Pas question de faire choisir juste une région, de donner préférence quand même aux travailleurs du Québec.
Ce n'est pas vraiment sérieux, les propositions du Québec. Ce n'est qu'un début pour eux. Ce n'est pas suffisant et je ne suis pas satisfait.
Moi, je ne comprends pas, lorsque je peux avoir du libre-échange international avec El Paso et Tijuana au Mexique, que je ne peux pas l'avoir avec Grenville et Gatineau au Québec, juste l'autre côté de la rivière des Ouataouais. Pour moi, c'est un principe que je ne comprends pas.
Autres principes : vous dites que vous voulez faire ceci parce qu'il y a un fort taux de chômage en Ontario. Évidemment, c'est vrai. Mais, Bon Dieu, c'est plus que ça. C'est une question de principe avant tout. Même s'il y avait zéro chômage en Ontario, je prendrais la même position : ce qui est bon pour le Québec est bon pour l'Ontario. Ce qui est bon pour l'Ontario est bon pour le Québec. Je veux que vous travaillez, que nous travaillons à éliminer toutes les barrières tarifaires, quelles qu'elles soient, pas seulement entre l'Ontario et le Québec mais entre chacune des provinces du Canada sans aucune distinction. Ça, je vais l'exiger.
Le Québec a tellement plus le libre-échange international dans le dossier. Pourquoi ? Ils n'ont qu'eux-mêmes à blâmer si le gouvernement de l'Ontario est obligé de prendre ce genre de projet de loi. Je ne comprends pas l'indignation de certains politiciens du Québec. Je dis bien «certains» parce que nous savons qu'il y en a beaucoup qui nous appuient. Mais à cause de la puissance des syndicats de la construction, vous avez vu ce qui s'est passé au Québec récemment. Ce n'est pas beau à voir, l'indignation, d'avoir vu la réaction de certains politiciens du Québec lorsque l'Ontario a pris ces mesures-là, comme si le Québec n'avait pas les barrières face aux travailleurs et travailleuses de l'Ontario aux services ontariens et autres projets quand même.
Il y a des questions qui me soulèvent de tout ça. Premièrement, j'ai parlé tantôt de votre définition. Vous excluez des gens, des Ontariens et des Ontariennes, qui se font avoir par les normes du Québec, que vous ne couvrez pas dans votre définition telle qu'elle est énoncée dans votre projet de loi. Ça, je vous le dis tout de suite.
Le deuxième point : les travailleurs et les travailleuses blessés qui bénéficient d'une pension de la Commission des accidents du travail. Vous dites dans votre projet de loi qu'ils pourront revenir au travail en Ontario, combien de temps par la suite ? Est-ce que ça va suivre la loi actuelle ? Ça, c'est aussi silencieux.
Troisième point : que va-t-il advenir lorsque des firmes ontariennes ou des projets ontariens feront face à des coûts supplémentaires parce qu'ils ne pourront pas chercher des soumissions du côté du Québec ? Que va-t-il arriver ? Quelles sortes de garanties allez-vous offrir pour des projets que vous subventionnez en Ontario ? Quelles sortes de garanties, quelle sorte d'aide allez-vous offrir aux projets de construction en Ontario qui bénéficient de subventions provinciales s'ils doivent arrêter leurs soumissions avec le Québec ou du moins s'en limiter à des firmes ontariennes qui auraient des prix plus hauts ? Allez-vous compenser ? Allez-vous aider financièrement ? Répondez-moi à ça.
Quatrième question : vous dites que l'on va réviser ça après trois ans, après ça à chaque année. J'espère qu'on va trouver une solution bien avant trois ans d'ici -- ça me laisse l'impression pour dire, «On a trois ans là qu'on peut respirer, puis on va voir.» Moi, je peux vous dire que, avec mon collègue d'Ottawa-Est, de Carleton-Est et bien d'ailleurs, je crois que nous sommes quelque 45 membres de l'Association parlementaire Ontario-Québec. Nous allons vous aider à essayer d'établir, de maintenir, de garder un dialogue, surtout avec nos collègues parlementaires de l'ouest québécois parce qu'eux, ils nous appuient. Ils ont compris quel prix les travailleurs et les travailleuses québécois et les firmes québécoises vont payer pour l'aspect négatif. Eux, ils l'ont très bien compris. Les marchands de matériaux de construction de l'Outaouais québécois l'ont très bien compris. Les travailleurs et les travailleuses québécois l'ont très bien compris, surtout dans l'Outaouais.
1810
Donc, nous allons essayer de maintenir ce dialogue-là. Nous allons suivre de très près vos démarches. Comme député d'une circonscription frontalière, je m'attends à vous voir faire des gestes continus. Je m'attends à vous voir faire un dialogue continu, de pousser le Québec à abolir sa loi injuste envers les travailleurs et les travailleuses de l'Ontario. Je m'attends à ce que vous nous fassiez un rapport régulier, que vous nous disiez quel est l'avancement, quels sont les pas que vous prenez, quelles sont les difficultés auxquelles vous faites face. Je m'attends à avoir un rapport régulier de la part de votre gouvernement pour connaître le progrès du dossier.
Je m'attends à ce que vous agissiez également rapidement, parce que tant et aussi longtemps qu'on fait ce genre de projet de loi, et peu importe le contenu, peu importe quelles provinces sont visées ou pas visées, c'est un projet de loi que plus longtemps il sera là, plus ça va faire du dommage aux relations. Un tel projet de loi qui reste là longtemps -- et je suis bien d'accord avec vous qu'il devrait rester là aussi longtemps que le Québec ne reviendra pas sur sa loi actuelle. Je vais vous appuyer aussi longtemps que le Québec va maintenir sa loi discriminatoire contre l'Ontario.
Mais, c'est important de trouver la solution rapidement. Plus longtemps que ça va rester en place, plus il va y a avoir du dommage de fait, et ça, je ne pourrais pas le tolérer parce que nous devons avoir de bonnes relations entre voisins. Je vais vous appuyer dans ce projet de loi-là en dépit des quelques difficultés et faiblesses que j'y vois. Mais je vous demande de rendre compte régulièrement et rapidement de vos gestes et de tenir tous les députés à l'Assemblée législative au courant de ce qui se passe dans ce dossier-là, pas juste une fois par mois ou une fois tous les deux, trois mois.
As a border member I know what it is to live close by Quebec. The members for Ottawa East, Carleton East, Ottawa South, Carleton, everywhere, and you as northern members would know also that it's not been easy. I guess with hindsight we all have 20-20 vision, don't we? But I've always said that for a dossier to evolve, you need four conditions: the right dossier, the right place, the right time with the right people.
Looking back, it would have been nice if this had never happened. It would have been nice if the Ontario government, either in the Liberal days or the Tory days, had been able to say, "Hey." I guess with the rate of unemployment that we have today, it creates a whole different set of circumstances. Fair enough, but as I said earlier in French, even if the unemployment rate was zero in Ontario, it's still a question of basic principles that cannot be negotiated. Either you have free trade between provinces or you don't. Either you have barriers or you don't. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
As I say, I would have exactly the same feeling with Manitoba or between Alberta and Saskatchewan or Ontario and Newfoundland or Ontario and Quebec. I want to see these barriers eliminated because we're one country. What Ontarians can do here in Ontario they can do in Quebec and vice versa. I encourage you to find an early solution to this.
We will support you, as members of Parliament individually and collectively, to maintain a dialogue with our neighbours in Quebec, but this has got to stop. I expect you to work on this regularly and to dialogue frequently with us and with the Quebec government to let us know what is happening. We wish you a lot of success so that we can close the book on this and so that you can get the benefit of some of your bill, to proclaim it and stop it as soon as possible and not three or four years down the road.
Ms Murdock: If I might speak to a couple of the issues that were raised by the member, and I won't even attempt to speak in French without some preparation, I agree with what the member was saying. I think Minister Lankin has made it very clear that the interprovincial barriers that exist, period, not just in this particular area but in all kinds of areas on a trade basis in our own country, are amazing and shouldn't be there if we are truly going to have free trade. Forget with the United States or Mexico, we shouldn't even be having those problems on an interprovincial level. So, yes, our main object is that.
Unfortunately, as we know only too well and as you've learned in your tenure here, things don't happen -- no matter how logical they may seem -- as quickly as many of us would like.
In terms of the injured workers question and the WCB, which is under subsection 3(4) of the bill, there was some talk about whether or not the injured workers should still get benefits. That just goes without saying. Wherever you get injured you're still injured, you get benefits, period. That whole area is still covered whether you reside in Quebec or Ontario.
The subsidization in Ontario: I will have to speak to you about that in more detail outside because I didn't quite understand you. I agree with you that it will not be three years. The idea of putting it in three years is so that it will have to be reviewed, but secondly, hopefully it will be resolved long before that.
Lastly, in terms of regular reports by the minister to the House, I will convey that message to the minister. I would hope that we would do that anyway on a regular basis, and that negotiations will begin again.
Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I want to indicate my support and my party's support for Bill 123, An Act respecting the Construction Industry Workforce. Back on May 6 of this year, Mr Speaker, you will know that I introduced a resolution in this Legislature which called upon the government of Ontario to take retaliatory action against the province of Quebec dealing with construction workers and construction companies.
I did that in response to the leadership shown by another Premier in this country, Premier Frank McKenna of New Brunswick, who I believe was the initiator of this kind of reaction to interprovincial trade barriers, which have lasted all too long in this province and in this country.
I don't think anyone in Ontario wants to have interprovincial trade barriers so that it restricts movement of goods, movement of people across our interprovincial boundaries. There are many, many interprovincial trade barriers present in our society in Quebec and Ontario. Just this week I raised in this Legislature another barrier which has been raised through the guise of sales tax.
What happened most recently in the Ottawa-Carleton area is that building supply dealers who are going across the border from Ontario to Quebec are now being asked to collect Quebec sales tax, although they have no legal obligation to do so. Not only has it come down to a question of asking them to collect sales tax in the future, but the other side of the coin is not being fulfilled. In other words, Quebec building supply dealers coming over to the Ottawa-Carleton area are not --
The Deputy Speaker: Time has expired, thank you. Questions and comments?
Mr Sterling: I'm sorry, I was under the impression --
The Deputy Speaker: I gave you more than two minutes. We'll come back. Any further questions or comments? Then I'll come back to you.
Mr Sterling: I didn't hear you say that but it doesn't matter, Mr Speaker. I apologize.
The Deputy Speaker: I did say questions and comments.
Mr Sterling: I thought that was finished.
The Deputy Speaker: Further questions or comments? If not, the member for Prescott and Russell, you have two minutes.
Mr Poirier: I want to tell my friendly parliamentary assistant that the WCB question that I was raising with her is that the bill prescribes that an injured Quebec worker can go back to his Ontario job after -- yes, I understand that.
My question was, for how long and under what circumstances will that worker be able to maintain his or her job on the Ontario side once that person returns to work? I could see some answers in there, but it wasn't clear for me. Maybe at some other point you could make that more clear for me and others, especially those who -- I think the figure was that about 350 Quebec workers are now receiving WCB claims. You would want to make sure that you make it clear for them about what the rules are once they return to their job for how long and the other conditions.
1820
My good friend from Carleton had started to make his speech and I guess he'll continue. I just wanted to use this time so that even though he didn't respond to my comment maybe I can respond to his. When he made his bill at the time, it's not that we didn't believe in his project, but I mentioned earlier the four conditions: the right bill at the right time and the right person and whatever. Maybe it was the right person, maybe it was the right bill, maybe it was the right dossier, but the fourth element was maybe not the right time at that point. Of course, hindsight is always 20-20 vision, and with the great visionary outlook of the member for Carleton, maybe it was a situation that at that particular point in time we preferred to encourage you, the government to have even more dialogue to find out what kind of terrain, of entente we could reach.
Time has demonstrated that that was not easy, that it was not done. If we had known then what we know now, which we could have guessed then but didn't know for sure -- unfortunately we have to do what we have to do today.
With that, Monsieur le Président, merci de m'avoir donné l'occasion de répondre. Merci de votre appui.
The Deputy Speaker: Further debate? The member for Carleton, you now have the floor.
Mr Sterling: I enjoyed the summing up. The member in the Liberal caucus said if only we had known then what we know now. I just want to say to him, I did know then what you know now. That was too tempting to let go by.
As I said, I believe Frank McKenna, the Premier of New Brunswick, deserves a lot of credit in terms of taking some very gutsy action in dealing with this issue. This Premier until now, the former Premier Peterson of the Liberal government and the former Premier Davis of the Conservative government, continued to turn a blind eye to this problem, even though it was festering in the Ottawa-Carleton area. I think the government has to take some credit for taking some action. While the House supported my resolution last May 6 to take retaliatory action -- most of the members of this House felt it was time to stop discussion on May 6, because that's what they said in this House -- it's easier for an opposition member like myself to bring forward a resolution in this forum than it is when you are on the government benches to take the action. So I really do congratulate the minister in taking some action on this.
It's mildly amusing to go back to the debate on May 6 and read some of the remarks, particularly of the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade and of Mr Marchese in terms of his speech during that debate. They were both saying at that time --
Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): Yes, but they were uninformed.
Mr Sterling: I want to read something from Hansard. We only have to go back five or six months to find inconsistencies and flip-flops among some members of the government back bench. I find it amusing when I read back and look at the logic that was put forward to vote against my resolution at that time.
I will say, however, that the majority of the New Democratic Party members in the House at the time did vote for my resolution. There were 10 who did not vote for it: Abel, Carter, Cooper, Haeck, Hope, Jamison, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Marchese, Gordon Mills and Steve Owens. They all voted against taking retaliatory action and now they're in an embarrassing situation. I doubt if this would be pointed out to many of them on the hustings or whatever, but here they are in a government which is taking exactly the kind of retaliatory action which was put forward in my resolution.
I guess the lesson to learn here is that if you are a government backbencher be awfully careful when they send you out to defend the government. You think you're defending the government, when in fact around the corner your government may take another kind of action which is in support of an opposition member's resolution.
There were arguments used during that time that there are federal and provincial discussions going on across this country dealing with breaking down interprovincial trade barriers and there was a promise by all provinces not to raise any more barriers during a period of time. Well, the barriers we are raising now are in fact raising barriers during that period of time that was pointed out to me on May 6.
However, that's gone and past, and I was happy to bring some focus to the problem. For those people who are watching this evening and wonder what opposition politicians do and whether they have any effect, perhaps my bringing forward the resolution, focusing the government's attention on the issue, bringing some public support behind the position I took, encouraged the minister to take some action. For those people out there who think backbenchers or opposition members can have no effect on government, I'd like to say that perhaps they can have some effect. I'm not taking the credit for all the actions the government is now undertaking, but I'm saying I probably had some small iota of influence in terms of encouraging the minister to bring this kind of legislation forward.
I am very concerned about the kinds of things that are going on now as a reaction to those steps which are being taken under this bill and other policy steps by this government. As you may know, Ontario government contracts now forbid Quebec contractors from bidding. The Whitby hospital, I believe, was a fairly substantial contract. I believe it was something like --
Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): It was $133 million.
Mr Sterling: It could be $133 million; the member from around that area, Mr O'Connor, points it out to me. I think that was the first contract which was let in October which had these restrictions on it. These kinds of policies are having some effect on what's happening vis-à-vis the building supply materials in the province of Quebec. I am informed by people who are in the building supply industries that some of the Quebec building supply manufacturers are moving some parts of their operation to the province of Ontario at this very time as a result of the policy steps that have been taken.
In a way, it is unfortunate that these shifts are taken, because these barriers exist on both sides of the border. Quite frankly, it would be beneficial to us as consumers, as taxpayers who pay for the new Whitby hospital, who pay for the roads, to have products manufactured in the most productive and efficient place, be it in Quebec or be it in Ontario. But in order for us to get to that, we're going to have to agree on both sides that because a product is made in Ontario or a product is made in Quebec, we must provide access to the market in both of those provinces for each other's product.
About three or four years ago, I was talking to a former Deputy Minister of Industry and Trade, as it was then called, and he informed me that he could identify manufacturing companies which actually went out of Ontario into New York state because they could do business more easily in the province of Quebec out of the state of New York than they could out of the province of Ontario. That's how far these interprovincial trade barriers have gone; in fact, our international barriers dealing with trade are less in some cases than the barriers which exist across our provincial boundaries. That doesn't augur well for our country in terms of our future as a country and keeping our country together.
1830
I hope this retaliatory action we are taking against Quebec will in fact break those barriers down, because notwithstanding what politicians say, what politicians decide on constitutions etc, if we have people crossing the border from one side to the other to work, to shop, to trade, then our country, in my view, will stay together because when people get together from the province of Ontario and the province of Quebec, do business together, they exchange their views, get to know each other and gain trust in each other, and that's the way you hold a country together.
Those people will not allow their political leaders to talk about things like separation, will not allow their political leaders to take unreasonable stances against another province and will not allow their political leaders to become unduly nationalistic in a provincial sense.
We have a significant number of problems in the Ottawa-Carleton area. I know, Mr Speaker, you're the member for Carleton East and you would understand a great number of these kinds of barriers that exist across our interprovincial bridges that we have in Ottawa-Carleton. I was recently contacted by a business which supplies buses -- as you know, the member for S-D-G & East Grenville has mentioned this many times -- and if you don't have a fuel tax sticker on your truck or on your bus and you dare take it across the border into Quebec, you will get slapped with a very healthy fine. For a half-ton pickup truck, I believe it's something like $750 if you don't have this fuel tax sticker. If it's a bus, it's something like $3,500.
Mr Villeneuve: Impound the bus.
Mr Sterling: They don't wait around and send you a summons. They take the bus or they take the truck or whatever until you give them the money, $750 or $3,500.
We cannot afford to have that kind of animosity between the two provinces. We can't afford to have people going over to Quebec, in effect taking tourists from Ontario to visit and support the tourist business of Quebec and then all of a sudden finding their tourist bus impounded. It's absolutely amazing the extent to which these kinds of things can raise ill feeling among a number of people in Ontario, and I assume the other way as well.
I want to briefly talk about the workmen's compensation provision in this bill, because I can understand the concern of the Ministry of Labour on this particular matter. If we have something like 350 Quebec construction workers who are on Ontario workers' compensation, it's in our interest and in the interest of workmen's compensation to get these people back on the job and, therefore, there is some very reasonable logic in saying, "We won't cut these people off from Ontario employment," as this bill does for other Quebec workers who might come across and work in Ontario.
The only problem that I have with it, and I've spoken to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade on it, is that we should have a date on which this particular section no longer becomes valid. In other words, I believe that the date on which this policy and this piece of legislation were introduced, which was November 25, should be the date on which people who were on workmen's compensation at that time should have the right to get back into the workforce. People who go on to workmen's compensation after that date should not have the chance to go back to Ontario employers.
I'm very concerned that people will play with the legislation, and it won't only be workers who may play with the legislation; it may be employers and employees who play with this legislation. They might in fact consider going on workmen's compensation for a short period of time in order to qualify under this section after November 25 and thereby get around this particular law which would prohibit them from working in the area.
Mr Mammoliti: Is that honest?
Mr Sterling: It's not honest. I know it's not honest and therefore you have to be concerned about that. If you want a piece of legislation which works, it has to have integrity, it has to be as closed as you can make it. You try to make it as tight as possible.
I would say that in doing that I and my party would be quite willing to give the minister a degree of discretion, after November 25 and, I believe, before April 4, 1994, on anyone who did go on workmen's compensation. I would give the minister discretion to make a discretionary decision as to whether or not they would fall under the bill. There may be legitimate cases where somebody is working on the job and is injured for a lengthy period of time and then wants to come off of workmen's compensation and go back. I think they should be offered work in Ontario in order to get that person off.
I'm not just quite sure what section 54 of the Workers' Compensation Act provides. Does it mean that if I am off under section 54 for two days on December 8 and 9, and go back to work on the l0th or the 15th, then I'm out of the prohibition against working? I would appreciate the parliamentary assistant perhaps providing me with some information as to what it takes to qualify under section 54 so that when you come back off compensation you do qualify to work in Ontario in construction.
I'm interested in the suggestion by the member for Prescott and Russell that perhaps there should be a limitation on the time that particular worker could work in the construction industry in Ontario, perhaps a year, some reasonably long length of period of time in order to still have the encouragement to get back to working in the construction area.
It's pretty hard to justify why one worker who is coming off workmen's compensation, is fully recovered, is back and working in the construction industry, should be allowed to work in the construction industry a year after this legislation kicks in if somebody else has to be sent off the job because they weren't on compensation.
I think it's going to be hard for the construction workers to understand. Therefore, there might be a consideration of some kind of period of time that this obligation or right extends on.
I just hope that this law, quite frankly, will never be proclaimed. I hope it will never get to the situation where on April 4 we have to close the door in terms of construction workers coming across from the province of Quebec. I hope the Quebec government will take some remedial action vis-à-vis allowing Ontario workers to go across there.
I know that in some of the Ottawa construction businesses -- I was talking to the owner of a very large electrical firm which has something like, I believe it was, 220 or 250 employees. Half of his employees come from the province of Quebec and they are darned good employees. He's very concerned because these have been long-term employees. He feels a great deal of loyalty towards them.
It's going to be tough for the owner of this business to be able to keep his business going as best he can during this recessionary period when he'll have to bring in new workers who will not have the same knowledge of his company and will not have the same kind of company morale which he's been able to generate among his workers. Therefore, it's going to be a very tough period to go through.
We will, however, support the government with this action. We hope the government continues to take further actions.
I was mentioning in dealing with the wrapup of the speech from the member for Prescott and Russell where we are facing a bad situation dealing with provincial sales tax in Ottawa-Carleton. Quebec Ministry of Revenue came in to building supply dealers making the statement that they were there to see how much building supplies were being delivered from Ottawa into the province of Quebec.
1840
They were asked before they were given access to these businesses' books, "You understand that we have no legal obligation to collect Quebec sales tax when we deliver a load of lumber over in the province of Quebec?" and the Ministry of Revenue officials from Quebec said, "Yes, we understand that and that won't be your obligation." Well, they went through I believe eight or --
Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The member is bringing forth some very important information here. I do believe there should be a quorum in the House.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there any quorum?
Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present, Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.
Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is now present, Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Carleton.
Mr Sterling: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I was just relating to the Legislature the problem that we're having in Ottawa-Carleton vis-à-vis the Ministry of Revenue from the province of Quebec, and I was saying they gained entry and cooperation of many of the building supply dealers in the Ottawa-Carleton area by saying to them, "We are not here to enforce or say to you that you have a legal obligation to collect sales tax if you deliver material over in the province of Quebec."
Subsequent to going through all of their books, and these companies were quite cooperative with the province of Quebec Ministry of Revenue officials, they came into these businesses and said, "You are responsible for paying all of the back Quebec sales tax on all of the material you have delivered over to the province of Quebec for the last three, four or five years." One of the assessments, I believe, was something like $380,000, another was $230,000, and you can imagine in a recessionary period of time what this means to building supply dealers who were struggling very much.
Now these same building supply dealers who were on the Ottawa side are very, very much chagrined about the fact that building supply dealers over on the Quebec side are continuing to bring loads of lumber across to the Ontario side but are not collecting Ontario sales tax. We have a difficult problem here. We have people on both sides of the river crossing over to the other side of the river selling material without sales tax.
Both the province of Ontario and the province of Quebec are losing, and because we have not been able to cooperate between provinces, we, the taxpayers, are losing I don't know how much money. I know that one company from the province of Quebec coming into the province of Ontario is doing about $10 million of business in the province of Ontario. That's about $700,000 that we're losing in sales tax to our Ontario government. That means we have to collect that tax some way other than through collecting sales tax on goods sold in Ontario.
The whole idea of the Ministry of Revenue officials from the province of Quebec coming in and saying all of sudden, "You have some kind of obligation to collect tax for our province" is something which has sparked a very big concern among these people. They have come in and they've seized the assets of these Ontario building suppliers who are located in Quebec, their assets collected in Quebec.
In other words, if somebody owes them some money in the province of Quebec, the Ministry of Revenue is going in to that particular business in the province of Quebec and saying, "You owe money to a building supply dealer in Ottawa-Carleton. We're seizing that receivable, the money you would have paid them" and therefore taking that money.
There is also concern that they will be seizing the trucks of these businesses as they go over from Ottawa into the province of Quebec. Consequently, what has happened is that many of the building supply dealers have stopped doing business in the province of Quebec because they cannot afford to have their trucks seized by the Quebec Provincial Police.
Meanwhile, outfits, building supply dealers like Pilon Lumber, are continuing to come across with loads of lumber, delivering them into Ontario without collecting sales tax. Our building supply dealers are saying: "Hey, we want a level playing field. If we can't go over into the province of Quebec and sell over there, then why should the province of Quebec building supply dealers be allowed to come over into Ontario and sell their building supplies here?"
I believe that both provinces' building supply dealers should be able to go both ways, and what it requires is cooperation between this provincial government and the provincial government of Quebec to get together and say: "Hey, we're both losing sales tax. This is unfair because you order it from somebody across in the province of Quebec that you don't pay sales tax in Ontario, but if you order it in your own province you do pay sales tax."
Guess where the consumer is more likely to buy their lumber or whatever the particular matter is? It's happening basically on a number of large ticket items, furniture, appliances. Those kinds of businesses are continuing to go across the border and the recipient is not paying sales tax to either province.
There was an agreement some time ago where these businesses would supply lists of the people who bought those goods in the other province. In other words, Ottawa-Carleton businesses would give the address and the price of a fridge or a stove which was bought by somebody in Quebec. They supplied these to the Ministry of Revenue officials in the province of Quebec, and I believe the same thing was done.
This practice was discontinued, I believe, four or five years ago. I talked to the Ministry of Revenue officials in the Ontario government in the Ottawa area and there seems to be no understanding why that practice was discontinued.
To me, it is totally unfair that we are allowing people to get away without paying sales tax when other people have to pay sales tax. We're almost encouraging a black market, the two provinces, by not coming together with some kind of reasonable solution to a problem which doesn't seem to be that difficult to solve.
Getting back to the irritants that arise. I was told by one constituent vis-à-vis the construction workers -- this woman owned a business in Quebec, she had a head office in Quebec. She had a 19-year-old son who one evening went over to Hull, Quebec, to sweep up a job site. Somebody on the job site knew that this young fellow did not have what they call a "work competence card" which the government is very, very reluctant to pass out, particularly to Ontario residents.
1850
The police came in and actually took this young lad off the job, who was sweeping up and was the son of the owner of the business, actually took him and dumped him on the Ontario-Quebec border and demanded of him $500 and fined his mother $2,000 and would not give her a hearing on the matter at all. She was not entitled to have any hearing to put forward her position regarding this fine.
We just can't afford to have that kind of nonsense going on by either side in dealing with citizens of the other province.
We have a lot of people who are very, very concerned when you drive around in some of the subdivisions where there is some work going on. In the city of Kanata, which I represent, we've still been able to have some growth in that area. When workers drive around and they see all the Quebec licence plates on the pickup trucks of the carpenters and the plumbers and the electricians who are coming from over that area, it causes a great deal of consternation among the construction workers who don't have a job.
This has caused a great deal of ill feeling among a lot of people in the Ottawa-Carleton area, and I hope that this will give the impetus to the Quebec government to react and allow our workers to go across over into Quebec and work there as freely as possible.
I don't think we can say anything more, but I really do look forward to the hearings that we would have on this bill over January, February or March -- I believe it's going out to committee. I think those hearings could be very constructive. I think they could be very constructive in terms of bringing to the fore the kinds of concerns that individuals have about these kinds of barriers to their working in their own country, and I say their own country because that means for people working in the province in which they do not reside.
I look forward to working with the minister to try to perfect the bill as well as it can be. I don't think there are a great number of bills that try to do this. We will probably hear some lawyers come in and say there are some constitutional problems with it, and if that's the case, so be it. We'll have to deal with that as it goes along. I still encourage the government to proceed, notwithstanding what some people might say on the constitutional arguments.
I again want to say that we will support the bill and look forward to the Quebec government coming around and providing reciprocal rights for Ontario construction workers going to Quebec, and when that happens we can deep six Bill 123, which I hope will not be in the too-far-distant future.
The Deputy Speaker: Questions or comments?
Ms Murdock: Just to respond to some of the comments from the member for Carleton, I don't think there is a member in this House here who can't say often enough that there should be no interprovincial trade barriers, period. There shouldn't be. You can repeat it and repeat it and hopefully maybe those who are doing the negotiating will be listening.
In terms of workers' compensation -- and I would point out that it is workers' compensation, not workmen's compensation -- the date of coverage under section 54 -- that's the rehab provisions, for the member for Carleton -- under those rehabilitation provisions and return to work, firstly, you must have been an employee of the company for a minimum of one year before you have right of recall; secondly, and I think this would suit some of the comments that were made by the member for Carleton, the duration of the obligation by the employer is that he's obligated to re-employ the worker for two years following the date of injury or for one year from the date that the board has deemed he or she fit to return to work; or thirdly, it is until the worker reaches the age of 65. So there is a termination date basically built in within the Workers' Compensation Act.
The date of coverage to discontinue to be November 25 instead of April 4, with ministerial discretion: I'm sure we'll hear more about that at the committee and I look forward to that.
Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I would like to firstly applaud the member for Carleton, not only for his speech today, but this is an example, Bill 123, of what a private member can do in opposition to affect government policy. You and I both know, and I'm sure even the government members themselves know, that this bill would not be being debated today or discussed or even printed if it were not for the member for Carleton in the Progressive Conservative caucus.
I will bring forward the fact that he questioned the government on this for a number of days straight. He put forward a very sane and responsible opposition position to the issue of cross-provincial labour and the fact that we were being discriminated against by the province of Quebec. He brought in provincial motions and pieces of legislation that were passed in other provinces. He wrote his own bill. He gave speeches and he really persevered and put this on paper and brought this to the attention of the government for the people of eastern Ontario and particularly in the Ottawa-Carleton region itself.
Earlier tonight the member for Yorkview was ranting, which was particularly offensive, suggesting that Bill 123 would never have been brought forward by a Conservative government, that we were disinterested in labour bills, that we were disinterested in labour and the workers of this province. I say to that member across the floor, through you, Mr Speaker, about my friend from Carleton, that that could not be any further from the truth and that this debate today is proof positive that this caucus not only has concerns about the workers in this province, but we are diligent in bringing forward pieces of legislation that are not only acceptable to this provincial jurisdiction, but we can also once in a while get a sane, positive piece of legislation adopted by an unwilling government.
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Some comments on this debate: I was one of the few who in the beginning supported the process the minister had initiated because I feel that being part of that process is an important thing to do, that if you had decided at that time, while you were in negotiations, to do this, it would have been the wrong thing to have done. So what did we say at the time? We said that the minister was negotiating with Quebec, with the other provinces, trying to sort this out in a way that did not create more difficult barriers between the provinces, but rather saying, "Let's sort it out."
When that didn't work, the minister came back with a proposal that clearly the Tories like and I understand that, that the Liberals like and I understand that as well. We had some of the same problems with some of the Liberals who were also saying similar things at the time as well, if I recall correctly -- perhaps not. We are committed to negotiating in good faith, and when that doesn't work, you bring in the appropriate legislation and that's what we have done. That's what we should all be committed to doing.
I want to be able to thank our government through our minister for having done the proper thing, for saying that we need to sit down together, that we need to break down interprovincial barriers, and that if it doesn't work, then we propose this as a way of making sure that the province of Quebec, and indeed all provinces where there are barriers, begin to sit down and encourage this kind of interprovincial discussions that we're having that will force Quebec to do the right thing.
So I praise this government and I praise this minister for having done the right thing.
Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): I have just a few comments, because I will get an opportunity later on to speak at some length on this bill itself.
I am aware that the Conservative Party is trying to make this more or less a very partisan issue and is trying to say, as the member for Etobicoke West just said, that this bill is really the result of the work of the member from Carleton. I can understand that, that inside the Conservative caucus obviously they're trying to pat each other on the shoulder.
1900
But the reality is that this bill is before us at this time because of the recession, because there are a lot of people who are out of work, and that question of not being able to work on the other side of the river in the Ottawa-Carleton area, whereas there are workers from the other side who are able to work in Ontario, is much more acute now than it ever was.
There's also the question, of course, that the Quebec government itself -- and again, I will address that at some length later on -- is willing to address this issue. We have had people in fact visiting us this year from the Quebec assembly who very clearly said to us that they too feel there is an injustice and they want to address it.
So I think the timing of this matter really relates very much to the way we find ourselves in the country at the present time, after obviously the defeat of the Charlottetown accord, where there was frankly a lot of hope as well that some of these trade barriers that exist would be broken down as part of the constitutional process. Unfortunately, it didn't go through.
At the present time, at least, there doesn't seem to be very much happening in terms of leadership from the federal government as yet to take down those trade barriers. I certainly think that is the reason why we have that bill before us.
Mr Sterling: Quite frankly, I don't care who gets credit for this. I think it's good that we're doing it, and let's get on with it.
Mr Mammoliti: Hear, hear. I agree with that completely. Maybe somebody else was in here to listen to that statement. The member certainly has contributed in the past. I remember that debate distinctly in the House, and I voted in favour of it back then. I agree that he, as well as others in this place, have had a lot to do with what we're talking about right now and the bill itself.
However, I want everybody to remember that it took us about 22 years, if I'm not mistaken, to get to the point that we're at. Our people in this province have been complaining for 22 years, and we can't forget that.
While some people will stand up in this place and they will say we need to be sympathetic towards people in Quebec, for instance, people in areas of the country, other provinces, quite frankly, I am one of those who has a small chip on my shoulder. I do because I've heard the complaints in my riding.
For years, the construction workers in my riding have complained about this particular item. They have for years been left out of work because others have beaten them to it or have qualified before them, and those others happen to be individuals who live outside the province. They have contributed for 22 years and have asked other governments to do exactly what we're doing today.
The Conservatives, as they stand in this place and talk about it -- and one of them even introduced a private member's bill that's very similar to this one, as I said earlier, and his colleague wants his name to be on our bill because he believes that it's his bill, so to speak -- can't remember that 22 years ago it was the Conservative government that was listening to the complaints of the province. How quickly we forget.
We're going to hear more Liberals speak on this issue as well. Quite frankly, while I respect some of them in terms of their saying, "Let's be sympathetic," I want them to remember that an individual like myself has been hearing this for a number of years now and I am, quite frankly, upset. I'm glad that we're doing this.
When I see statistics like 4,400 people in Ottawa who happen to be Quebeckers, who happen to live in Quebec and work in Ottawa, when I see those statistics and I know that there are 4,400 families that could ultimately have jobs in Ottawa in a time of recession, when the economy is as bad as it's been, that frustrates me.
It frustrates me and it frustrates my constituents. My constituents also are aware of the estimated 10,000 individuals, families that are out of work in the province of Ontario because others are coming into the province and taking our jobs.
While some people might say we need to be a little more sympathetic, I want them to remember the situation at home, here, and the number of people in the construction industry who have had to be placed second or third perhaps in the line for work, giving it to somebody else who doesn't even live in the province. That to me is frustrating. Forgive me for not being as sympathetic as some others might want to be in the House, but I can't be. I apologize to a degree to some who would want me to be.
My constituents wanted this particular bill and this government has produced this bill. This has been a wonderful day for construction workers, as my colleague said earlier. In a matter of two hours we have managed to represent Ontario construction workers to a degree that they have never been represented before in the history of this province.
Mr Villeneuve: I will prove you wrong.
Mr Mammoliti: The member across says he'll prove me wrong. Unfortunately, I can't speak to this particular bill for that long because there's a number of individuals who want to get up and talk about this. But I would love to sit here for a good hour and debate this bill with the individual across.
What does "construction" mean in this bill, for the people who are watching at home?
"'Construction' includes all work in or about....constructing, erecting, demolishing, repairing, remodelling, decorating or altering the whole or any part of a building or structure....laying pipe...above or below ground level....excavating, tunnelling, fencing, grading, paving, land clearing and bridging...."
Streets and highways, in terms of building, are included as well.
How many of these people are in that industry? I ask this question to the people who are watching this tonight at home. All of these people now have a better chance in this province to get a job in the construction industry. Why? Because those 10,000 people who are currently holding up positions in this province and who happen to live in Quebec or other areas of this country, other provinces, no longer are eligible for those jobs. Why? Because of this bill.
This is a wonderful piece of legislation. This is 22 years late, but with a do -- New Democratic government it's been possible. I stumbled there. I didn't mean to stumble, as I hear some people laughing in the House. But this is 22 years late.
Madam Speaker, section 3 --
Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): We're not doing clause-by-clause.
Mr Mammoliti: We're not doing clause-by-clause. I'm just pointing out the areas of the bill that I like.
Subsection 3(2): "No person shall employ an individual who is ordinarily resident in a designated jurisdiction to work in construction in Ontario or to supply services relating to construction in Ontario."
What does that mean? It means that individuals who happen to work for companies from Ontario -- and the member for Carleton pointed this out -- but reside in Quebec are no longer eligible for these jobs. The people in Ontario are eligible for these jobs.
1910
The member for Carleton mentioned that these people are qualified people and we feel sorry for them. Quite frankly, we do, but what about, in terms of the example he gave earlier, that particular company where half of the people reside in Quebec? What about the people in Ontario who could ultimately and who are just as qualified to do that construction work? What about those people? Why can't they work for that company?
Where's our sympathy for the people who are in the construction industry here and are having to rely perhaps even on welfare because there's no work? What about those people who could ultimately, the people on welfare who have been used to working construction all of their lives, the people who come home with bloody hands, calluses --
Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): Callused hands, blisters.
Mr Mammoliti: -- blisters, what about those people? Who feels sorry for them? What about my constituents? These are my constituents. We stand up in the Legislature here and we say, "Let's have some sympathy for the people in Quebec." Well, what about Yorkview? What about Downsview? What about Scarborough? What about all of those construction workers up north? I ask every member in this place, yes, to be sympathetic, but remember who comes first.
In my opinion, we are the representatives for this province. Our people should always come first. While, as other people have put it, free trade is important and interprovincial trade might be important, our people should always come first. This bill is a prime example of this argument and I'm proud of it.
I wish I could stand up here for another 20 minutes and speak on it, but I know I have other colleagues who would like some time to do that.
Mr Villeneuve: I want to congratulate the member for Yorkview for his participation in the debate. I realize that he lives in an area where the economy slowed down much later than it slowed down in eastern Ontario. If he were living in, around or close to the city of Cornwall or the riding of Stormont-Dundas-Glengarry and East Grenville, where a major construction project may be going on in Cornwall and the contractor comes in from Quebec with entirely Quebec labour, those are very difficult things not only to accept but to try and explain. When something like this occurs, sometimes stories tend to get stretched, particularly when the economy has 20% unemployed. The Ottawa area had basically Quebec people rooming in Ottawa and the province of Ontario, working on construction and going home on the weekend to the province of Quebec.
I'm sure the member for Yorkview understands to a degree, but I happen to represent an area that is on site and it was very difficult to attempt to explain to the people who could have done the job, and indeed the jobs were taken by out-of-province people, particularly from the province of Quebec. It created a lot of bad blood and animosity between the two provinces. Of course, we have some people who have some linguistic hangups and that entered into the scenario as well.
I say to the member for Yorkview, I'm pleased and I am very happy that he understands and that his government did take the initiative after the member for Carleton's private member's bill, which I think brought to a head a situation that had to be addressed. It had to be addressed with strong, effective measures. These, I believe, are strong, effective measures. We've got their attention. I'm sure it'll work.
Mr White: I am pleased to rise to commend my colleague. My friend -- may I mention his name? George Mammoliti from Yorkview -- has been a tremendous fighter on behalf of the construction workers in our area. When he mentioned that people would say, "Well, what difference does it make to us here in the greater Toronto area? What difference does it make for construction workers here?" he's right, it does make a profound difference because there is quite a ripple effect.
I'll tell you that many construction workers in my area, in Bowmanville, Whitby and Oshawa, have come to me previously and they have said they are so pleased that our government is finally taking action, taking action that previous governments never did to protect their jobs, to protect their livelihoods, to ensure that labour here in Ontario is given a status at least equal to that of construction labourers from Quebec. They have felt for far too long that the previous federal government and previous provincial governments didn't care about their plight, their unemployment, their circumstances.
They are like my friend from Yorkview, very pleased that this government is investing so heavily in infrastructure. They are pleased that this government is investing in Durham College's new centre in Whitby, the skills training facility. They're very pleased that this government is investing in the Whitby Psychiatric Hospital, creating 2,600 jobs in construction, and they, along with my friend, are pleased that this government is acting decisively about an irregular and unfair situation in regard to Quebec labour.
I want to thank you, Madam Speaker, for giving me the opportunity, and I thank my friend from Yorkview.
The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Further questions and/or comments? Seeing none, the member for Yorkview has two minutes to respond.
Mr Mammoliti: I want to thank the members for East Grenville and Durham Centre. In response to the --
Mr Marchese: Monsieur Villeneuve too.
Mr Mammoliti: Monsieur Villeneuve. This is just typical, typical, typical of the Conservative Party. When you disagree with us, when you disagree with us in principle, you stray, you complain, you criticize, as you should perhaps -- not as much as you should, I don't think, but you should. But when you agree with us, it's very hard for you just to come out and say, "New Democrats, you've done a good job here." Why do you want to take the credit? Why do you want to give the credit to the member for Carleton?
Mr Marchese: But he contributed to the debate.
Mr Mammoliti: Yes, he's contributed. But what I'm hearing is, "Let's give him all the credit; it's because of him that this has happened." I assure you it's not just because of the member for Carleton that this has happened. This has been a combined effort from everybody. This government, the New Democratic government made this possible.
For 22 years of both Conservative and Liberal governments, nobody listened to the construction workers. They were complaining about lack of work. We are the only ones who have listened, and now everybody wants to take credit for it. Everybody's standing up and saying, "It's because of us that this is possible." Give me a break.
The Acting Speaker: Now we will look for further debate. The member for Ottawa East.
1920
Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): I think we should be looking at the reason why we are debating Bill 123 instead of trying to take credit, like the member for Etobicoke West saying: "Hey, we are the 11th commandment of the province of Ontario. We should take credit." I think we should all be taking credit for this bill. This is a regrettable moment, as the Ontario Chamber of Commerce put it; the Ontario Chamber of Commerce called the Ontario actions "regrettable but necessary."
I think we should go back. As the previous speaker pointed out, these kinds of negotiations have been going on for the last 22 years. Can you give -- ?
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Conversations across the floor are not helpful. The member for Ottawa East has the floor.
Mr Grandmaître: Good. I've got the floor. As I was saying, I think we should be looking at the seriousness of this bill because when we introduce, or we retaliate against a province, against a neighbour of ours, I think there is a price to pay. I think Ontarians, as Quebeckers, will be punished by this bill for the simple reason that we didn't act properly, as a government, 20 years ago.
I can remember, back in 1975 when I was part of another world -- I was the mayor of a small municipality -- having a meeting with the then Premier of the province of Ontario, Bill Davis, and the Minister of Labour, Robert Elgie. Back in 1975, I brought this very problem to the attention of the Premier of Ontario and I was told, "Don't rock the boat."
I think sometimes we have to give the government credit for what they're doing and today I think is an opportunity to give the government credit because, after all, they are moving on a subject that's been a thorn in everybody's side for a great number of years.
I think it's important --
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: I'm sure members would like to be able to hear what the member for Ottawa East has to say. Order. Please continue.
Mr Grandmaître: Thank you, Madam Speaker. What really surprises me about the action of the government -- and I want to be on record with this issue -- I realize that the member for Carleton brought in a resolution, which some of the members from the government voted against, but I'm proud to say I brought in a resolution asking the government to start negotiations with the government of Quebec and it was accepted unanimously. I think we should all take credit for what's happening today because I think it's about time we started looking at interprovincial barriers.
Strange enough, back in 1984 when the Tories were in power in Ottawa, they preferred to talk about free trade with the US, and now with Mexico, and not with our neighbours from Quebec or any other province in Canada --
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: I have asked members to listen.
Mr Grandmaître: I think they should be going back to the media party because some of them are still partying, Madam Chair. Maybe they should go back to the media party. Maybe they'd get more attention.
Mr Stockwell: I'll call a quorum.
Mr Grandmaître: Well, you can call a quorum. I think the discussion that's taking place in this House today is most important for the simple reason that we have to find a way or ways to resolve our interprovincial barriers.
I can recall, when Monte Kwinter was the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology back in 1989, he was saying, "Ontario stands alone at the federal-provincial meetings in pushing for the dismantling of interprovincial barriers." Well, back in 1984, when things were good in the province of Ontario and right across Canada, we didn't have to face a recession. We had gone through the 1981-82 recession, but now times were getting tough in Canada and now the province of Ontario felt it was time to respond to those barriers.
Quebec was the first province in Canada to suffer the consequences of Ontario, and as the minister responsible for this bill, or I should say Ms Lankin, the Trade minister, has said, as soon as Quebec takes down its barriers, Ontario will be doing the same. But, Madam Speaker, I want to remind you that this is not a new problem in the province of Ontario and we must take this bill very seriously, because when we introduce such bills in this province, we find some losers and we find some winners, and we must be creative enough to find ways to put an end to these barriers, because we will not improve our situation. Our unemployment situation will be somewhat resolved, and I think my riding is most affected by this bill.
I'm glad and I will support this bill for a number of reasons, but the main reason is that we have to show leadership in the province of Ontario, and I give credit to the government for showing leadership, not because of the pressure from the Tories, not because of pressure from the Liberal Party; I think the government is acting responsibly. But, as I said, losers and winners, and I think we have to find a way. I know this bill will be in place on April 4, and we must find a way before April 4 to bring Quebec on our side, and I say our side. I think their labour laws are acting in I suppose --
Mr Villeneuve: In a negative way.
Mr Grandmaître: -- in a negative way; thank you -- and we must find a solution to our problem, because what I see happening in Canada with this free trade notion at the present time is that now it's Ontario and Quebec, but who knows about tomorrow, next week, next month? It could be another two or three provinces.
We have to recognize that what we are doing today probably will be used as a model for other provinces to follow. I think it's very important that Ontario should take this leadership. It's not only affecting eastern Ontario. In my own riding, close to some 2,000 people cross the bridge every day and work in my riding. So when the government is using the figure of 4,000 Quebeckers crossing the bridge, 2,000 of these people are working in my riding.
Does it mean that 2,000 of my workers are unemployed? I don't have those facts. But I know that people in my own riding are affected, not only by this bill but also by the action of the Quebec government. I know the Quebec government had been negotiating with the present government for a number of months, but after the announcement made by Ms Lankin, the Trade minister, I would have appreciated some kind of report from the government saying, "Here's what we've done" in the last two or three or four or five months, because, as pointed out by the previous speaker, this has been going on for a number of years, and I would have appreciated a report from the government telling us what actions have taken place since the announcement of the minister.
1930
I must say that I was privileged, the Premier of this province offered me a briefing with the ADM of Trade, Mr Borenstein, and I spent 45 minutes with him. I was fortunate enough to attend the Quebec workers' summit in Montreal some six weeks ago and it's difficult to describe what was taking place around this negotiating table. The tension in the room when you have 41 different unions trying to negotiate, trying to find a common denominator that would satisfy most of these unions.
I left Montreal disappointed -- disappointed for the simple reason that these people were accusing Ontario of bad faith, and that's why I would have appreciated some kind of a negotiating report from the minister indicating to this House what went on, what has been going on in the last three years between this government and the Quebec government. What is taking place? I was assured by the Premier, I was assured by the ADM that negotiations had been ongoing, but nobody in this House really knows what went on.
I feel somewhat left out and, as I said, I will support Bill 123 for the simple reason that I think it's rectifying, it's improving a bad situation, but I think it's the responsibility of the government to carry on with these negotiations, to find a solution to our problems, because we do have problems. Who knows? Maybe this is the start of bad faith or let's say a bad taste between the province of Quebec and the province of Ontario, and we must realize that the province of Quebec is an ally of the province of Ontario. We have always tried to work together for the best of Canada because, after all, we do represent the two largest provinces in Canada.
I find it very difficult to stand in my place today and to criticize our neighbours, but it needs to be done. It needs to be done. We have to do it because of the recession, because of unemployment. Because of a number of issues that have arisen in the last 10 years, I think we have to address the workers' mobility and also the opportunity -- the opportunity to possibly create jobs not only in the province of Ontario, not only in the province of Quebec but right across Canada.
I think it's very important. Because if we want to maintain the standard of living that we enjoy at the present time in the province of Ontario, I think we have to become better contributors to these services, and to become better contributors I think we need more workers in the province of Ontario and more workers in the province of Quebec so that we can pay our fair share for social services, for education and for our health care programs.
So I think what we're about to -- well, not vote today. I am told that we're supposed to vote on this bill tomorrow. I feel that all three parties should be taking credit for what's happening today. But I want to warn every member of this House: There's a price to pay for what's happening today. I want to put an end to the consequences that are starting today -- maybe not today; on April 4, I am told.
Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): No, it's starting today.
Mr Grandmaître: It could be starting today. But I think we have to find ways to solve not only this situation, this problem or these problems; we have to find ways to prevent such happenings.
I invite the federal government to talk to our premiers -- and he will have this opportunity very shortly in January -- to work on the interprovincial barriers. I'm told that this is part of the agenda.
I hope that we can resolve our differences so that we can say as Canadians that 10 provinces are now enjoying free trade. Because free trade with the US and Mexico will dearly affect this province of Ontario. I think we have to be prepared for the shock. I think we need 10 united provinces to combat the effect of especially the US free trade.
I want to remind the members of this House, this is not the time to say, "I did it," or "He did it." We did it. We did it, together, three parties. Maybe this is a first in the last three years.
Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): Solidarity for ever.
Mr Grandmaître: Well, not solidarity for ever. Maybe you know that song. I only know the title. I've never sung it.
But I think it's time we should move ahead, forge ahead and to make sure that Ontario is strong -- not stronger than Quebec -- but that Ontario is strong, that Quebec is strong, that our 10 provinces are strong. Together we can change what's happening in Canada at the present time. Because we're all feeling the effects of what's happening. The recession is not over with. We will be faced with more problems.
I think it's about time that the province of Ontario shows leadership and regains its position as the strongest province in Canada.
The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Now we have time for questions and/or comments.
Mr Grandmaître: Isn't that great? They were all haggling away and now they don't have a word to say.
The Acting Speaker: No members. We are looking for further speakers to this debate. The member for S-D-G & East Grenville.
Mr Villeneuve: It's a pleasure for me to participate for a short period of time in this debate.
This bill, I think, was a long time coming. Frank McKenna, the Liberal Premier of the province of New Brunswick, really led the way in finally saying: "Enough is enough. We will play the game the way you play it in the province of Quebec," and brought everyone's attention to the fact that the province of Quebec had been playing a rather unfair game by their own rules in the labour construction area.
To everyone, yes, I think members of this Legislature, particularly, however, to the Liberal -- and I emphasize the Liberal Premier of the province of New Brunswick who had a great deal to at least set the precedent so that we here in Ontario could finally appreciate what was happening and not set a precedent, if that was indeed the choice of the government previous or of the day -- that we were not the big province of Ontario moving against our provincial friends over in the province of Quebec.
An interesting thing, when my colleague from Carleton brought up this private member's motion back in early May: Some of the government members were not very sure about it at that time. I can appreciate that because a lot of them do not reside along the Ontario-Quebec border, where I believe the issue is of utmost importance.
I represent one of those ridings and I can assure you that for quite some time, particularly since the downturn of the economy in the early 1990s, it's been a major factor. Jobs have been going to people other than those in the province of Ontario without a reciprocal arrangement.
I found it rather strange when the province of Quebec came through with a suggestion that you would be allowed to work in the province of Quebec if indeed you had 750 hours previous. Well, the chicken-and-egg situation applies: How in the world can you have worked in Quebec for 750 hours if you're not allowed to go and work there? So it would not have solved anything and I give this government credit for not even considering that type of foolish requirement.
1940
We've got to have a level playing field, pure and simple. Ontario contractors must have the opportunity of bidding on contracts out of province and into the province of Quebec, as Quebec contractors and workers have had the opportunity not only to bid, but to work, in the province of Ontario.
As I mentioned earlier, the city of Cornwall has 37% of its population on some sort of government support, yet many, many construction workers out of the province of Quebec are working in the city of Cornwall on a number of projects. It's very, very difficult to accept and particularly to try to explain to someone who is struggling at best to make ends meet that he or she cannot have a job because out-of-province people are taking those jobs.
The interesting thing -- and the member for Ottawa East, I thought, was going to touch on it, because the Ontario Labour Relations Act, when it was brought forth here in the province of Ontario, known as Bill 40 -- which this party is committed to repeal within 100 days if ever we are elected to power, and we may not be; however, we are committed to repealing it. The Liberals at the time said that it was not a good time to bring in this type of legislation. They're now saying that they would repeal it as well, and I can appreciate that.
Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): Parts of it.
Mr Villeneuve: They would repeal maybe only parts of it. We're committed to repealing Bill 40. We were told on a number of occasions in this Legislature the province of Quebec has similar legislation to Bill 40 and it creates no problems. I'm sorry, we are attempting now to correct a problem that was created by Bill 40-type legislation in the late 1970s in the province of Quebec. There is no doubt about that. I will quote from the Ottawa Citizen of yesterday:
"Quebec Workers Warn Of Violence Over Deregulation
"Bill 142" out of the National Assembly of the province of Quebec "will deregulate the residential construction sector. The construction workers say the new law would throw the door open for anyone with a hammer to take their jobs and drive down salaries."
I'll tell you, Madam Speaker, Bill 40-type legislation has allowed in the province of Quebec the creation of 17 distinct areas where workers with tickets, with absolute competency in the construction trade, cannot move from one area to the other unless they have the sanction of Big Brother, les syndicats of the province of Quebec. Ontario has simply become the 18th area.
So that's the Bill 40 type of regulations that we have in the province of Quebec. We were told by this government that Quebec has this similar type legislation; there are no problems. There are all sorts of problems and they're just coming to light now. I can assure you, this is why we have to eliminate the likes of Bill 40, Bill 80 that was passed today, Bill 91, the Ontario Labour Relations Act touching on agriculture.
I'm going to quote out of the article from yesterday's Citizen just to prove to my colleagues how serious the matter is getting to be in Quebec and could well be in the not-distant future in the province of Ontario. The issue is you've put the labour unions in charge of everything to do with labour. MPPs are being beaten up outside their own riding offices in the province of Quebec because of this type of legislation. I'll quote:
"Thousands of construction workers marched on the Quebec legislature on Monday warning of increased violence if the government adopts a law that would open up some job sites to more workers." That's the beginning paragraph. That's a pretty serious warning sign of troubled waters ahead.
"A group of about 200 workers standing in front of the crowd chanted the name of Denis Lortie." Remember him, the man who went into the legislature in Quebec a number of years ago and killed people? This is pretty serious intimidation.
"Fernand Daoust, head of the Quebec Federation of Labour, said the unions were worried about violence at the demonstration and assigned some 2,000 of their own members to keep the angry protesters in line.
"A crowd estimated at between 10,000 and 20,000 waved placards and rattled temporary iron gates set up to hold them back, but the demonstration was mainly peaceful.
"A handful of people overturned flower pots, set a few bonfires and torched a small house they brought" to the legislature "while hundreds of provincial police officers kept watch.
"Opposition to the new bill has been accompanied by vandalism and violence and workers openly warned Monday it could get worse.
"'When (the law) passes, watch to see the number of fires,' said worker Pierre-André Samson.
"Daoust said workers won't sit quietly while other people come in and take their jobs." Is that clear enough?
"'They will resort to all sorts of measures, we know that,' he said. 'Sometimes we cannot control (the situation).'
"Bill 142" in the province of Quebec "will deregulate the residential construction sector and require only plumbers and electricians to have union-controlled working papers for projects of eight units or less.
"The construction workers say the new law would throw the door open for anyone with a hammer to take their jobs and drive down salaries."
Mr White: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I believe at the moment we're not discussing Bill 142 in the province of Quebec. We are here in the province of Ontario at Queen's Park discussing a bill about Quebec construction unions.
The Acting Speaker: Thank you.
Mr White: I'm wondering if you could remind the member of that.
The Acting Speaker: Thank you. I would remind the member that we are discussing Bill 123, if you would relate your comments to that.
Mr Villeneuve: It has a great deal of analogy and the consequences of the type of legislation that was brought in by this government. They told us that the province of Quebec has Bill 40-type legislation that causes no problems. Speaker, I have to get the final paragraph on record:
"In the last couple of weeks" -- and listen to this; it could happen to any one of us here. We're 130 people elected. "In the last couple of weeks, the offices of two members of the legislature were ransacked and Liberal Yvon Lemire was dragged from his office and kicked and punched. Several construction sites were also trashed and there have been illegal strikes in some areas of the province."
The Liberal Minister of Labour, Norm Cherry, said, "Monday there may be minor changes to the bill but it will be adopted."
That's the type of resistance that the province of Quebec is facing by deregulation, by attempting to dismantle what it allowed to occur in the late 1970s through Labour Relations Act-type legislation that is now in place in the province of Quebec.
I had to get that on the record because these are the types of situations that Bill 40, Bill 80 and Bill 91 will bring to the province of Ontario in the not-too-distant future. Quebec legislation has allowed for 17 regions to be created and les syndicats do not allow one person from one area to go to another. Simply the province of Ontario became the 18th region.
I've been working with my colleagues from the National Assembly of Quebec for over five years in attempting to not only address this problem but settle it. It's getting worse. The elected politicians know they want to correct it, but this type of resistance from les syndicats du Québec is preventing them from doing it. I think it's a terrible situation.
The Acting Speaker: Could you relate your comments to Bill 123, please.
Mr Villeneuve: I am. It's very, very relevant to Bill 123. These are the repercussions that are occurring. Bill 123 will effectively disallow Quebec workers from working in Ontario, and yet the government of Quebec is attempting to deal with the problem that this Legislature will face in the not-too-distant future.
1950
Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): What baloney that is. That is utter, complete baloney and you know it.
The Acting Speaker: Order, please.
Mr Villeneuve: The Minister of Housing has told me that it's utter, complete baloney. I want that to go on the record. The member for Ottawa Centre says that it's baloney. Well, read the Citizen. It's in there.
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Order, please.
Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): You try the truth, you might get to like it.
The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The members will have a chance to express their comments as soon as the member is finished. Would you continue, please.
Mr Villeneuve: When the Minister of Transportation tells me to "Try the truth, you might like it." I have a major problem with it. I don't think it's parliamentary, but it's on the record.
We have on Highway 401 many, many people who come from the province of Quebec into Ontario and vice versa. We hope to be able to maintain the most important tourist bureau on the westbound freeway, the one at Lancaster, where many, many people from Quebec, from the Maritimes and from the eastern United States will stop and look for information. They may well want to stay in eastern Ontario for a period of time, but that office -- and I'm glad to see the minister here this evening -- is being threatened to close. As a matter of fact, the announcement of closure has been made. I do hope the minister will reconsider that.
Interjection.
Mr Villeneuve: Now, I'm strained. Yes, and I'll admit I'm strained. I'll be back to 123 in a very, very short time. But I've always attempted to promote the fact that we must live together. But I'll tell you -- and I'll just touch on another one -- the interprovincial poultry quotas, which are very interesting, because on interprovincial quotas --
Hon Mr Pouliot: He's into chickens. He's off the road.
Mr Villeneuve: It's got to do with interprovincial problems, Speaker. I hope you understand that. It's not quite construction but it's very similar. Processing has to be done on these interprovincial --
Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I think it would be nice if some of the members who like to yell back and forth would sit in their seats. It may make it more appropriate so that you could ask them to come to order.
Mr Villeneuve: It doesn't really matter to me, Speaker, whether they're in their seats or not.
The Acting Speaker: I would ask members not to have interjections.
Mr Villeneuve: Their thoughts are coming through loud and clear and I can tell you that they don't like what they hear because it is the truth. It's got them just a little bit on edge.
Interprovincial marketing boards: Chickens that are grown in Ontario must be processed in Quebec. That's not right and it's not fair. It's akin to the kind of thing that the province of Quebec has been getting away with for a number of years since it established that kind of Labour Relations Act akin to Bill 40 that we have here in the province of Ontario.
Smuggling: A lot of the cigarettes that are smuggled through in Cornwall, at that general area, wind up in the province of Quebec. The province of Quebec has the best underground economy -- or the worst underground economy, however you look at it -- of anywhere. Construction workers are second only to tobacco smuggling in that underground economy. It's going to be very difficult for the government of Quebec to have this type of legislation which deregulates -- Bill 40-type legislation.
I've gone on for more time than I was supposed to. I know I have a number of colleagues who want to participate. It's of great concern to me. I have worked tirelessly with my colleagues from Quebec to attempt to solve the interprovincial construction workers problem. I am very pleased to see that this government has taken positive action and has not given in to the type of suggestion that was made that, "We'll allow your Ontario workers into Quebec, providing they've worked 750 hours last year." How in the world could we accept that when we can't even go and work in the province of Quebec?
Ms Murdock: While I was having dinner I watched the member on television and then came back in order to hear the balance of his speech. I would comment that Bill 40, as the member seems to be intimating, is absolutely nothing like the bill that Quebec passed in 1978.
First of all, the bill in 1978 basically unionized the entire province of Quebec. Frankly, I think all of our union friends out there would be thrilled if the province of Ontario would even go anywhere near a similar bill when a third of them in the province of Ontario are unionized. So I would say to the member opposite that that really does not speak to Bill 123.
The bill that is restricting the jurisdiction in Quebec came in in 1971. The bill he's referring to that's similar to Bill 40 in Ontario came through in 1978. So in terms of the history of labour in the province of Quebec, I would correct the record in that regard.
I never really did hear any particular comments in relation to Bill 123 and whether or not he believes that this will change the situation between Ontario and Quebec, and whether or not the negotiation process will get back together in terms of working, or how he perceives that. I'd be interested in hearing those comments.
Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I'd just like to make a few comments on my colleague from S-D-G & East Grenville.
As you know, I think we both hear the same stories, and I've heard a considerable amount of discussion and discontent over Quebec's discriminatory trade rules. This has been an outstanding and damaging issue in the province's construction industry for many, many years.
The administration of the city of Cornwall, which is a city adjacent to the province of Quebec, was very concerned with legislation that does not permit Ontario contractors to work in Quebec. This has been going on for many years. While Quebec contractors are free to obtain employment in our province, many of our tradesmen are sitting at home.
Another constituent, Mr Carson Barcier, has come into my constituency office to bring an article which states, "It would be surprising if people were anything but defensive, paranoid and aggressive when asked about the different labour laws operating in Quebec and Ontario. Being forced to defend an unjust system will do that to you."
It has been my hope that Quebec would enter into a serious discussion to create a fair environment for outside construction workers. It seems, however, that Quebec was not willing to budge, and the talks were not achieving the kind of results we needed. Therefore, that is why I supported this government's legislation on September 27. I also recognize that the more recent trade bans do not resolve the discontent of trade barriers between Ontario and Quebec.
Mr Norm Jamison (Norfolk): I would just like to take this opportunity to comment on the member's oration on this very important bill that really reflects the need to allow free movement between provinces in labour and therefore set the standard to allow free movement and free trade between the provinces likewise.
I can say that this particular argument should not be confused or misconstrued whatsoever. This is not a debate that would pit worker against worker. This is an argument that dictates only one thing: the strong disagreement between jurisdictions concerning the legislative path which governments take to be overly protectionist within this fine nation. This is not an issue that will pit Quebec workers against Ontario workers because workers alike have the same object in mind, and that is to work to maintain their employment and to progress in their own societies and provide a valuable living for themselves, their families and their communities.
2000
So when I hear the overtures that really relate to pitting Quebec workers in some form or fashion against Ontario workers, that is simply not the case. We're dealing with government policies that discriminate clearly against the construction trades here in Ontario and have done so for a long period of time. Our government is moving in that direction and I'm pleased to say this bill is a proper one.
The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired. We have time for one more question or comment.
Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I've been interested in hearing the comments from people on all sides of the House with respect to this bill and particularly the member who has just spoken and whose riding I've forgotten. I am disturbed, actually, at the glee I hear from all sides of the House with respect to this bill, because in fact this is not a happy occasion for our country that this bill even had to come forward. It is not a happy occasion that we have to follow the steps of New Brunswick or Quebec in dealing with these trade issues. Surely to God, if we are going to have a place on the international world stage, we should be able to come to terms with these issues at home in ways other than through legislative vehicles such as this kind of a blunt instrument. I don't think there should be any happiness or any glee in the fact that this bill will probably go forward, probably with the support of all parties in this place.
The Acting Speaker: Thank you. The member for S-D-G & East Grenville has two minutes to respond.
Mr Villeneuve: To the members from Halton Centre, Norfolk, Cornwall and Sudbury, I appreciate your comments. There is no glee in bringing legislation like this. It was a matter of attempting on many, many different occasions to try and bring the parties together, but we were never able to, in spite of the fact that politicians in the province of Quebec appeared to be very willing. The minute they bring it to their Legislature, they had basically the trade unions fighting them tooth and nail and what I quoted in the paper is exactly what happens when you bring this type of legislation after the Bill 40-type legislation which they've had in the province of Quebec.
It's interesting that the member for Sudbury brought forth the fact that 1978 brought Bill 40-type legislation in the province of Quebec. Well, we had the problem in the early 1980s. Whenever the economy slowed down, we had a recession and of course we had the major problems of the 1990s -- 1991, 1992 and 1993 -- with a major recession again, of course. And unions are protective. That's why they are in place. They're there to protect the people who pay their dues and if they're going to try and protect themselves against the politicians, they will do that in every measure possible, including intimidation, which is what I was reading about.
Hon Ms Gigantes: It has nothing to do with Bill 40.
Mr Villeneuve: Whether you consider it to be on topic or not, intimidation is part of the game that is played, because they have to use whatever measures are at their disposal, whether they're legal or whether they're not.
This is what we have, Speaker. We have a situation that we had better be ready in early April to bring this legislation into place because without that kind of legislation, the province of Quebec and their workers will not act. They have to be forced. We've got their attention now. We've got to make it happen.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate? The member for Cochrane South.
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Madam Speaker, I congratulate you on recognizing me this evening, unlike last night. I had to get that little shot in there. I'm only going to take a very few minutes to just point out a couple of things.
The reason I will support this legislation is a very simple one. I live in a riding called Cochrane South. It is a border riding to the province of Quebec with which we've had mobility problems when it comes to workers working within the province of Ontario and Ontario workers not having the reciprocal agreement with Quebec to be able to work on its construction sites.
I just want to bring this to the local level. We have just gone through, for over the past three years, the construction of a brand-new hospital. Some almost $90 million was spent in order to build the Timmins and District Hospital. We had a hospital board who tried its best to make sure that the work provided through that construction project was done on a local basis as much as possible. There was every attempt on the part of the hospital administration to make sure that workers who were hired within that particular project as much as possible would be workers who would be hired around the region of the community of Timmins, but the hospital administration also recognized that these were provincial dollars and anybody working within the province of Ontario had a right to be able to work on that job.
What really infuriated people in my riding -- and I had the calls during the construction seasons when they were building that hospital on numerous occasions where workers were trying to get work. They really wanted to get on to the job and they would get to that particular construction site to find that no positions were open because many of the jobs within the trades had been filled by construction workers coming from Quebec.
That in itself was not what infuriated people. What got people really mad is that when they'd hear about contracts on the other side of the border in places like Rouyn and Val-D'Or where work was going on, they had absolutely no opportunity to even apply for those jobs and they saw that as a very unfair situation.
What this legislation does is a very simple thing. It says to the province of Quebec: "Listen. We, in the province of Ontario believe in free trade between our provinces. We believe if you're Canadian, you should have the same rights and privileges, if you live in Ontario or you live in the province of Quebec or PEI, to work anywhere within this country. Unfortunately you have raised barriers to us."
For 20 years, successive governments have tried to deal with this problem in the province of Ontario. The Conservative government for some 15, 16 years -- or 14 years, I should say -- and the Liberal government before us. When we came to power as a New Democratic government, we immediately set the task to try to negotiate with the province of Quebec the removal of those trade barriers. Unfortunately, the province of Quebec did not succumb to negotiations. Instead, they decided to remain rigid within their position and that they would stay exactly for the status quo, which was to exclude Ontario workers in their province on work that was going on, that our people could have been working on.
This government has very few choices left. What do you do when you have a relationship such as that where the government in question in Quebec says, "No, we're not going to allow it." What we're doing is a very simple thing. We are mirroring; we are putting a mirror at the border of the province of Quebec when it comes to legislation and all we are saying: "We are not going to do any more or any less than what you are doing within the province of Quebec. We will basically mirror the legislation you have so that when you start to reduce your restrictions, we will do the same."
I'm encouraged by one thing. Although I would disagree with the member opposite who just spoke, it was a very difficult thing we saw over the past few days where construction workers in the province of Quebec decided to act in a lawless manner to try to put pressure on their government to stop them from removing some of the restrictions the Quebec government is trying to remove. We are seeing some effect. The province of Quebec is moving forward with legislation now to try to remove some of the legislation barriers that we have in place restricting Ontario workers from that province. We have seen a very strong backlash within the construction trades in the province of Quebec.
I would say to my friends in Quebec: «Écoute, il vient un temps où nous, comme Canadiens, on a besoin d'être capable de travailler ensemble. La seule manière dont on va être capable de faire ça, c'est d'être capable de venir ensemble comme Canadiens, selon qu'on travaille au Québec et on demeure en Ontario et vice versa, qu'on est capable de trouver des manières où on peut échanger, faisant affaire avec nos habiletés dans nos deux provinces.
We have many things in common, our two provinces. I don't think a lot of us on this side of the House, as well as opposition members, are very happy about doing this, but we understand the necessity of doing so. So very simply put, we are mirroring what the province of Quebec is doing.
The last thing I want to say is this: One thing I note the province of Quebec within the free trade arrangement and within the free trade debate said: "We are all for free trade with the United States. We support an open economy." Again we have seen with the North American free trade agreement, the provinces say the same thing when it comes to North American free trade. Those people within the province of Quebec through their governments have said, "We support freer trade."
If that is the case, we ask you to do one thing and one thing only: Open the borders between Ontario and Quebec so that we can share in each other's wealth, we can share in each other's resources and we can enjoy each other's company. When Quebec decides to do that, Ontario will be there for them. We will lower our barriers and we will both enjoy each other's company and we will both enjoy each other's opportunity to be able to work in each other's province.
With that, Madam Speaker, I thank you very much for this time in debate.
The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments?
Mr Daigeler: I was interested to hear the remarks from the member for Cochrane South because obviously the area he represents also will be affected by this bill and has been affected by the provisions that are in place in Quebec. I was pleased to hear he's fighting for the interests of his constituency.
2010
I'm just wondering, and perhaps the member could respond to that in his two minutes of response time, whether there are some people in his riding who are beginning to in fact have some second thoughts about this matter, as there are some in the Ottawa-Carleton area. There is a realization that these restrictions are coming at a cost and certainly some of the contracts that are being let now in my area, the Ottawa-Carleton area, are coming in much higher because no longer are the much lower bidders from Quebec winning the contract. Of course, that is a cost to the taxpayer in my area and ultimately may be seen on the tax bill.
I'm not saying that's the only deciding factor, but certainly I find it rather interesting to see that people are saying, "Well, you know, there are other aspects as well to these questions that we should look at." Some of the builders in fact are quite concerned about the workers they have on the Ontario side and the relationship they have had with the workers, good relationships, from Quebec and they're wondering whether even on the Ontario side, as Ontario builders, they will be able to continue to provide the service to Ontarians because they no longer have the labour available to do the job.
I'm just wondering whether the member could respond to that, whether this experience is in fact happening in his riding as well.
The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired. Further questions or comments? The member for Hamilton West.
Hon Richard Allen (Minister without Portfolio in Economic Development and Trade): I would like to respond directly to the point that was made. I spent some time in Ottawa debating this question with the residential home builders' association and at that meeting the president of the home builders' association indeed made the point that the member for Nepean has just made, but he was promptly repudiated by his own members on the floor who asked him why he was suddenly getting so weak-kneed and lily-livered about this particular issue. While he may be hearing one or two voices that raise a question about the cost of labour in some aspects of the construction industry in the area of Ottawa, the membership in fact see the long-term benefit of this particular move and are not prepared to chicken out on it.
But I further observed that I think all of us, and I think the member for Cochrane South made this point, as did the member for Halton Centre, that this is not a happy moment. I think we all agree with that. This is not something this province enjoys doing, but after some 20 years of a regime which we have been encountering trying to change in Quebec on a debating-negotiating kind of basis, we have been forced to take some further and more decisive action.
We have made it clear time and again that the moment the Quebec regulations are changed, we will catapult this legislation into outer space and it will be of no more effect. We have no interest in pursuing it at that level. We want to open the borders. We do not want to see the debate become a matter of union bashing in Quebec. We want to see government regulations that limit mobility to residential requirement and therefore limit the mobility of labour to be eliminated in Quebec and to get on to a more liberal regime between our two provinces.
The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired. Further questions or comments? Seeing none, the member for Cochrane South has two minutes to respond.
Mr Bisson: In jest, if the legislation at one point is catapulted into space because we no longer need it, the Hubble telescope will be able to find it, according to the work they did last night.
I would just say to the member opposite in regard --
Interjection.
Mr Bisson: They got the glasses on the Hubble finally. I would just say to the member across the way, you asked if there is any second thought on the part of people within my constituency on this legislation. The answer to that is a resounding no. I have had more support on this particular legislation than probably a whole bunch of other things that have happened recently.
The other thing I would just say very quickly on the question of cost of the construction projects is that, yes, it is true there will be some jobs that will come in slightly higher, let's say 5% for an argument, than what you would get otherwise because some of the Quebec contractors were underbidding to get those particular jobs only to keep their people going.
But I ask you this: How much more money would it cost the province of Ontario in money that we have to pay as a government to support those people who become unemployed in this province because they no longer have jobs because of what happened? I think the cost is very much borne out and we'd probably end up on the positive side of the scale.
I'd like to thank members for their comments in regard to the comments I made within the five minutes on this particular discussion. I would only say this one more time: The province of Ontario wants to have freer trade with the province of Quebec. If Quebec is prepared to remove its restrictive laws when it comes to mobility rights from workers going into Quebec from Ontario, we will be prepared to match whatever they do.
All this legislation does, again, is to mirror what is happening in the province of Quebec when it comes to legislation. As Quebec reduces its legislation and regulation banning our workers, we will do the same. I look forward to the day when this legislation will no longer be needed.
Mr McGuinty: I want to begin by congratulating the parliamentary assistant, the minister and the government generally for moving forward on this issue. I'm not sure it's particularly productive, worthwhile or helpful to assess who or what prompted the government to move forward. I think it's important to recognize at the end of the day that the government members have the numbers and they made the decision in their own capacity to proceed.
I think I want as well to second the comments made by the member for Halton Centre. I don't think any of us here should take any particular pleasure or delight in having to move ahead with this kind of legislation at a time, I think, when it is generally recognized that opening up the borders rather than tightening them up or closing them is the way to go.
The history behind this, of course, is considerable. Some people argue that in effect this legislation became necessary as a result of legislation Quebec passed in 1974, but in reality these kinds of barriers have evolved since Confederation.
The net result of the Quebec legislation is that they have in place very restrictive labour mobility laws which are complex. Indeed, I've tried to gain some understanding of them. I call them Byzantine. They're very restrictive and at the ground level of course they're causing considerable harm to the people of Ontario in terms of the net result.
I became involved in this issue I guess in some depth about a year ago. In fact, it was December 9 that I wrote my first letter to the Minister of Labour in connection with this matter as a result of a number of constituents coming to see me and expressing their concern about not being able to work within the province. I have a number of letters, but I only want to read one into the record and it reads as follows:
"Dear Sir:
"I have worked in the construction industry alongside Quebec and Ontario residents for over 20 years; that is, until the recession caught up with me. I am now out of work and cannot find any in Ottawa, but I did find a job in the Outaouais. After three days' work, I was fired because I did not possess a carte de compétences, which the Quebec government requires.
"The only requirement for Quebec residents to come here and work is for them to cross the bridge, yet I am disqualified from working here. Also, $18 million of regional contracts have recently been awarded to Quebec firms who, for large part, bring their own equipment and workers, yet my Ottawa employer is disqualified from getting contracts from Quebec. Again I am on the outside looking in.
"I do not mind competitiveness, but it should be on a level playing field. The unfairness of these trade practices is humiliating. I wonder how many dollars the Quebec government will contribute towards my social assistance whenever my unemployment insurance runs out.
"It is time the government of Ontario addressed these problems. Your help in voicing my concerns will be greatly appreciated."
It's signed by Alain Carrière. That is only typical of a number of concerns that were expressed directly to me about this kind of legislation, and I'm quite comfortable in saying that these kinds of concerns have been expressed for many, many years.
2020
The bottom line is that this affects us particularly and profoundly in Ottawa-Carleton. There are 4,000 Quebec workers working over on our side of the border but there are only 300 Ontario residents who have the opportunity to work over there. Those 300 people have been awarded that particular carte de compétences. I'm not sure what the English terminology is for that.
In addition, the other problem that our Ontario based- contractors face is that they can't get contracts in the province unless they have a place of business there. Even if they do have a place of business there, they can't hire Ontario workers. Furthermore, if they want to do business with a government-funded construction project, they need to have not only their place of business there, but their principal place of business.
There are other restrictions too, but those are the main ones.
As I was saying, my history began with this just about a year ago. My thinking and, I believe, the government members' thinking on this has gone through some kind of a healthy evolutionary process in terms of first exploring all of the alternatives that might be available before introducing the kind of legislation which I think all of us are going to support.
That is, they entered into a process of negotiations which I think failed at the end of the day. I called on the Minister of Labour to enter into talks that were specific to this issue rather than broad-based talks which were considering all kinds of trade barriers across the country, everything from milk and beer to lumber and whatever else. I thought we should focus on this issue in particular.
In any event, at the end of the day the government decided, I think quite rightly, that it had no alternative but to proceed with this kind of restrictive legislation which is intended to mirror the laws that are on the books in the province of Quebec.
I might add as well that the city of Ottawa and the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton felt that they too had no alternative and have passed resolutions which will greatly restrict the amount of trade those two entities are going to enter into with the province of Quebec or people and companies based in the province.
I just want to reiterate once more that this is the kind of legislation I think that all of us should embrace, if that's the proper word, with great reluctance, after having fully explored all of the alternatives, with regret and with no pleasure whatsoever.
I think the issue here, and it's important to remember this, is one of fairness. The province of Ontario and Ontarians are not trying to gain any particular advantage here. We're only looking for a level playing field.
Some people will choose to interpret this legislation, either out of misapprehension or for purposes of serving their own agenda, as being anti-Quebec or as being somehow anti-francophone. With respect to the latter, I can assure you that most of my constituents who raised this matter with me in my office were indeed francophone construction workers. So it can hardly be properly categorized as being some kind of an anglophone-francophone battle.
With respect to it being seen as an anti-Quebec bill, I think it's important to understand some of the context in Ottawa-Carleton that affects this. First of all, people should understand that in Ottawa-Carleton in fact we see the Ottawa-Carleton and the Outaouais as a single economic unit. Our government leaders there back in August came up with a report which they had collaborated on. They paid $25,000 for that report, and it came up with a number of recommendations in order to address the problem.
It was signed by both the regional chair for Ottawa-Carleton, Peter Clark, and the president of Communauté urbaine de l'Outaouais, Robert Labine. Both agreed -- and I'll just quote from that letter dated August 13, 1993. It says:
"The level playing field we have patiently been striving for can be achieved either by pursuing retaliatory action against Quebec or by removing the barriers outlined in the report. We in the national capital region would prefer the latter."
But obviously the president for the Communauté urbaine de l'Outaouais was very much prepared to consider that restrictive laws be put in place in order to address that problem.
The other thing I want to raise is this. I have a copy of a letter here from the construction association of Outaouais, Association de la construction de l'Outaouais, and it is signed by the president, Gilles Proulx, dated June 25, 1993. In it he provides us with the results of a survey he conducted within his membership; that is, the Outaouais construction association. He advises that -- I'll just quote from this, it's in French:
"La réponse ne peut être plus claire : 87,3 % de nos répondants sont en faveur d'éliminer les barrières actuelles concernant les employeurs, et 94 % sont favorables à ce que les travailleurs puissent gagner leur vie librement au Québec ou en Ontario."
What that means is that 87.3% of the people who responded to their survey were in favour of eliminating barriers in so far as they affected employers and 94% were in favour of eliminating in so far as that affected the ability of workers to move from one province to the other. Again, that is from the construction association of Outaouais based in the province of Quebec.
Finally, with respect to this issue of whether it may not be seen and interpreted as anti-Quebec legislation -- this bill, that is -- there is an association based in the province of Quebec called the Association for the Right to Work, and that is a group that even went so far as to organize a demonstration that took place on a couple of bridges that link the province of Ontario to Quebec in the Ottawa-Carleton area.
That blockade was organized by someone by the name of Jocelyn Dumais, who is a Hull cement contractor and who organized a demonstration because he was angry about Quebec laws that made it difficult for him to work legally in Quebec.
There's a good deal of opposition to the laws that are on the books, even from within the province. I think it's important for us to understand that, and indeed many of those people are applauding this government for moving forward with respect to this bill.
I have met with representatives of the Ottawa Construction Association and other similar organizations in Ottawa and Ottawa-Carleton. I must say that they have changed their tune somewhat. At the outset they were most adamant that I press the government and that the government move forward to bring in legislation that would mirror exactly the kinds of laws that are on the books in Quebec. But more recently they have expressed concerns about the dislocation and the negative impact this will have on the work they do and on their employees. I can understand and I can recognize that.
There very well may be, and probably will be, some economic costs involved in proceeding with this kind of legislation. Essentially, we're moving from the bidding pool here, a player who from time to time obviously is going to come in at a better price. The taxpayer's going to have to pick up the tab on that. In fact, the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton estimated that for it alone over the next year it will have to foot the bill for an additional $3.5 million.
But I say that at the end of the day, if we're going to deal with this issue, we have to deal with it aggressively. Either we're going to play hardball or we're going to play Nerf ball, and I choose to play hardball because I don't feel we have any kind of an alternative.
I hope, of course, that this matter will be sent to committee and that it will visit Ottawa-Carleton. But I hope that at the end of the day we won't water down the bill to such an extent that it really will not gain much attention in Quebec City, where of course we hope to have an impact.
I think it's important as well to recognize that there are downsides, some of which I've already referred to, simply because this bill is going to be supported, as I understand it, unanimously, from all sides of the House, to recognize, as I say, that there are downsides.
First of all, there are going to be additional costs. Secondly, we should understand that this is going to cause considerable problems within the province of Quebec. The member for S-D-G & East Grenville has recounted some of those problems. I'm not sure I agree with his interpretation of how they came about, but in any event, there's going to be tremendous opposition to this from within the Quebec construction industry.
I think the other thing that we should recognize is that the longer this barrier is up, the harder it's going to be to take it down at the end of the day. I think there's a natural tendency towards protectionism, and it becomes very difficult over time to move towards an open border.
2030
I think it's also important to recognize -- and this is one of the reasons we shouldn't take any particular delight in this -- that what we are doing is we are going to be putting 4,000 Quebec workers out of work as a result of this legislation. Those are 4,000 people, presumably with families, dependents of one kind or another, who are going to be sent on to the unemployment rolls. That's something that, again, I don't feel we have any choice in doing, but I think we should recognize just what kind of effect precisely this kind of legislation will be having.
In terms of good news, I think the province of Quebec has already introduced some legislative changes, those which are causing some significant disruption already. Those are minor changes only, although they are seen as being very controversial within the province of Quebec, but in so far as the benefits that they will bring to Ontario workers are concerned, they are virtually nil.
I urge the government to continue negotiating. I don't think government members should throw their hands up now and say, "We've done all that we can." I think we have to pursue a second track, and that would be to continue negotiations with all sincerity and dispatch in order to see if we can bring the Quebec barriers down so that, in turn, we can bring ours down.
The final comment I'd like to make is that we should keep in mind here that the objective is fairness. It's not to get a leg up on Ontario workers, it's not to be seen as Quebec-bashing. The objective at the end of the day here, as I say, is fairness, because that will lead to an open interprovincial market. The reason we want to move to that, of course, is because that's simply the way to go.
I just want to quote an article here from the Financial Post of August 6 of this year, written by Jill Vardy. It's entitled "Provincial Barriers Under Siege," and it recounts how these kinds of barriers are being seen more and more as less acceptable to Canadians, and I think that's a good thing. The author says here:
"An open interprovincial market would allow companies to take advantage of economies of scale, develop national marketing strategies and lower administrative costs pushed up by different provincial regulations. That, in turn, would boost their ability to compete with foreign producers as trade barriers between Canada and other countries come down."
Those are all the comments I have to make. Thank you for your attention.
Mr Daigeler: This is not the first opportunity I have had to speak on this question of restrictions on workers from Quebec. I did speak on the private member's motion that was put forward by the member for Carleton, I think it was, last May. I spoke in support of that motion at the time and put forward my own views, the views of my constituents on this matter. I spoke briefly earlier this evening, but I do wish to again address this matter because, frankly, I do think it's a very important one.
I am not convinced that we fully realize the seriousness of this issue. Hopefully, it won't become as serious perhaps as it might, but it has the potential. It has the potential obviously of becoming a real inflammation point between the provinces of Quebec and Ontario.
Many members of the House have already indicated, and I think rightfully so, that they're not particularly enamoured of having to support this legislation, or even having to bring in this legislation. I think even the government was reluctant to move forward with this legislation. I appreciate that because I feel the same way.
I do come from Europe, where I was born, and the thought that within one country we have to legislate against each other as provinces or states, against each other to protect our trade interests, that is just unbelievable. It is a sad commentary, in my opinion, on the state of our interprovincial relations. We must, unfortunately, acknowledge this. It would have been, I think, much preferable if we could have made some progress at the negotiating table.
I know that the member for Ottawa East and several other members of my caucus had called for negotiations about a year ago already. I myself had written numerous letters to my own minister, Monte Kwinter, at the time when we were the Liberal government. I also personally wrote to Frances Lankin, who last year was the Minister of Industry and Trade, asking and urging her on to come to a negotiated solution on this matter, because I certainly agree that this question of Quebec workers being able to work in Ontario but Ontario workers not being able to work in Quebec was a major irritant, certainly in my area, but I think in other parts of the province as well, especially those areas that are close to the Quebec border.
Really what I'm saying is that I would have wished, I would have really honestly and truly wished that we could have seen some very concrete and practical results at the negotiating table that would have permitted us not having to introduce this legislation. Unfortunately, it appears, at least from what we have seen, that there was nothing in public that really showed that the Quebec government was willing and that significant progress was being made on this question. That's why, I guess, the minister did introduce legislation, or announced her intention to introduce legislation, back in September. Today, of course, we are in fact debating the legislation.
Obviously, what this is, and I think all three sides are agreed -- and, as I say, I myself supported this already in the spring -- is a further sharpening of the negotiation tools. Frankly, we're getting closer and closer to that last sword, as it were, that we have in our quiver, and that's in fact proclaiming the legislation.
This matter is getting very, very serious, and I think the people on the Quebec side, the workers themselves, are beginning to see that we in Ontario are very, very concerned about this matter and that we want to see a change happening. I think that message is filtering through, and I'm glad about that. I'm glad that the workers, and the employers as well, of the Quebec side are realizing and are, I must say, sympathetically realizing that there is an injustice, that there is a grave injustice.
Like the member for Ottawa South and several of my other colleagues, I have received correspondence from Quebec contractors who agree that changes have to take place and who express their sympathy with the position of Ontarians. It's by no means as though all Quebeckers were of the same view and were of the understanding that these restrictions were acceptable.
2040
One of my provincial colleagues from the other side of the river, Robert LeSage, who I think is a minister in the Quebec government, spoke very forcefully when we had meetings in the Ottawa-Carleton area among all the provincial members from the Ontario side and from the Quebec side. He agreed with us and said, "Yes, changes have to take place."
There was a meeting, I understand, right in this Legislature in May of the interparliamentary association between Quebec and the province of Ontario. Frankly, that institution itself I think is a hopeful sign. We need some hopeful signs, and that interparliamentary association is one of them.
I have been here only since 1987, so I'm not sure whether this was the first time that we had an official delegation from the National Assembly in Quebec here at Queen's Park, meeting officially with representatives of this House, but they did come together. I think there were about four or five who came here from Quebec, from the three parties, because the Equality Party was represented as well at this meeting, and obviously there were representatives from all three sides in this House who came to the meeting.
One of the major questions that was debated was the question of the trade restrictions between Quebec and Ontario. I read just this week the Hansard of that meeting and I found it very, very interesting. I happen to be able to read French, so I was able to read what Mr Robert LeSage and several of his colleagues from Quebec said about this question of the trade restrictions. Certainly Robert LeSage couldn't have been clearer in saying that he agreed with the position of Ontario that there was an injustice and an unfairness and that changes had to occur. In the Outaouais area and in the province of Quebec generally, he is an important member of the Bourassa government and of the Liberal cabinet.
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: I would ask members to try to keep their conversations down.
Mr Daigeler: He very clearly and very forcefully said that changes have to be made and that he was pushing within his party and within his caucus and within his cabinet to bring about these changes. I thought that was a hopeful sign.
The people whom I represent and the people of Ottawa-Carleton and the people of the province should know that it isn't really just a one-way street, that it isn't just us who are concerned about this matter and want to see it changed. There are also influential members in Quebec and influential politicians who want to see a change taking place.
I'm glad to acknowledge that and I'm glad to support it. If we have any opportunity, I think we should give the Quebec politicians that moral support in acknowledging their willingness to bring about changes and to encourage them to go forward, because frankly I think they're going to have a pretty hard time in their own province to change the system. Several of the speakers before me have already alluded to the fact that the construction workers, not the employers but the workers, are becoming rather antsy, as one says, I think, in English.
Mr Grandmaître: Fidgety.
Mr Daigeler: "Fidgety," says the member for Ottawa East. Frankly I think the word probably ought to be a bit stronger.
Mr Villeneuve used language that I thought was rather derogatory towards the union movement. He really was I think coming pretty close to what one might call union-bashing. Again, perhaps that was not totally unexpected from the Conservative side, but certainly on this side of the House we do respect the union movement and we do feel there's a very legitimate place for the workers to get together and organize themselves and defend their interests in a collective fashion.
But of course it is true that that action has to be always within the framework of the law and has to respect the democratic means. From what I have seen on television, what I have seen in the newspapers, there are certainly threats being made in Quebec from construction workers that I think are coming pretty close to the border of what I think is still acceptable in a democratic society.
What it does indicate is that the Quebec government, certainly the current Quebec government, has its work cut out. This won't be an easy matter. Frankly, I think they will need a reasonable approach from this province, because I am afraid that not only the workers but also some politicians who have a vested interest in Quebec on this matter -- I'm referring to the Parti québécois, and I am referring to the Bloc québécois. They have a vested interest in exploiting this issue under a constitutional angle, and I'm sure they're going to try to make Ontario look as bad as possible.
Frankly, that's something that worries me. It worries me greatly that this issue may get into the wrong hands, that people may lose their perspective on it and that it may take on a life of its own in a way that I don't think anyone in this House hopes for or wishes. I do trust the current Minister of Economic Development -- I think that's her title now, I'm not quite sure; Industry, Trade and Technology in the former administration -- that she will handle this dossier with all the sensitivity she can muster, because it's explosive. It has a lot to do with emotions. Frankly, I think it still has to do with a lot of emotions.
Certainly I have received these complaints, not just now when we are in recession, but I received them as well during the boom times. I think then those concerns really were coming not so much from an economic consideration, which I can understand, but at the time more from an attitude, I think, towards Quebec which frankly I didn't like, but especially now these emotions, which are still there, are obviously encouraged and made stronger by the unfortunate economic realities.
2050
It is true that even in Ottawa-Carleton we have unemployment in the 10% range. Just last week, I wrote a column in my community newspaper about the unemployment rate in Ottawa-Carleton. People think, "That's a government town and they're protected from unemployment." Well, they no longer are. First of all, we know that of course the civil service has been dramatically reduced as well, but we also do have a pretty large private sector economy in the Ottawa-Carleton area, especially high tech but some manufacturing as well, and there have been layoffs. There have been significant layoffs, and especially of course in the construction industry, because there too there's very little construction going on.
Now the Premier is here, and he knows I have been pushing for construction to resume in the Ottawa-Carleton area, especially with the completion of Highway 416. I just want to acknowledge to the Premier that I must say I was very impressed by two things: First of all, I got a response from the Premier very quickly, and I must congratulate the Premier in responding so quickly, in fact much, much faster than many of the other ministers I have written to; and secondly, he even wrote a little handwritten note on his response to say that they're working very hard with the federal government to try and get that 416 project back on track and have it completed in time for the original completion date.
I'm mentioning this because that project I think will provide employment precisely for the workers we're talking about. That in itself I think will be a plus and perhaps will reduce some of these pressures that are coming from people seeking work. Obviously, if they're seeking work and they're seeing workers from the other side of the river coming to Ontario and working, they're going to get very upset, and I think they have a right to be upset.
So I'm saying, let us approach this matter with some trepidation. Let us realize that this is a very delicate matter that requires a firm hand. I don't deny that. Unfortunately, we have now reached the stage where I guess the threat of law has become necessary. It is not something that we rejoice over, and I think this has been mentioned several times.
One point I haven't made yet and I made a little bit earlier in my brief remarks in responding to some of the other speakers is that we do now have people in my area who are also looking at the costs of this initiative and who are realizing that it isn't quite as simple as putting in a bill and not letting any workers in from the Quebec side, that this has some impact on our own pocketbooks. I did mention that for several of the contracts that have recently been assigned by the regional government, and I understand by the city of Ottawa as well, the costs have been higher, and quite a bit higher, than what was originally planned because both the regional government and the city of Ottawa decided to go with an Ontario employer rather than with somebody from Quebec and this was more expensive. Clearly, the municipal politicians in Ottawa-Carleton, and we as well as provincial politicians, did say, "The time has come to send a very clear and strong message" -- and I support that -- "that we are prepared to accept the cost," but I think we must be realistic. We must be aware of it. We can't just go blindly into this situation.
Just last week, I received a letter from the Perley Hospital in Ottawa-Carleton. They were looking forward to seeing the shovel in the ground on the very long-awaited rebuilding of the Perley Hospital, which is a long-care facility, and also, together with that, the Perley Hospital, the federal government will put money in for the veterans' hospital. All of this was ready to go. People have been working on this for I would say at least three or four years, waiting for a considerable length of time until this government made up its own mind. Finally, everything was ready to go, but now this project, which would have provided a significant number of jobs in Ottawa-Carleton, has been put on hold and they have to postpone --
Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): No.
Mr Daigeler: Yes. I got the letter. The Premier is saying no.
Hon Mr Rae: They don't have to.
Mr Daigeler: I got the letter, Premier. If you want to, I can share it with you. I got the letter last week --
Hon Mr Rae: I've got a leter too. Everybody's playing games.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr Daigeler: -- that said this matter has to be put on hold for the time being, the opening of the construction. That's the letter I have. They did say -- in that regard the Premier's right -- this project isn't dead. I'm not saying that. But the reality is that we were advised by the Perley Hospital, and I'm sure my colleagues received the letter as well, that the ground-breaking had to be postponed to an indefinite date. Hopefully it will come very soon. The Premier says it's going ahead. Great. Hopefully very shortly.
What I'm saying is that these are the concrete results. Frankly, in the letter from the Perley Hospital, the chairman of the board said that because of these new regulations and the new law, the Ontario government wants all these contracts to be revisited, and therefore they have to do that.
What they're referring to, frankly, is a provision that I think people haven't spoken about here yet and that I have serious questions about. There's a provision which is not in the law but is in the announcement the minister made in September, and it doesn't require legislation. The minister said in her announcement of September 27 that where the Ontario government is involved in the contract, it wants to see ensured "that Quebec-based contractors and subcontractors and Quebec-produced construction materials are not used."
Frankly, I find that provision about the Quebec construction materials very punitive, a very, very serious matter. If we are in one country still and we're not allowing the products of one prvoince to move into the other, I think that's a very, very serious matter. Frankly, I'm not knowledgeable enough about it. Perhaps the Quebec government has restrictions as well on Ontario products -- not just the labour but products. If that's the case, I find this is terrible.
So we're not only talking about restricting labour, we're also restricting products, and at a time when we're opening ourselves up not just to the United States but also to Mexico and the world over. That we, who are next to each other in Canada, should prevent each other from freely trading in our goods and in our labour: I think this is really a thought that disturbs me greatly. It disturbs me greatly, and I'm quite honest about it. I sure hope we will move beyond that stage very quickly.
I don't have much time left under the new rules of the NDP government, which restrict the members to speaking only half an hour on any particular item. I do want to certainly be on the record to say that I sure hope there will be hearings on this bill, certainly in my area, in the Ottawa-Carleton area, because I do think we want to give the opportunity to the public to be heard. I think it was the member for Carleton who last week suggested we also travel to the province of Quebec. Frankly, I would support that wholeheartedly. I don't know whether that would be precedent-setting -- it might be -- but so be it if that's the case. I think it would be very useful to let the Quebec people and the Quebec media know how we feel, and that we at first hand, as legislators, hear from the public in Quebec as to how it feels about this matter and how we can perhaps work together and straighten this matter out. I certainly hope that there will be hearings on this bill, there will be an opportunity for the public to present its concerns to us as legislators from this province.
2100
Finally, I would like to stress, because I think it often gets lost in the debate, that these provisions which prevent Ontario workers from working in Quebec aren't meant simply to discriminate against Ontario workers; these restrictions that Quebec has in place discriminate against workers from Quebec itself who are not from the particular regions where the workers are presently located.
The Quebec construction market, as it were, is subdivided in, I think, 11 regions. If there's work in each region, then you can get this certificate or card that allows you to work there. But if there is not more work, then nobody from the outside, whether they come from Ontario, or Montreal, or Quebec City or wherever is allowed to move into that area. Essentially, the work that is there is protected for those who are already there, who already have the card in that region.
That has proven to be so problematic, especially of course, for Ontario workers but also for workers within the province of Quebec. I remember in the spring there were quite a few articles in our paper, the Ottawa Citizen, that described the frustration of Quebec workers themselves at not being able to work in other construction regions of their own province.
We have to keep all this in perspective to make sure that this item does not degenerate into a fight between Quebec and Ontario. I don't think anybody wants to see that happen. But at the same time, what we are doing is sending a very strong and clear message to the Quebec government, to the Quebec construction employers and to the Quebec construction workers that we mean business, that the way things are is not acceptable, and that changes have to come about. The sooner we can do it, the better.
Thank you, Madam Speaker, for having given me the opportunity to speak.
The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments?
Hon Mr Rae: Madam Speaker, this is my first opportunity to congratulate you in the chair, so I will certainly do that and say that we look forward very much to your participation in the debate.
The comment that I wanted to make to the honourable member was that I am not quite clear whether he's supporting the legislation or not.
Mr Daigeler: I am.
Hon Mr Rae: Well, I think the Liberal Party has to make up its mind. His leader was the first one, the first in his party, the first in his provincial party, to come forward and argue that this is something that needed to be done. I would have hoped that we would have had a more ringing endorsement of the approach we're taking and of what needs to be done in order to address the systematic discrimination against our workers and against our products in the province of Quebec.
I hope very much that the approach we're taking will have the support of the honourable member.
Mr McGuinty: I want to congratulate my colleague for his comments. I want to also make it clear that I don't think anybody in my party takes any particular delight or pleasure, as I said earlier, in having to support this legislation. Notwithstanding that, we feel there's no alternative. We feel the government has quite properly moved on this issue that has been outstanding for some time. I just want to make that very clear.
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I want to commend the member for Nepean on his remarks this evening and on clearly stating his support of this legislation which is before the Legislature.
There have been many questions directed to the government. The government has been understandably reluctant to move very quickly on it, because there was a hope on the part of members of the government and I think all members of this House that there could be a resolution which would not involve legislation or regulations or a major confrontation with an adjacent province, the kind of confrontation which is never easy to engage in politically. It's quite easy to engage in from time to time, but in terms of our circumstances in dealing with other provinces, particularly the province of Quebec, the government I know has not wanted to move without first giving an opportunity for Quebec to move.
What has happened quite obviously, as the member has pointed out, is that the province of Quebec has not been prepared to move as we would have hoped. Particularly at a time when everyone seems to be talking about trade, when around the world trade barriers are coming down, it must be frustrating to all of those who hold positions of responsibility in government at the provincial level to watch the provincial barriers remain. Those who are dependent upon jobs in the area adjacent to the Quebec border particularly have to be annoyed that the Quebec government has not been prepared to take the action.
What has happened as a result of the questions which have been asked in this House and the response of the government is that we start to see some movement on the part of the government of the province of Quebec. It is still not satisfactory to meet our needs in this province, but we are beginning to see some progress at long last. I think that with the unanimous support of this House of this legislation in this session of Parliament, there will be an understanding in the Quebec National Assembly that we mean business and that we want to see something reciprocal on the part of the Quebec government.
The Acting Speaker: We have time for one further question or comment. Seeing none, the member for Nepean has two minutes to respond.
Mr Daigeler: Let me say first of all that I'm pleased the Premier is here at this late hour. I'm not sure what gives me the honour. I hope it's my speech, but it might be just that the press gallery is holding its Christmas party or that perhaps he has to shore up his own caucus to make sure that they still stay here at this late an hour. But whatever it is, the Premier should know quite clearly that already in May I supported the member for Carleton when he called on the government to introduce legislation to show that this province means business.
But Premier, I think you of all people -- and I say this seriously and I mean it. I have heard the Premier speak very eloquently and very meaningfully in this House on the relationship between this province and Quebec. He got the support of all sides of the House, certainly of myself, where he spoke very eloquently and meaningfully about the need to respect each other in this country and not to use these irritants we have to let these things get in between the reality that we are one country here.
That's what I was trying to say here, that while I support this measure, I think we must deal with it extremely carefully and extremely sensitively, because frankly, Premier, I am very concerned that this matter has the potential -- I hope it will not happen -- of really firing up the emotions. If you put this matter in the wrong hands -- we do have some in Quebec; we have the Bloc québécois; we have the Parti québécois -- that's what I'm concerned about. That's why I put forward certain comments and questions and concerns, and I do hope that the Premier and his cabinet will take those into consideration.
2110
The Acting Speaker: Further debate?
Hon Mr Rae: I have been asked by my colleagues to be brief and I will be brief. Let me start by saying to my colleague from Nepean that I listened very carefully to his remarks. I'm here tonight because it's my House duty and because we're sitting until midnight, and I do what the whip tells me to do. I was asked by the whip and I can say I'm delighted to be here this evening.
I do want to say a few things about this subject, because it's a subject about which I feel very strongly because it does have to do with the relationship we have to our sister province, the province of Quebec. Of course, I know that some of my words will be marked and noted by those in other jurisdictions, so I'm choosing my words extremely carefully.
I've been struck in my time in public life that this issue has been with us for some considerable period of time. The issue, for example, of our inability to get contracts readily accepted in the province of Quebec has been ongoing for some time, and we feel that relatively speaking we have an open door. Relatively speaking, for example, we can point to any number of public contracts which are carried out by school boards or hospitals or regional municipalities in which companies from the province of Quebec are able to compete.
We are not able to sell our buses in Quebec, but the region of Ottawa-Carleton and other parts of the province have, in their wisdom, decided to buy buses from the province of Quebec, yet we are not allowed access in any real economic sense into that province for buses that are produced here.
Our contractors have been at a systematic disadvantage for decades. I think the last boom allowed us the luxury to in a sense not deal with this problem, but it is now, I think, the overwhelming sense of this Legislature and the overwhelming sense of this province that we cannot allow this situation to continue in its current form.
I want to stress, because some things have been said outside this place which I think need to be addressed, that the clear message we are delivering is that we will do what mirrors Quebec's actions, not because we take any delight in it or because there is any sense of vindictiveness on our part, but only because we literally can't think of any other way to get the government of Quebec and the people of Quebec to understand that if they discriminate against us for a long, long period of time, they should not be surprised if our patience literally wears out.
We carried out a process of negotiation with the province of Quebec and I happen to believe that the province of Quebec did not think that this government, this Premier or any Premier or any government in this province would ultimately take action. I think they thought that we would complain and that we would try and seek some solutions, but I think they believed that at the end of the day we would not act.
I tried to tell the Premier of Quebec, and our minister tried to tell their ministers and our officials told their officials, that while this may have been true of public opinion in the province in the past and while it may have been true of governments in the past, it was no longer true, not because of any particular agenda that this government or that this Premier has but because I honestly believe, and I say this without any rancour at all, that any government, that any Premier standing in his place today, whether he were a Liberal, a Conservative or a New Democrat, would be taking the same action. We're the ones who have taken it and we appreciate the support which we believe we are receiving from the opposition parties. I do want to deal with a couple of the issues that have been raised by people during the debate.
The first is the suggestion, for example, that there are projects which would otherwise proceed which will not proceed because of what we're doing. That is false. There should be no surprise here. This has been in the works for some time. The statements have been made clearly through the summer and in the fall by the minister. There's absolutely no reason why any public body in this province should now be turning around and saying: "Oh, my goodness. We had no idea this was coming. What a terrible surprise. We can't proceed."
I would say very directly to the member for Nepean that I think he and I have a job do to. We all have a job to do to say to any public body that's responding in that way, "Please, there's no objective reason, in terms of the contracting process or in terms of the level of unemployment in Ottawa-Carleton, the number of contractors throughout the province who are prepared to bid on any project that's going, who are hungry for work, and there's no need to play around with this issue in terms of getting projects under way." That is a message that I very clearly want to deliver.
Vous savez très bien que cette question n'est pas nouvelle, que cette réalité est avec la province depuis très longtemps. Pendant les réformes du gouvernement de M. Lévesque et les changements dans le domaine de la construction, le gouvernement de l'Ontario, pour des raisons que franchement je ne comprends pas tout à fait, a décidé d'accepter ces changements dans le régime légal en ce qui concerne le travail, en ce qui concerne les contrats et en ce qui concerne la construction.
Alors, pendant les années 80 nous avons eu, comme vous le savez tous, une période de croissance économique où la question du chômage dans la construction n'était pas une question de tous les jours et où peut-être il était possible pour un gouvernement de ne pas vraiment mettre la priorité sur cette question, nos relations avec la province de Québec en ce qui concerne la mobilité des travailleurs.
Mais maintenant, ce n'est plus possible pour n'importe quel gouvernement d'ignorer ou de montrer une ignorance envers cette situation parce que l'impact des lois et des mesures prises par le gouvernement du Québec depuis longtemps a été de vraiment empêcher les travailleurs ontariens et les employeurs ontariens d'avoir la possibilité de travailler ou d'offrir des emplois dans la province de Québec.
En même temps, nous avons eu des frontières à peu près ouvertes. Il y a des milliers et des milliers de travailleurs du Québec qui travaillent maintenant dans la province de l'Ontario. Nous avons, on peut le voir dans chaque ville, dans les conseils scolaires, dans tous les contrats, des millions et des millions de dollars dans des contrats des conseils publics de la province de l'Ontario avec des entrepreneurs québécois.
Normalement, c'est quelque chose que je célébrerais. Souvent, on me pose la question quand je vais dans le nord-ouest de notre province, et je reçois de temps en temps des plaintes des gens disant : «Écoutez, vous avez des gens du Manitoba qui viennent travailler, vous avez des contractuels qui viennent du Manitoba qui prennent le travail des gens de l'Ontario ou des entreprises de l'Ontario. Qu'est-ce que vous pensez de ça, Monsieur le Premier ministre ? Est-ce que vous n'allez pas l'arrêter ?» Je dis, «Absolument pas.»
2120
On l'accepte parce que nous avons accès au marché du Manitoba et les gens de Thunder Bay ont le droit de travailler à Winnipeg, nous avons le droit de travailler en Saskatchewan et nous avons le droit de travailler là-bas, et nos gens peuvent faire des efforts pour gagner des contrats au Manitoba.
Mais maintenant, et on doit le dire, avec les règles du jeu qui existent et avec la loi qui existe à présent, nous n'avons pas le droit de le faire maintenant dans la province de Québec, mais les Québécois peuvent venir travailler chez nous. C'est ça qui cause un sens de discrimination, et je sais très bien que dans la culture politique du Québec, il est difficile d'accepter que les Ontariens puissent sentir un sens de discrimination, parce que ce n'est pas ça. C'est parce que nous sommes, dans la culture politique, dans la majorité et c'est difficile d'accepter que nous, qui venons de l'Ontario, ayons un sens de discrimination, mais ça existe.
I speak as someone who is an eastern Ontarian by birth. Listening to the debate I think of our colleagues from Ottawa, my good friend the Minister of Housing, who very much wants to get on with her bill, and she will in a moment, who has spoken to me so many times in our caucus in cabinet discussions about this. I listen carefully to and read carefully the remarks that have been made by the member for Nepean, the member for Ottawa East, the member for Prescott and Russell, my colleague from Stormont and I think Mr Bisson, my friend the member for Timmins, because we have a problem that goes right up the Highway 11 corridor and all the way across, and all the way down to Hearst we have the problem and the issue and the sense that it's not fair.
I just want to say to my friends in Quebec who are listening that we do this as a mirror to what you are doing to us. As soon as you stop doing it to us, we will stop doing it to you. It's as simple as that. I cannot put it more directly.
We do not enter into this period with any sense of joy but we do enter into it with a sense of determination. The people of Quebec and the government of Quebec underestimate our determination at, I believe, their disadvantage.
So I hope very much that we will be able to enter into a serious period of negotiation in which what will be on the table will be genuine reciprocity, and that to the extent that genuine reciprocity is in fact on the table and able to be discussed, we are there and we're ready to move. I've said that to Mr Bourassa and I would say it to the next Premier of Quebec, whoever that may be.
Let me say one last word on the subject of Mr Bourassa. He is a friend of mine. He's a friend of every Premier who's worked with him. I know that all the members of this House would want to join with me in wishing him a long, healthy and happy retirement from public life. We admire him for his courage, for his dedication to the people of Quebec and, if I may say so, for his dedication to the people of Canada.
I think all those of us who have been involved in negotiations with Premier Bourassa admire him for his tenacity, for his subtlety and for his ability. He is a consummate politician, and I hope that my colleagues will understand me when I say that when I use that word, I do not mean it as anything other than a compliment, since I consider myself to be a politician as well. He's somebody who believes strongly in the needs and interests of his province, and I do not resent or take anything away from him for that. He's somebody who also believes in the country.
I hope that the people of Quebec would allow us the same measure of sincerity. We are doing this because it is clearly the feeling of the Legislature of this province that it is something we must do to protect the interests of the working women and men and of the businesses of this province. We very much want open borders, open frontiers and an open economic relationship with Quebec. We know that is in the interests of our province. We also know that an open relationship with us is in the interests of the people of Quebec. So I say let the negotiations, the real negotiations begin, but I tell my colleagues they will only begin if we have the determination to act in our own interests.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Thank you, Premier. Questions or comments.
Mr Bradley: First of all, I believe the Premier is correct in his assessment that the circumstances today that the government of Quebec and the government of Ontario are facing are substantially different than they were in the past, that while, as he has appropriately identified, during economic boom times one can often overlook matters that are an irritant, when times are difficult, as they are today, Ontario will stand up for Ontario's rights and for the people of this province. This bill should not be seen as an anti-Quebec bill but rather as a bill that is in favour of fairness in terms of trade and in terms of labour between two provinces.
Our patience in Ontario has worn thin. Successive governments have been fairminded and have attempted to persuade the province of Quebec to change its rules, its regulations, its legislation, and it is only in these circumstances, where we're proceeding with this legislation, where we are now going to get some kind of reciprocal action, we hope, from the government of Quebec.
The Premier faces this when he raises this issue. I know that he will recall, as I have, instances in the past where it was good politics to bash Quebec. That's not what this bill is about. That's not what the government is doing. That's not what the opposition is calling for. He will recall the days when there was the dog whistle of politics, I used to call it, when you used certain code words to indicate that you were anti-Quebec or anti-francophone, and that was good politics with a small segment of the population. I well recall that happening. That is not what this bill is about. I have known the Premier too long to believe any suggestions from outside of this province that this legislation is a desperation act on the part of a government which is low in popularity. Rather, it is a consensus of this province that we must have rules changed for the good of all people.
Mr White: Time.
Mr Bradley: Thank you very much for telling me my time was up, sir. I really appreciate it.
The Acting Speaker: Further questions, further comments. The honourable member for Willowdale.
Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): I appreciate the very measured and careful remarks of the Premier and I think it's worth noting that it's regrettable to have to legislate, but in this case it's necessary. It's also worth mentioning that this developed as an issue about a year ago. It developed when the member for Carleton pointed out to this Legislature what was happening in his community. It developed when he said that construction trades in his community were jobless, not because there was not necessarily any work available in the Carleton area but because work was being taken by construction trades from Quebec and they didn't have the reciprocal right of Ontario construction workers to seek work in the province of Quebec. That's what brought this to the Legislature and that's what made it an issue.
We then had a period of time, as the Premier noted, when there was an attempt to negotiate. Unfortunately, that attempt to negotiate was not successful. That's why we're now facing the legislation and that's why we are doing in this province what the province of New Brunswick had to do some time ago. It's regrettable, but I suppose reciprocity has to be achieved, and if you can't achieve that by negotiated means then you have to legislate.
Just a final word: I appreciate the Premier so candidly coming here tonight and talking about the necessity of reciprocity in terms of trading relationships, open borders and open frontiers. I think the Premier is now looking at the concept of free trade in a much more open and a much more realistic way, and that is certainly something one can take from his words tonight.
Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): I'm happy to participate. I'm sitting here listening very carefully and listening to the member for York South, who has strong words of consultation for us here in this House and also words to the people of Quebec and to the government of Quebec and to the working people that their legislation at this point does discriminate against the workers here in Ontario. That's very clear. This is not an anti-French bill. This is a pro-Ontario worker bill, one for fairness. We do not accept discriminatory practices against our people from other provinces.
I have many relatives, francophone relatives, who live in Quebec, who are able to come here and work while we are unable to go there to work, and many francophone relatives outside of Quebec, in other provinces. So I wish to say that our government supports this bill. This will go a long way to induce some fairness in the trade and the working rights of the people of both provinces. Discriminatory practices from any government are unacceptable, and it's time we took a stand. I'm very proud to stand here in my place and to say that we won't take this any more, this kind of discriminatory practice from one government to the people of another province. So I really am very proud to be able to stand in my place here along with my colleagues in government and the opposition to say to the people of Quebec that we welcome your participation, providing it is fair.
It is very tough. This is a tough measure for all of us to swallow, but this is also a non-partisan issue for us in this House. We appreciate the good words of support from all three parties here today, and specifically from our Premier, the member for York South.
So we send a message to encourage the people of Quebec to rethink their policies and to be a little more fair in their hiring practices to the people of Ontario, and to encourage better economic growth and trade between our two provinces, as Ontario and Quebec have the largest trading partnership of the provinces in Canada. This is a direct, clear message to you. We hope you're listening and we hope we'll see some productive change and some fairness. This is what the intent of this bill is.
The Acting Speaker: Thank you to the member for York East. The honourable member for Ottawa East, the final participant.
M. Grandmaître : Monsieur le Premier ministre, laissez-moi vous féliciter pour le premier pas dans la bonne direction. Comme vous l'avez si bien mentionné, les règles du jeu ont changé au Canada, et sûrement en Ontario.
Je crois que l'Ontario a été la province la plus affectée par la dernière récession, et je crois que c'était le devoir de votre gouvernement d'agir envers le Québec, non seulement pour des représailles, mais pour dire au Québec que les temps ont changé, qu'il faut agir, qu'il faut collaborer si nous voulons le succès non seulement du Québec mais de notre province de l'Ontario. Il faut travailler ensemble si nous voulons avoir un Canada fort et un Canada qui va travailler pour tous les citoyens, non seulement ceux du Québec et de l'Ontario.
Monsieur le Premier ministre, vous avez dit, «Maintenant, les négociations sérieuses débutent,» que c'est le début des négociations sérieuses. J'espère que, de temps à autre, vous allez vous lever en Chambre pour nous dire exactement où en sont rendues les négociations.
Je crois que tous les députés de cette Chambre sont intéressés à connaître les négociations de notre gouvernement ; je crois que c'est très, très important. Je crois que votre gouvernement a manqué. Moi, j'ai été choyé parce que j'ai eu un «briefing» de votre ministre, mais par contre, je crois que tous les députés de cette Chambre devraient avoir l'occasion de connaître les vraies intentions et les vrais gestes posés par le gouvernement de l'Ontario envers les barrières, envers ces irritants qui nous empêchent de faire de la province de l'Ontario une province fière.
Le Président suppléant : Ceci termine la période de questions et commentaires. Mr Premier, you have two minutes in response.
Hon Mr Rae: I would just say that I appreciate very much the comments that I've heard from all of my colleagues. I particularly want to thank the member for St Catharines, because he did point out in his gentle way that one of the things that is being floated about in the province of Quebec is that this is some last, desperate move by a Premier who's desperately seeking popularity. I think if I were desperately seeking popularity, I might have chosen to take some other courses than the ones I've chosen to take this year. But I do think that the people of Quebec and the government of Quebec, the National Assembly of Quebec, have to understand how unanimous this view is in terms of what we are doing.
Secondly, I want to say in response to the member for Ottawa East that I would hope one of the first things the committee would do would be to call on the Deputy Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and the assistant deputy minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Mr Bornstein, who have been very heavily involved in these discussions and who are very knowledgeable about the various measures that have been taken in Quebec and the responses we're getting from them. I would hope very much that we would be able to do that in the committee.
There will of course be hearings. I think that's the general understanding, as well as what else is happening. I would undertake certainly that when we see any movement or we have anything to report, we will of course report it. Unfortunately, the difficulty has been that we haven't had enough movement to report, which is why we're taking the steps that we're taking.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate on second reading of Bill 123? Seeing none, the honourable parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour.
Ms Murdock: I wish to thank the members for Ottawa South, Prescott and Russell, Nepean, Ottawa East, S-D-G & East Grenville, and Carleton, as members of the opposition, all of whom, including yourself, Mr Speaker, have spoken to the bill this evening and all in favour. I would also like to thank the members for Yorkview, Cochrane South and York South for having contributed to the debate as well.
I'm looking forward to committee, and I'm hoping that everyone will support us here on second reading.
The Acting Speaker: Mr Mackenzie has moved second reading of Bill 123. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.
Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?
Hon Mr Rae: Committee.
The Acting Speaker: To which committee?
Ms Murdock: It goes to the standing committee on resources development.
The Acting Speaker: The bill shall be ordered to the committee on resources development.
EXPENDITURE CONTROL PLAN STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LE PLAN DE CONTRÔLE DES DÉPENSES
Mr O'Connor, on behalf of Mrs Grier, moved third reading of Bill 50, An Act to implement the Government's expenditure control plan and, in that connection, to amend the Health Insurance Act and the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act / Projet de loi 50, Loi visant à mettre en oeuvre le Plan de contrôle des dépenses du gouvernement et modifiant la Loi sur l'assurance-santé et la Loi sur l'arbitrage des conflits de travail dans les hôpitaux.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Does the honourable member have some opening remarks?
Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): As the members will recall, this bill first came to the House here on June 14. The intent of the bill was to permit the government to manage the high costs to the province's health care system more effectively. Specifically, Bill 50 enables the Ministry of Health to implement certain expenditure control measures to meet fiscal targets over the next three years.
The overall measures are to promote the good management of our current health care system. They will help to keep the system affordable, sustainable and accessible to help us achieve our goals of health care reform.
As the members know, Bill 50 has undergone many changes over the last few months, changes which reflect the agreement that's been signed in August between the provincial government and the Ontario Medical Association. I'm pleased to say that we were able to meet most of our objectives with the physicians through negotiations rather than strictly legislation. In fact, in August the agreement between the OMA and the government committed to reaching the fiscal targets. We continue to work together to find ways of reducing and preserving our medicare system.
Included in this work, of course, is dealing with the province's supply of physicians for a better distribution of physicians right across the province. One of the most positive aspects of the new agreement is that the government has a specific amount budgeted for doctors' billings. Under the previous arrangement with the OMA, we had no mechanism for staying within our targets, since the system was open-ended. We now know exactly how much we will spend, and we're going to stick to it.
As many of the members will be aware, in October the Ministry of Health put forward amendments to the bill to reflect the commitments made between the OMA and the government. After several weeks of public hearings, the bill was further amended by the social development committee on November 16.
2140
I'd like to thank all those who appeared before the committee for their insightful comments and suggestions that have improved the bill, and the committee members who were there as well.
In its present form, the bill contains the new provisions to section 2, which amends the Health Insurance Act: provisions involving the reporting of health care fraud by physicians; determining the liability for payment of third-party uninsured services; interim restrictions on fee-for-service billings; and provisions which provide for greater flexibility in how we meet our agreed-upon savings for the physician component of OHIP.
Bill 50 also guarantees that physicians cannot be sued by their patients for reporting health care fraud or for taking possession of a health care card.
Members may be aware that the ministry has taken a number of actions to reduce health care fraud in the past several months. One of the standing committees of this Legislature just tabled a report on some of the actions that have been taken up to this point: the standing committee on public accounts. In fact, during that process, I recall a conversation about a smart card. This is an example, and there's a little chip in the back.
The ministry has also set up a toll-free line so that the public can report suspected abuse. We have hired in the ministry a forensic auditing firm to advise us on the establishment and implementing of appropriate investigative procedures. We are examining ways to make the health care card tamperproof and will improve the security control systems. That's something that I think all of us want to be part of.
Specifically, Bill 50 will provide the ministry with the ability to deal more effectively with the inappropriate claims for insured services submitted by health care practitioners. The Medical Review Committee and the practitioners' review committee will be expanded to deal with the backlog of cases that are currently before these two bodies. We'll note that in the Provincial Auditor's report yesterday, he made mention of this, and that's something that will be dealt with.
Another example the auditor had pointed out was one physician who was billing approximately half a million dollars over the past two years while his peers were averaging around $200,000 in billings. He pointed out that the Ontario government currently has little recourse to take, other than sanctions against the offending physicians, to get the money back that was inappropriately charged to OHIP. That has been a tedious process.
As of April 30 this year, there were 156 cases of unusual billing patterns awaiting attention. The waiting time has stretched to an average of 32 months. That's why we must clear up this backlog, so that we can recover the taxpayers' money more quickly from physicians and other health care professionals who have overbilled OHIP. In fact, over the past three years, the Medical Review Committee has ordered the repayment of $6.8 million, but only $3.1 million has been recovered.
Another important section of the bill deals with the payment of uninsured medical services required or requested by third parties. Third-party requests include back-to-work notes, forms for insurance companies: a range of documentation for which physicians cannot bill OHIP, because these are not considered medically necessary. That's an area that I'm sure we'll have a little bit more discussion on as we go through this debate.
One more key area of the bill that I want to mention today involves our goal of managing the province's physician resources more effectively. The bill contains a measure that limits the fee-for-service billing privileges of new physicians who were not trained in Ontario. The government views this as a temporary measure. The bill stipulates that this provision will be in effect only for the duration of the government's agreement with the OMA, which lasts until April 1996, or until the national physician resource management agreement has been reached.
During this period, the government will grant fee-for-service billing privileges only to licensed physicians whose medical degree is from an institution in Ontario or who have successfully completed at least one year of post-graduate medical training in an accredited Ontario post-graduate program that will lead to certification by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario or the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. This measure does not affect any physician who is already billing the system in Ontario. Moreover, the restriction does not apply to any physician who has applied for a registration number before August 1 or has been practising in Ontario before August 1.
However, the passage of this bill does effect about 90 doctors who came into Ontario after August 1 and who have received billing numbers. Technically, their right to bill OHIP expires with the royal assent of this bill, but the minister is quite concerned about this and is working with these doctors to try to introduce a grace period so that they can make other arrangements which would mean a salaried job or a request for an exemption. Ministry staff will be getting in touch with these people immediately to let them know of this reprieve they have received.
Under the Bill 50 provisions, the Minister of Health can exempt physicians or groups of physicians who undertake to practice in underserviced medical specialties or in academic or geographic areas where circumstances warrant. This will help us to manage the human resource issue better by offering fee-for-service opportunities to doctors who will go where they are really needed.
At the same time, I want to make it clear that Ontario continues to welcome doctors who have received their training outside of Ontario. These physicians will be eligible for a number of contract positions under the new programs for non-fee-for-service contracts which will be worked out with the OMA. Our strategy is to use these contracts in part to address the physician shortages in isolated and rural communities, as well to encourage more doctors to practice specialties where there are shortages. For example, there are not enough physicians in the province providing treatment for people with HIV or AIDS. We see a non-fee-for-service contract as one of the important ways we can address this problem.
I will close my portion of this debate by simply restating that Bill 50 is an important element in our government's plan to hold the line on health care spending. Establishing predictable, stable funding for health care services is a vital part of good management, and good management is very vital to the continued wellbeing of the Ontario medicare system. Therefore, I'd like to ask the House to proceed with third reading as quickly as possible so that we can receive royal assent and enact the savings we hope to achieve through this. I look forward to hearing the comments by the critics of the ministry.
The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments? Further debate?
Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): As I begin my remarks on Bill 50, I want to say to the House that I really believe the way this bill has developed is the worst approach possible to lawmaking. On June 14, the Minister of Health introduced a government expenditure control bill affecting the health sector, and if in tonight's debate we look at the form of that original bill, I think we will discover that what we are voting on tonight is significantly and substantially different from what we dealt with in the original bill. As a consequence, I want to go back to the genesis of that original bill and remind people where we came from to get where we are now.
First, the original Bill 50, in its first form, provided power to the government and to other health care providers to suspend their contractual and other obligations to provide money for services which had been rendered in the health care field. It said that any contract, including collective agreements which had been reached, could be suspended until April 1, 1996. Of course, that clearly is the social contract bill. In its original form, Bill 50 did many things, and I believe, Mr Speaker, you will recall much of the debate in this chamber with respect to the original bill and the very strongly held belief that Bill 50 as it was presented was a singular and very strong attack on medicare.
2150
When Bill 50 was introduced we said in this place that we felt it had extraordinary implications for the public, for physicians, for hospitals, for the health care system generally and indeed for medicare. It provided the Ontario government with draconian powers to impose massive cuts on medical services and therefore, as a direct consequence, on care that was provided to people in our community.
Those cuts, under the original bill, could have been made without any reference to the need for those services or to whether an individual or a group of individuals would be adversely affected by the results. In the original Bill 50, the government gave itself the sole power to determine the circumstances and the conditions under which doctors and other practitioners and patients would be reimbursed for medical services. It allowed the Minister of Health and the government of the province to determine behind closed doors that a person could only see a doctor for a specific treatment a certain number of times. It allowed the Minister of Health to say that a doctor wouldn't be paid for services that he or she had provided to patients.
It didn't require that limitations be put on doctors' services only when those services weren't necessary; in fact, the original bill gave the minister and her bureaucrats in the Ministry of Health the unilateral power to ration services that were insured under our health care plan and that were medically necessary, no matter what the effect that rationing would have on the person who needed to receive those services. The bill said that those cuts could be made, not because those services weren't medically necessary but simply because the minister didn't want to pay for them.
That's what the original Bill 50 was all about. It gave the minister the power to say where and how a doctor could practise medicine. An older doctor might have different rules to follow than a younger doctor, and those rules could be imposed without any check on the minister or the government, without negotiations with the medical association, nor any discussion of the efficacy of that decision. In fact, the original Bill 50, as it was presented in the House, overrode the framework and economic agreement which the government had originally set up with the Ontario Medical Association and said that whatever contractual arrangements existed for payments to doctors were of no value. They could be set aside by decree of the minister and there was no recourse by the individual doctor, nor by the association which represents all doctors in the province and which is legally entitled, required in fact, to negotiate on behalf of those doctors.
That was the original Bill 50. Tom Walkom, as you know, who writes for the Toronto Star, looked at the bill and said: "It's unclear what exactly the government hopes to win from all of this. Bill 50 would allow the cabinet to busy itself in the minutiae of deciding how many times patients can see their doctors." In his article he quotes Layne Verbeek, who is a Ministry of Health spokesman, as saying, "The government has little intention of using this blunt instrument."
Well, the government did have a purpose in putting the bill forward in its original form. Yes, it raised the spectre of the decimation of medicare in this province. Yes, the bill in its original form was a breach of the Canada Health Act, and I'll give you an example of that, particularly section 10, with respect to universality. Section 10 says, "...the health care insurance plan of a province must entitle one hundred per cent of the insured persons of the province to the insured health services provided for by the plan on uniform terms and conditions." The Canada Health Act doesn't say that an insured service can be an insured service in one place on one day, but not an insured service in another place on another day. It doesn't say that an insured service isn't an insured service if the patient has received it before. It doesn't say that an insured service isn't an insured service if a quota has been met.
None the less, the government proceeded and introduced a bill that did precisely those things. The government in fact wanted what Mr Verbeek described as a "blunt instrument," because it wanted something that was very blunt to put on the negotiating table with the Ontario Medical Association. It wanted to put doctors on notice that it was prepared to pay -- and I could quote -- "a reduced amount or no amount for treatment that doctors provided to patients," and further, that it could claw back that money to April 1, 1993. Bill 50, in its original form, was the Ministry of Health's hard bargaining position at the Ministry of Health and OMA negotiating table.
When I say that I don't believe the lawmaking process should be used in this way, I suggest to you that bills that are presented to this Legislature should be presented in a serious way with respect to the legislative process. They should not be presented as a distortion or as the hard bargaining position in collective bargaining ploys or used as an instrument to those ends.
However, that's precisely what occurred, and that's why Bill 50 looks quite different now than it did when it was first presented to the House. When things changed at the OMA and the MOH bargaining table, the government proceeded by introducing amendments to the original Bill 50 in October. It brought in massive numbers of amendments that were out of order but -- this once again is how the legislative process was distorted and disrupted by the process on this bill -- opposition members were frightened to call those amendments out of order, and most of them were out of order, because we were afraid the government would move back to that blunt instrument. We were afraid the government would move back to its original position with a bill that we were convinced would destroy medicare and give the Minister of Health powers to make decisions and to interfere in decisions with respect to the medical necessity of procedures.
So by amendments, most of them out of order, which the opposition accepted, frankly, because we were frightened of what was going to happen in the process, we have a totally new bill. This bill deals with what came out of those OMA-Ministry of Health negotiations. I'd like to speak to some of those sections that are now in what could in fact be called a new bill.
Our position was that Bill 50 in its original form should have been completely withdrawn and a new bill presented. That procedure would have respected the integrity of the legislative process and the integrity of lawmaking in this province. We should not have to depend on brinkmanship to develop our laws. The only alternative, in fact the alternative that should have been taken, was to withdraw Bill 50, come back with another bill with reasonable and appropriate approaches directly as a result of the agreement if that was necessitated by the agreement.
But we had a gun to our heads, and I for one, along with many others in my caucus and in the third party and indeed on the government side of the House, feel that this is an inappropriate use of the Legislature and an inappropriate way to approach a collective bargaining process.
As I move to what is in what I have to call the new bill, one of the sections of the new bill deals with health cards and deals with issues which have been raised with respect to health card fraud. As you know, there has been much anecdotal reportage of extensive fraud in the health care system and what I believe is a sloppy report that was prepared in the bowels of the Ministry of Health with respect to health card fraud.
2200
I believe that projections that were included in that report that was prepared in the ministry were based on samples that were too small from which conclusions could be drawn, that figures were thrown around with respect to risk or exposure. These were not economic projections, which they should have been. If we're going to base a system and make public policy decisions, then at least we should have the basic facts.
None the less, a new section of the bill deals with health cards and indicates that physicians will participate at point of service in assisting the government to determine when and if health card fraud exists by reporting to OHIP, to the health insurance plan's general manager, when the physician or an agent of the physician believes that someone who is not insured under OHIP is receiving insured services.
We had some very interesting discussion at the table when that amendment came forward, and the OMA lawyer, frankly, I don't think impressed a lot of people who were legislators in the room, for a number of reasons, not the least of which was that he was conducting telephone conversations at the back of the committee room on a cellular phone while the proceedings were going on. None the less, the OMA position was that the agreement didn't require mandatory reporting, that the agreement gave the option to the doctors of reporting -- reporting, but not necessarily so.
The government's view was quite a different one, that the agreement required reporting and that there was a tradeoff, although the government representatives, I discovered, didn't really know that there was a tradeoff. I refer to the agreement which shows that there was a tradeoff. In fact, the Ontario Medical Association, in the agreement with the government, had said that in exchange for a one-time payment under a particular rule, called the J-8 rule, "Physicians will provide the Ministry of Health with the health number and other corroborating information about the cardholder (address, date of birth, name etc) and a physician who becomes aware that a health card presented by a person is ineligible shall request the person to surrender the card to the physician."
When that was pointed out, it became very clear that our position would be to support the government's position with respect to mandatory reporting of fraud with reasonable grounds to believe that a person who was not eligible for health insurance was attempting to receive or had received insured services and was not going to participate in paying for those services.
I thought it was interesting, though, that while the reporting requirement for physicians at the point of service who suspected health care fraud was a mandatory reporting requirement, the other side of that issue, the question of professional fraud, which has been identified as a possibility in the system -- in fact, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Health spoke about that issue in his opening remarks, that while, on the one hand, physicians are required to report when they believe fraud to have existed, a consumer who believes that professional fraud has been committed, that a physician has attempted to receive payment for services not provided or whatever other elements of fraud may have been committed, a consumer has the option to report or not to report. Another provider has the option to report or not to report.
These may seem like arcane arguments, but in fact when any investigation of the use and abuse of health cards or of the health card system is done, it's been clear that the fraud that may be identified isn't always a consumer fraud. There may well be issues at stake with respect to how professionals themselves are using the system, and we felt that there should be an equivalency in the reporting requirement. The government turned that down, I assume because the issue was not covered specifically in the OMA agreement, although I believe it would have been a useful addition to this bill.
Another issue, since the OMA had made the very strong argument with respect to their requirement to report, was on what basis the OMA would report or other health practitioners would report. We suggested that there are different tests and the test of knowledge might be a useful one -- sorry, the OMA suggested that knowledge might be a useful test. We investigated that and in fact we did a little homework about the difference in the reporting standards of whether knowledge or reasonable grounds are the appropriate mechanism and discussed those issues with Ministry of Health lawyers who talked with us about the tests and about how they are usually applied in terms of reporting, knowledge being the actual knowledge issue, the firsthand knowledge, the evidence having been received. The issue then of the word "knowledge" being used in the final reporting requirement is a matter that is more akin to, say, an accountant reporting on a fraud that they may have seen in somebody's books with respect to what income tax should be paid.
None the less, the government indicated that it would support the OMA position and that the knowledge test would be the test. That was the OMA's position as well. Interestingly enough, I have a document from the OMA which says that doctors don't believe that mandatory reporting should come about because it necessarily transforms the physician's role from care giver to inquisitor, and yet the government has accepted the Ontario Medical Association's proposal that the knowledge test be used, and that knowledge test itself requires a certain amount of investigation.
So we'll see how the doctors like what has been brought forward by their own council and by the government with respect to that kind of test, because I can tell you that there's going to be more of an onus for an investigatory approach on physicians than existed before.
We believe, and I think all parties believe, that the integrity of our medicare system has to be insured by ensuring that only those people who have access to our services and who receive those services are eligible for those services, that they meet the criteria not only of the Canada Health Act but of the Ontario Health Insurance Act, and we believe strongly in those areas.
Other aspects with respect to health cards are singularly problematic in that the OMA-Ministry of Health agreement also includes an agreement that a photo identification card will be the option used to identify those persons who are eligible for health care in Ontario.
2210
Interestingly enough, in another committee, in the public accounts committee, we questioned members of the Ontario Medical Association with respect to those health card issues, how they came to the conclusion that the photo identification card was the appropriate card. In fact, the homework hadn't been done.
In the system, there is no evidence that the photo identification card will go anywhere in terms of dealing with the health card fraud issue. It will not solve the question, because we don't even know how large the problem is. We don't know if there is a problem. I repeat again, we have one sloppy Ministry of Health document which projects numbers which have not been proven. We need a far better database. We need far better information so that the health care system can be managed appropriately, so that we know how services are being provided, at what cost, in what frequency.
Instead of moving to an appropriate database system that can be used not only for the administration of the system but for health care management, the government has signed an agreement with the Ontario Medical Association for a photo identification card that may well solve none of the either short-term and small problems or the long-term and very big problems.
In fact, the former Deputy Minister of Health appeared before the public accounts committee and told us that moving to the photo identification card that the OMA and the government signed an agreement about would cost the province about $50 million. Well, that $50 million may well have to be re-spent because a card with a picture on it isn't going to help us plan the system, evaluate the system or manage the system. I believe that this kind of agreement is a cause for increased and wasteful spending rather than a cause for appropriate management and appropriate strategic planning so that spending can be appropriately done.
There are a couple of other issues with respect to fraud detection. I just want to refer to them for a minute or two. The OMA-Ministry of Health agreement says that interactive voice response technology should be made available to all physicians in Ontario. In the public accounts committee, where we were dealing almost simultaneously with this bill and the other bill -- this bill wasn't on the agenda, but it was very much on our minds -- the Ontario Medical Association came forward and, subsequent to a demonstration of that technology, told us that it wouldn't work. Yet less than a month before, they had signed an agreement saying that this technology should be introduced into the offices of all physicians.
We know that most of the provisions of the agreement with the Ministry of Health and the Ontario Medical Association have not been met. In fact, my suggestion to the government is that that particular part of the agreement should not be met, since one of the parties, very soon after the agreement was signed, said that now that the equipment was tested they found it didn't work, it wasn't fast enough, it wasn't private enough, it didn't do many things that doctors needed it to do and they were not particularly happy that it had been included in the agreement.
Another aspect of Bill 50 and of the OMA agreement is a major new initiative with respect to third-party services that puts into place a legislative framework around billing for services which aren't medically necessary, which are not a part of OHIP as insured services but in fact have been traditionally paid by OHIP. Those services are known as third-party services. They may be medical procedures which are requested to accompany applications to camp, to school. They may be with respect to examinations of young people having perhaps just had chicken pox and whether they can return to school. They may be with respect to medical examinations to qualify for pension benefits or for insurance coverage or whatever.
There are and there always have been, as far as I know, a number of regulations indicating that certain third-party services are not covered by OHIP, but many of those services have traditionally been paid by OHIP. This has been problematic not only for this government but for the government before it and for the government before that.
About this time last year, the government, in the heat of the week before Christmas, promulgated new regulations indicating that there were new rules with respect to what services were covered under OHIP and which third-party services, those which were requested by someone else, would be paid for by OHIP. The regulations are extensive and they talk about what will not be covered: documents with respect to admission to universities, admission to recreational or athletic clubs, applications for continuation of insurance, applications for licences, entering or maintaining a contract, entitlement to benefits, including insurance benefits or pension plan benefits, employment applications and so on. They are not covered, and we concur that they should not be covered by OHIP. They are requested and are needed by a third party for purposes other than medical necessity.
However, there was no mention of third-party services in the first bill, and I've traced the genesis of that bill. As a consequence, many of those groups and organizations that will be affected by a new initiative with respect to third-party billing, which is that the physician can charge back another party for those services, knew nothing about it. They knew nothing about this section of the bill coming forward.
There was enormous stress and distress when school boards, by example, heard about these provisions, when children's aid societies heard about these provisions, when day nurseries and child care centres heard about these provisions and when insurance companies heard about these provisions.
The effect on school boards will be significant if, by example, it is a policy of the board to request a medical examination when a child returns to school after having a contagious illness. That will no longer be covered. It is a third-party request. Who pays? That's what the school boards want to know. Who pays if the same situation exists for a day nursery? Who pays if a similar kind of request is made of an insurance company? With the insurance company, the answer is fairly easy. That's private sector, it's another arrangement, it's a contractual arrangement etc. But who pays when the costs are transferred to the board of education? Who pays when the costs are transferred to the day nurseries? What happens if that day nursery is a not-for-profit organization? Who pays? That's the question.
We've had the answer from the Ministry of Health with respect to costs which are requested from within the Ministry of Health: The Ministry of Health will pay those costs. Outside of the Ministry of Health, however, there is no answer to that question. I hope the parliamentary assistant will provide that answer lickety-split in his response tonight and that the minister will also make it very clear who pays. In my view, in many of those circumstances this is simply another transfer of costs to another level of government without the accompanying funds being guaranteed.
2220
There are also in this new Bill 50 significant changes to the bill with respect to physician resources planning. This is an area where there are enormous gaps, not created by this government, not created by the previous government and not created by the government before that, but which have existed in the system for a long time. There is no human resources analysis in the health care field. There is very little database on which to base projections, first of all, of demand for services and, second, of where people are going to come from and how they will be trained to ensure that they're available at the right time.
None the less, this bill makes provision for certain aspects, such as Ontario graduates only participating in our health care system as new physicians for a period of time. It does address issues with respect to geographical need, and possibly -- possibly only -- may address some of the situations with respect to shortages in certain specialties.
I suggest that in many areas -- and I will give you an example of that; one of those areas is pathology. There is no data analysis that would provide a quick enough response to shortages in human resources by the ministry nor a quick enough response to meet some of the existing, very serious needs. We see the same difficulty in paediatrics in northern Ontario, in orthopaedic surgeons in northern Ontario, and in anaesthetists in northern Ontario.
Some of these shortages, which may not have received the appropriate analysis, will not find a quick and adequate response in the provisions of this bill. It takes four years after basic university to complete a medical degree. The areas of shortage are the specialty areas. We are looking at a long period of time to develop those Ontario-based, Ontario-trained specialists to meet certain areas of needs.
We've heard about specific problems in the field of AIDS delivery. We know there are enormous problems in the field of cancer delivery. It's not only the radiation oncologists who are in short supply; it's the surgical oncologists, the medical physicists, and many other areas where that analysis and that resources planning is needed.
We hope that some of these initiatives will go someplace in terms of ensuring that we do have the appropriate trained personnel in the right places at the right time to meet the right needs, but I suggest also that this bill only deals with physician supply and distribution. There are enormous other numbers of providers, the demand for whose services and the need for whose services have also not been analysed. The work is not in place at this time, and I fear that some very urgent and long-term shortages are going to result even from this position.
A major part of the bill even existing is the physician payment provisions of the bill and the reduction which the social contract and the expenditure control plan will place on physician payment. I just want to remind you that the social contract reduction which is being asked of physicians is $390 million over a three-year period of time, and that $390 million will be met with a base target each year.
While the framework agreement was signed, when it was signed there didn't appear to be a process in place to ensure that those targets could be met, in that there were so many varied balances that had to be struck; one of those balances being that the social contract days would in some communities require that hospitals would be closed on certain days. And would physician services be closed on those same days? That was a proposal that the OMA presented, particularly for the first year of implementation of the social contract bill. The minister rejected that proposal out of hand just recently.
I have a letter written to physicians by the president of the Ontario Medical Association, which reads:
"As you're aware, the OMA council met to determine how best to meet the government's expenditure reduction targets for physician services. After a long and intense debate, your elected representatives opted for mandatory unpaid social contract days as the least destructive way to reduce expenditures and lessen the likelihood of a significant clawback. Because it was impossible to predict the extent to which social contract days would result in savings, ie, whether they would sufficient to meet the government's target, council also voted to implement an individualized approach to recovering funds should a clawback be necessary."
The OMA representatives to the JMC presented these positions to government on November 17. It was made abundantly clear to government that these were the wishes of the profession and that government cooperation was both absolutely necessary and expected.
Late on November 30, the OMA received the government's response in a letter from Health minister Ruth Grier. In it she stated that the government would not be willing to implement any of the resolutions adopted by the OMA council. Social contract days, although a part of other agreements in the broader public sector -- and we know they have certainly affected nurses and ambulance drivers etc, etc, all the way through the health care sector -- were said to be unacceptable as a way for doctors to reduce expenditures.
Government also said that the individualized approach to utilization recovery was too complex for Ministry of Health staff and would likely put at risk their ability to pay physicians' claims in a timely fashion. Council's resolution to terminate the 4.8% holdback was turned down as well on the grounds that "it is not reasonable to abandon this method in the absence of a practical alternative."
The reason that the OMA was surprised and was taken aback at the minister's response to its initiatives was that at the last minute, on the last day of committee, a government amendment was put forward at the request of the OMA, and it was our understanding that that amendment in fact would provide the Ontario Medical Association with the flexibility to ensure that it would be able to meet its social contract targets, and that doctors who would be hurt by a clawback -- and I will give you some examples of those.
For instance, a female doctor who had a child last year and perhaps was not practising for a few months may well, in an umbrella situation, be unfairly clawed back when she returned to work if her base was considered the billing base. A physician who had been serving as a locum, replacing another doctor in a practice but billing OHIP using the other physician's number, which is what is done in the locum program, could also be affected with undue clawbacks and some parts of the profession would be unfairly treated under this kind of approach.
2230
The information that was presented to committee was that this amendment -- and again I say to you, which was put to the committee by government, it was an out-of-order amendment, it was accepted by the committee and was not challenged -- would provide the flexibility to ensure that those social contract targets could be met and that they would be met in a way that was reasonable and fair.
It appears that that flexibility in fact didn't extend to the proposals which were made by the OMA on the social contract to meet their social contract targets, and some of that flexibility and, frankly, planning cohesiveness was deliberately destroyed. Now physicians will be subject to the universal, across-the-board clawback and in fact those kinds of physicians I mentioned earlier may well be adversely affected and, frankly, I don't think that's fair.
I believe that Bill 50 in its original form, as I've indicated, was a bargaining ploy. We were deeply disturbed, as were many people, with respect to the shape and the tone and the content of Bill 50 in its original form. We believe that there are still problems with this bill, but I must say, I want to underline again that I do not believe that the legislative process should be used in this way as a tool in collective bargaining.
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I thank the honourable member for Halton Centre for her contribution to the debate and invite any questions and/or comments. The member for Durham-York.
Mr O'Connor: In the member's closing comments she said that it was just used as bargaining ploy. When the bill was originally introduced, there wasn't an OMA agreement at the time, which is true. Through a negotiation process that took place afterwards, there were substantial changes to the bill. If that's bad, then I guess we've got a problem here; maybe there's a fundamental disagreement. You know, what we've done here is we've worked out a landmark agreement that works with the OMA to deal with an expenditure situation that really did need to be dealt with, to save the medicare system that we're all so proud of.
I don't recall any of the amendments that she has referred to as being so-called out of order ever having been said to be out of order in the committee, so certainly have heard those facts. I do agree that there was a full discussion in the public accounts committee at the same time that dealt with the photo ID, but of course our conclusions in there were probably somewhat different than what we've heard through the OMA agreement.
The Speaker: Are there any further questions or comments? If not, the honourable member for Halton Centre has up to two minutes for her reply.
Mrs Sullivan: I want to make it very clear why I am deeply offended by the process that is being used with respect to Bill 50. The government could have placed its position in a letter to the Ontario Medical Association with respect to the elements that it was prepared to put on the table as its first bargaining position in dealing with the social contract. It chose not to do that. It chose instead to bring in a bill that is very threatening, that created enormous fear in the population with respect to how medicare was going to be dismantled. It was a bargaining ploy.
I indicated to this House, and I believe very strongly, that the only reason I did not challenge most of the amendments which came before the committee as being out of order and asked for the Chairman of the committee to make a ruling was that I was deeply frightened that this government may choose to go back to the original form of the bill which, in my mind and in the minds of many others, would have destroyed medicare in Ontario.
What we have now is a bill which reflects the outcome of the negotiating process. In my view and in the view of my House leader and my leader and all other members of my caucus, the original bill should have been withdrawn and a new bill presented which in fact reflected the agreement which had been made between the OMA and the Ministry of Health. This is an outrageous distortion of the lawmaking process and of the privileges of this Legislature. As I say, we were not prepared to challenge it at the time because we were afraid of what would happen in the alternative.
Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I'm pleased to have the opportunity to join in the debate on Bill 50, which is An Act to implement the Government's expenditure control plan and, in that connection, to amend the Health Insurance Act and the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act.
I want to say from the outset, to lay the groundwork for the debate on behalf of my party as the Health critic, that the PC Party has from the outset supported the principle of cost restraint within the health care sector and committed itself to supporting initiatives that achieved those goals in a fair and workable way.
We will not be supporting Bill 50 in its current form, nor did we support it on first and second readings in its original form, because it is a direct result of the flawed social contract legislation and leaves every health profession, with the exception of physicians, out of the decision-making loop with respect to the future direction of health care in this province.
Bill 50, I must admit, after some extensive work at committee, virtually looks nothing like it did at second reading, yet it is another example of flawed legislation brought forward by this government. This type of substandard legislation has unfortunately become the accepted norm, and particularly that comment applies to the health care field in respect to the mismanagement of health care by this government.
Bill 50 must be discussed within the context of Bill 48 -- that's the social contract legislation -- as the bill clarifies the legislative authority in order to implement the government's expenditure control plan, more particularly those aspects that apply to the provision of health services and, in extreme particular, the bill implements most of the provisions of the OMA-government agreement, what is known as the OMA-government 1993 interim economic agreement.
I just want to clarify a few terms for the listening audience, and that is, first of all, we had the expenditure control plan by the government in the health care field. That was rolled into the social contract, Bill 48. At the same time, in a parallel process, the government was dealing with the 1993 OMA interim economic agreement. Essentially, everyone should understand that now they're all the same, all three sets of agreements: social contract, expenditure control plan, interim agreement, or I'll refer to it as the OMA-government agreement 1993. They're all rolled into, with a few other tidbits, Bill 50.
There's a lot wrong with Bill 50 and there are a couple of things right with Bill 50. Unfortunately, on balance, we feel quite strongly that we have to vote against the legislation.
I just want to speak about the social contract, Bill 48, and remind people of what my party's position was during that debate in this Legislature. During the debate on Bill 48, we demonstrated our commitment to achieving cost restraint in a fair and workable way by consulting with organizations such as the Ontario Hospital Association, the Ontario Nurses' Association, the Ontario Medical Association, the Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario and a myriad of health care groups and others involved in the provision of health care services in this province.
We offered during debate on the social contract constructive suggestions to the government to improve the legislation, to make it both fair and workable. To our disappointment, the government refused at that time and continues to refuse to even seriously consider any of our ideas. The public will recall that at that time on debate and committee of the whole consideration of amendments, PC amendments to the social contract, both the NDP and the Liberal Party rejected every one of our 29 amendments.
2240
My party voted against the social contract at third reading for the following reasons: The leave and special-leave provisions and the suspension, as opposed to cancellation, of wages due under multi-year contracts simply deferred rather than cut costs; the protection afforded workers at and under the low-income cutoff would hamstring many municipalities, the ambulance sector and other agencies where a significant proportion of workers fell below the low-income cutoff line, which was $30,000, and it placed a disproportionate burden on the remaining employees.
These are all important facts, because what's happening today in the ambulance sector and other sectors in health care, the chaos out there very much stems from -- and the Premier's here -- Bob Rae's social contract, and I intend to prove that point in my debate.
Again, why we voted against social contract, the matters open to negotiation under the social contract process could lead to an erosion of management rights in the public sector. The legislation established a complicated, awkward and ineffective mechanism for cost control.
To address these and other deficiencies in the social contract, my party, my colleagues and I moved 29 amendments to provide for a 5% wage rollback across the entire broader public sector; to impose a three-year wage freeze; to eliminate the low-income cutoff exemption; to impose a stringent three-year hiring freeze on the broader public sector, mitigated only by limited exemptions for essential and regulated services; to delete from Bill 48 sections which would allow bargaining agents to undercut management rights; to provide protection for employees who reported waste and inefficiency in their place of employment, ie, we introduced an amendment to allow for a long-standing NDP promise for whistleblower protection; and to allow employees to share in any savings generated by productivity and efficiency improvements in the workplace.
In plain, common English, at that time we said to the government that, if you want to have a permanent reduction in the size and cost of government, the best thing to do would have been to do an immediate 5% across-the-board cut in civil service and broader public sector salaries, regardless of income, ie, there would be no low-income cutoff exemption; that each sector in the broader public sector would be encouraged, much like the current CAW agreements with the auto companies, to increase their productivity; and instead of no wage increases over the three years of the social contract we would have said: "Take your 5%, and if productivity increases in your area, we will share those productivity increases with you in terms of giving you wages. If productivity goes up 1% in your sector, we'll give you a 1% wage increase."
In hindsight, we were right, we were right, we were right. We're seeing in the ambulance sector, we're seeing with physicians -- and I'll get into the problem that the previous speaker also alluded to, and that is with the Rae days with respect to doctors in this province. We were right to give some protection for whistleblowers, something the NDP long promised. We wouldn't see the chaos in the health care sector, we wouldn't see the need for this legislation and we wouldn't see the Rae days in the physician sector had any of our 29 amendments really been accepted.
I must say for the record, and I've said it publicly many times, I could not understand so many people -- and the Premier's here -- telling me what a smart man the Premier is. I could not understand at that time, when my party had the courage and conviction to put forward 29 amendments to the social contract, well-thought-out amendments, amendments that we had consulted widely on -- most of those amendments were mine in the health care field. They were amendments from the Ontario Hospital Association, from the Ontario Medical Association, from other very important groups in the health care sector. We knew there would be chaos. We wanted to avoid the chaos.
I couldn't understand on a political level why the government wouldn't have accepted at least a few of our amendments. They would have had us in a corner then. We had supported social contract on second reading. As I said, we had the courage to put forward amendments. The Liberal Party decided at the outset they didn't want anything to do with social contract, that they weren't going to spend any time and energy meeting with groups and trying to put forward their amendments in committee and trying to act on behalf of the people of Ontario that they were elected to serve.
I couldn't understand why the NDP on a political level wouldn't have accepted some of our amendments at second reading. Then we would have essentially been forced on third reading to support them on social contract. We would have shared the heat that the Premier has taken. We would have had a better social contract. We were prepared to share the heat that we knew would come. Nobody likes to have their wages rolled back; nobody likes a hiring freeze; nobody likes an attrition program. But we would have had better savings. We would have had a more permanent reduction in the size and cost of government than what the NDP achieved. We would have seen a real attrition program.
I used to work for the Honourable George McCague at Management Board when we had a true attrition program, when we provided for emergency services, when we moved person-years around. Of course, you can't let the number of firefighters fall down in that sector; you can't let the number of ambulance officers fall below an acceptable level. You have to have the front-line workers. We would move the person-years out of management, as we did for the last six years that Mr McCague was Chairman of Management Board. We forgot to put out a press release about all this, though. Politics has changed and whenever you apply common sense nowadays, you have to put out a press release because there's not too much common about common sense any more; it's become a bit of an oxymoron, particularly with respect to this current government.
We would have moved person-years around, but the overall number of person-years in the broader public sector would have been reduced over time. I think that's something we would have had agreement and did have agreement from labour on, particularly because it would reduce management. We would have had our 5% savings because we would have done it up front and across the board, not through this anxiety and not trading off for jobs, not a tradeoff for stacking days.
You're going to have a terrible bill, I guess, on March 31, 1996. Many people who have studied the social contract, studied particular sectors, private ambulance operators, for example, the municipal operators and the non-profit operators, government operators, tell us there is a whole pile of emergency Rae days that is going to be stacked. Somebody's going to owe these ambulance officers 36 days if something isn't done soon to correct what's going on in that sector; the same with nurses. We have the case of many hospitals now having to give nurses their Rae days and they're actually phoning employment agencies and bringing in nurses at a higher rate to replace them that day.
Some of the hospitals this year -- Sunnybrook comes as an example -- have found the money in their budget to cushion the blow of the Rae days this year, but they tell us next year they don't know what they're going to do. They're going to be in a terrible deficit situation. And certainly in the third year of the social contract they have no idea, so they may have to go and adjust their agreements to say to the nurses, for example: "Please don't take the Rae days you're entitled to under law. Please work those days and after March 31, 1996, we'll pay you back or we'll give you time in lieu or something at that time."
It's a terrible bill and I think it's a terrible shame that this government knows it won't be in office after 1995; it won't be around to pick up the multibillion-dollar bill that is left as a result of simply deferring savings. I think the government did a sleight of hand in a number of the sectors, and I speak from experience in the health care sector, with respect to trying to make Mr Laughren's, the Treasurer's books look better than they are. They're pretty dismal but they'd even be worse if we weren't deferring some of the costs associated with the social contract. I intend to make those points a little later.
The Speaker: Point of order, the member for Middlesex.
Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): Mr Speaker, I could have sworn that we were supposed to be talking about Bill 50. I haven't heard any reference to Bill 50 for quite some time. I think perhaps --
The Speaker: The member is on topic and the member for Simcoe West has the floor.
Mr Jim Wilson: Mr Speaker, you're far more polite than I am. The Premier has a bit of smile on his face and I am embarrassed for him that a member of his party would not know that Bill 50 is implementing the social contract provisions. I know the terminology is a little difficult over there, but I started off by clarifying the debate, that we're really dealing with three agreements here: social contract, expenditure control plan and the OMA-government interim economic agreement. All of that means social contract; it means whatever you want.
I give them some credit. They muddied the water so much that with due respect to the honourable member who spoke, I can't blame her a little bit for being confused. But I do blame her for being a member of a government that, one would assume, would brief all its members on the importance of tonight's debate and the social contract and the expenditure control plan. I know it's confusing, but try and grab a brain and stick with me for a while. We'll get through it together. As the Premier's quite fond of saying, we'll get through this together in this great, big socialist province we all live in.
2250
Bill 50: Since they want to refer to it as that, fine; it's easy, you can read it and it's pretty simple. Bill 50: Let me see. Let's just clarify the air on this, then, that we voted against it at second reading for the following reasons, and let me do this as slowly and succinctly as possible so we can all follow along. The original bill -- and you'll remember the debate because I was accused of almost having a stroke during that one. I was trying to avoid being provocative this evening. Every time I do that, I get a lot of calls from my office from people concerned about my health. They tell me that they would not want to see me have to join the waiting list, in this province, for services. They'd just as soon not have politicians in line in front of them if they should have their stroke behind me, so I will try and stay calm.
We voted against it because you remember the original one would have locked out 2,500 new doctors. It would have locked them out of practice in this province, forcing them to seek opportunities south of the border. It would have given the government sweeping and unilateral powers to limit, reduce or restrict health services across the province. I want to just stop there because in committee they decided that --
Applause.
Mr Jim Wilson: Wait a minute. If you don't even know what I'm talking about, you're going to learn something. In committee they decided they were getting so much heat for this delisting stuff --
Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): How much heat?
Mr Jim Wilson: Like a lot; a lot of heat. Remember the psychoanalysis debate we had here that went on all evening, and the extreme urgency that we tried to convey to the government? I guess we had some success. So they took out a provision in Bill 50 which talked up front about delistings and decided to stick with the current closed-door delisting system that they already had the legislative authority to do. They wised up. They said, "Jeez, we're getting too much heat so let's take it out of the bill; let's pretend there are no delistings in Bill 50," but Bill 50, of course, implements -- and here's the term for you again -- the OMA-government 1993 interim economic agreement, and we all know that by January 17, the government has to be pretty close to coming up with its $20 million in delistings, which of course are 100% user fees.
If you delist, for example, reversal of sterilization, general anaesthesia for uninsured dental procedures performed in hospital, routine newborn circumcision, removal of tattoos, repair of deformed earlobes resulting from use of pierced earrings, removal of acne pimples, injection of varicose veins, otoplasty to correct outstanding ears, removal of benign skin lesions, removal of port wine stains in adults, in vitro fertilization -- which is one I'm sure we'll hear from the public on -- annual health exams, which we are hearing from the public on, weight loss clinics, the coverage of travel assessments, immunization clinics, insertion of testicular prostheses, penal prostheses for impotence, intracorporeal injection for impotence and about four more, if you delist all those, we know those are 100% user fees.
So I will spend some time tonight trying to clear the air on the issue of user fees because there are a lot of liars out there. There are a lot of politicians, provincially and federally, who keep pretending we don't have any user fees in Canada or Ontario and I fail to see -- I'm a former assistant to the federal Health minister -- what country they're living in and I fail to see what health care system they're referring to. I hear the leader of the Liberal Party at the OHA convention premising her entire speech on the fact that we don't have user fees and she never wants to hear of them in the province of Ontario. That's very nice, Mrs McLeod, but it's time you woke up to the system that you helped introduce user fees into during your five years in office.
The original Bill 50 would have enabled the government to limit or deny OHIP coverage if, for example, the patient had already received the same service a number of times before, the doctor had already rendered the same service a certain number of times, the same service had been performed in the health facility more frequently than the government permits -- kind of a quota system.
Following the introduction of the bill, I asked the Minister of Health in this House to defend the government's policy, which would have locked 2,500 new doctors out of practice, forcing them to seek opportunity south of the border. I pointed out to the government that the ministry's decisions have relied on outmoded doctor-population ratios instead of needs-based studies. I noted at that time that the NDP's proposals to supposedly save health care dollars would in fact result in a significant drain of human resources, and of course, behold, after that debate we started to hear of the shortages of physicians in certain specialities. I know the member for Halton Centre alluded to that in her remarks, which is quite correct.
Here's a quote from myself from that debate in the Legislature in question: "Leaving aside for the moment the frustration and anger felt by hundreds of medical graduates who have been told that their home province doesn't want them, do you think taxpayers enjoy the fact that they have spent $2 million per doctor on education only to have these doctors locked out of practice in Ontario and forced to move south of the border to help subsidize Bill and Hillary Clinton's health care reform?"
I also criticized and continue to criticize the NDP's slash-and-burn assault on health care that puts people in northern Ontario in a position of being denied health care services, particularly at that time when physicians, you'll recall, withdrew their services for a day -- two days, actually -- to protest the NDP's policies in the Sudbury area.
Our outstanding concerns with respect to Bill 50: My party still has several outstanding problems with the bill, including the provisions with respect to third-party services, recuperation of funds under the social contract and the lack of public input with respect to the $20 million that is to be saved through delisting insured health services.
There's one good part of the bill and I might as well address it now. It's good, and I say that in a semisarcastic way, and that is with respect -- because I can just hear the government. When we vote against this legislation they're going to put out press releases and say, "The PC Party, who have led the charge against health care fraud in this province" -- I started last October and used to get laughed at in this Legislature and certainly in committee by people like Dr Frankford, that I was uncaring because I firmly believe, as a citizen and taxpayer in this province and on behalf of the taxpayers and citizens of this province, that we must have a zero tolerance policy with respect to health card fraud.
Back in October last year they weren't interested in that, and it wasn't until we got enough stories in the media and enough information out there to the public -- and the public responded in turn by putting pressure on the government and saying: "We actually think that health card fraud is a serious matter. We think that $600 million or $1 billion worth of potential fraud in the system is a very serious matter, and we don't pay our taxes so that Americans or Iranians or anyone else can come to this province and simply get a fraudulent card and bump us out of a lineup for health services and obtain services in this province without ever having contributed or been born in or having been a resident of this province." That's something I would have thought was common sense that took about eight months to get the government, in its socialist wisdom, to come around to agreeing with.
So in this act, and I kind of want to call their bluff on it, there's a health card provision. If you vote against the act, the government's going to say you're voting against some tough anti-fraud measures. Well, tough anti-fraud measures -- baloney. What they are is a lawyer's delight. Basically, the government is pretending by this act that somehow fraud was not a Criminal Code matter. Now, just let me prove my point by first giving the example. As a result of our pressure on the government, it's actually moved in the last few weeks and months and you've seen the stories that they've actually charged a few people with health card fraud.
If they're going to make the argument that this act has to pass in order to charge people with health card fraud because of the provisions in it, then how in the world are they currently charging people with health card fraud? They're doing it because, to obtain services in a fraudulent manner, to present yourself in a fraudulent manner, to essentially steal in a fraudulent manner is a Criminal Code matter and you do not need Bill 50 to prosecute that matter. The proof positive is that there are cases before the court now.
2300
The Liberals bring in a terribly flawed health card system; there isn't any debate in the province of Ontario about that any more, now that everyone's seen through the provisions of the original red and white card and its lack of proper database and its lack of control measures. What they're doing here is -- they unionized the OMA and then they bring them to their knees and say: "By the way, we've got a terrible health card system and there's all kinds of fraud and the Tories are really on our back about this. The public kind of agree with the Tories on this one, because they don't really like fraud either."
What the act really does is give protection from liability for, in particular, physicians who might report health card fraud. So they made them the health card police against their will, I'll tell you, because physicians rightly took the position: "Hey, government," in referring to the Liberals, "you didn't consult with us at all when you brought in the health card system. You didn't consult with hospitals and that's why you can have a mitt full of hospital cards too, which are just as accessible to the system as your red-and-white health card. You can also have several copies of the red-and-white health card."
The Liberal Party did not consult in any way because they were in a rush -- six months to the snap call of the last election -- to make sure everybody got a red-and-white health card so that somehow Premier Peterson, Elinor Caplan and Lyn McLeod would convince us that they did something about health care reform in this province during their five years when they didn't do anything.
I remember very well the member for Oriole's cue cards and I have often chided in a joking way with ministers of Health on the NDP side, both Ms Lankin and Ms Grier, in saying: "You really should get hold of Elinor's cue cards. They're quite interesting." I think the word "concerned" appeared in every one of them. They were very concerned about the state of health services in this province, but they didn't do a damn thing about it. In an attempt to convince people that they were doing something, they sent us all our red-and-white health cards in a very haphazard and nonsensical manner.
This act, let's be clear, protects physicians, health care providers, who might have knowledge of health card fraud. I want to talk about the legal test of knowledge here, because it's something that I brought forward --
Interjections.
Mr Jim Wilson: Mr Speaker, I obviously hit a nerve with the Liberal Party and every time I talk about their incompetence I know they get mad at me but I wish they would respect the rules of this House and let me continue with my debate uninterrupted.
There's a test of knowledge in here and it was a good point that was brought up in committee. The original wording in the bill talked about reasonable grounds, that health care providers or anyone reporting health card fraud just simply had to have reasonable grounds to believe that fraud was occurring. A very interesting point was brought up in committee, and I'm glad to see the government did change it, and that is the reasonable-grounds test was a fairly weak test and physicians kept asking us: "Well, on what grounds would we suspect someone of health card fraud? Would it be their ethnicity? Would it be what part of the province they lived in? Exactly how are we supposed to judge on reasonable grounds that the person appearing before us in our office might have a fraudulent card, given the limited information on the card itself which makes it virtually impossible to tell who the person is?"
The test in here is a test of knowledge, which I think is something the government did do right in making that amendment, but it's a fairly high test and I don't think you're going to get a lot of people reporting health card fraud through Bill 50 and its provisions even with the liability protection, because the test of knowledge is a fairly high one.
The final point I want to make on this is it is smoke and mirrors, this provision. It is a criminal matter; it has been dealt with; it can be dealt with without Bill 50 and I would continue to encourage people, on reasonable grounds or otherwise, who suspect health card fraud to call their MPPs. We don't need another law in this province to encourage people to apply some common sense and to be the honest people that we know the vast majority, 99.9% of all Ontarians, are. Honest people will phone their MPPs, they will phone the police, they will do what they can to report health card fraud, with or without this legislation.
There are some provisions in this bill that we also have concerns with, and that is with respect to the third-party services. As you know, the government last year decided that people who required a medical exam for a pilot's licence, or the unemployed truck driver who does need every year, under the law, a medical exam to renew his truck driving licence, would now have to pay the $40 to $75 to $100 for the medical note and exam out of their own pockets, a 100% user fee.
They delisted that without any public debate last year and in this case they're making sure that other delistings they do -- they're really covering themselves and they're setting themselves up for a continuation of the multi-tier health care system that we have and I want to explain that point in a minute.
There's great legal language in here about third-party services, who's responsible to pay whom for what, and basically it's all about getting the province and the medicare system off the hook for about $20 million in the first round, anyway, of currently insured services covered, and I've read some of the services that are contemplated being delisted.
A lot of interesting stuff -- but some of the problems remain, I think, and it was brought to our attention by the Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care. They expressed concern that the government's amendments concerning third-party billing would result in the following: that Ontario's health plan would no longer cover doctors' visits to ensure that staff or children are able to return to the program -- this is the day care program -- following an infectious illness. I think the government covered that one. Under the current regulations there's an exemption for day care, some provisions, but it remains unclear to the child care coalition.
They also believe that the bill would result in medical examinations required by staff or children before working or enrolling in a program will no longer be covered by health insurance. Medical examinations required by volunteers who work with children will no longer be covered. Subsidy regulations often require patients to provide a doctor's note if their child is absent from day care for a certain period. Failure to produce this documentation can result in a parent losing their subsidy.
Can you imagine the single mother who's already qualified for a day care subsidy now being told that, under law, should their child require a day care note, a note from the physician, she will have to pay that out of pocket?
I hope in the regulatory authority in this act that the government clears up that whole area. They gave us some assurances in committee they would, there's some reason to believe they might but, for instance, the provision of volunteers and notes that might be required for them to be back in the program was certainly left up in the air.
I want to tell you there are parents and the coalition out there are concerned about those aspects of the act. The Ontario Public School Boards' Association also listed a number of examples of third-party services necessary to meet the learning needs of children and mandated by law that may no longer be covered under our OHIP plan.
I think we'll just talk about the delisting process. As I said earlier on, the government was getting in such hot water over the original provisions in the act that it pulled those paragraphs out and decided to stick with its current closed-door delisting process with the Ontario Medical Association.
I think it plays to what disturbs me most about -- and what I said at the beginning -- this legislation, that the future direction of health care in this system does not involve 23 of the 24 regulated health professions. Other than a mention of the medical review committees and their equivalents that are required in some of those regulated health professions, the future direction and essential decisions of health care in this province are made now behind closed doors in a bilateral way between the OMA and the government. Basically, what they decide in future economic agreements is the direction that health care will take in this province.
To alleviate that concern out there somewhat, in particular in the delisting area, the government decided, after a lot of prodding that it would on January 17 -- I want to make sure I've got the date right, if staff back there would nod yes or no, because the government's own press release announced the public hearing day as January 19, but I believe it is January 17. The government decided that the joint management committee, which is a committee of doctors and a committee of government bureaucrats, would allow a couple of members of the public to join it as it compared its lists to delist or de-insure services in this province.
The process was that the OMA would come up with its list of services that shouldn't be covered by OHIP any more and the government would come up with its list. They originally were going to sit down with no public input, compare lists and, lo and behold, $20 million worth of services would be dropped. I guess as you went to your physician, you'd find out in an ad hoc way. The government really didn't want to have to put out a press release but, lo and behold, our pressure and public pressure came along and they decided they'd add two members of the public.
2310
The minister in this House has told us time and time again in response to questions that it's now a public process: "For the first time in the history of this province, we're doing delistings in a public way." Well, you're doing the first delistings in the history of this province since medicare was brought in by my party. That might be why you're involving the public for the first time in the process. Secondly, it's hardly a public process. You've got two token members of the public and I think that's the way they must feel on this committee, because the decisions are essentially made. They're brought in at the last minute so the minister can get up in the House and say, "I have two members of the public on this committee and it's a full public process."
On the one day of public hearings, on January 17, you can't just pop in off the street and tell them what you think of them, what you think of the process or what you think of the services. Oh, no, you have to make presentations. It's a very formal system. This is not going to be even as open as our committee hearings are downstairs from time to time. I say it's a bit of hogwash, a bit of smoke and mirrors with respect to what they consider to be a public process. I would hardly consider that a public process.
We have long called for the government to have an open and honest debate about what services the state should be paying for and what services it shouldn't. I would agree with the government on this, that it's long overdue. Let's just go back to Frost, Robarts, Davis, Miller, Peterson and Bob Rae. Nobody's asked the public, "What in the world do you want to pay for?" Maybe they don't want the state to pay for newborn circumcision, but how do we know? We've never actually asked the people who vote for us, the people who place their trust in us. We've never asked them. We only ask the OMA. We unionize them and then we say: "You're the chief spokesbody now for the direction of health care in this province. We're really just going to ask you your opinion. Because the Tories forced us, we're have to put a couple of public members on there, but it's a cooked process."
I think it's time we had a full, public, honest debate. Some people call it the Oregon model. I'm not a particularly huge fan of the Oregon model, but at least what came out of that was the courage of the state of Oregon, over a number of years, to go public through a number of very creative consultative processes, to set up local health senates, discussion groups, public discussion and debate like I don't think we would ever have seen in this province on any issue. I can't remember us ever going through such a thorough and open exercise as they did.
The public ranked 709 medical services that they felt were appropriate for the state to be considering and at some point -- and don't quote me, because I haven't got it in front me -- at around 600 or so, they said the state should pay for the top 600. Surprisingly at the top of that list was a lot of preventive stuff, a lot of preventive actions that the government should pay for so we can keep our population healthy and avoid this catch-up on disease control and disease treatment all the time, this quagmire we seem to be in in the health care system.
The public's fairly wise when you consult them. I remember Mr Rae, when I was in university, used to give a few speeches about this. You either believe in the collective wisdom of the people or you don't; if you don't, I suggest you shouldn't run for Parliament. Even if the people are wrong from time to time, if they make the decision, they're prepared to live with that decision and they will come back to their legislators and say, "Maybe we need to make some corrections."
We've never asked the public or been honest with them, I think, about what the current state of our health care system is, and user fees are, I think, the catalyst for the debate. It's something that's been thrown around far too long. I remember when Mr Benoit Bouchard, whom I knew in Ottawa, when he was retiring and leaving the health care portfolio there wrote an op-ed piece in the Toronto Star that made my blood boil, because his op-ed piece said that there weren't any user fees in Canada's health care and he wasn't going to allow any user fees in the system.
I'll tell you, having worked for the Department of National Health and Welfare, that one of the problems with those folks up there is they have they heads in the sand. They don't deliver any medical services. They don't deliver any health care services except on native reserves. They don't charge natives for ambulance rides. They don't charge them for all our user fees. The Toronto Hospital told me recently that 28% to 30% of its revenues now are in the form of out-of-pocket payments by patients: user fees.
So the federal government's a bit out to lunch and is hardly the group to be talking about the delivery of health care services. For example, if one looks at the Canada Health Act, that sacred act that is so often misquoted, it simply contains five principles of medicare in this country. It doesn't define "medically necessary service."
I remember meeting recently, as did members from all parties, through the Quebec-Ontario Parliamentary Association, with some representatives from the province of Quebec. I asked them specifically this question and their approach has been the same as most provincial governments; that is, "Since there's no definition of 'medically necessary service,' essentially what medically necessary service is, is a political arrangement that whatever services were being paid for by medicare at the proclamation of the Canada Health Act, whatever we were paying for at that time, were all deemed to be medically necessary." It included some of the stuff the NDP delisted last year, and that was these drivers' notes and that sort of thing that may or may not be important to the public. I forgot to ask them, by the way, but may or may not be important.
We end up with this hodgepodge, an often misquoted act that I think needs to have an honest debate, and we have all kinds of services that we don't know whether the public thinks we should be paying for them or not. We do know one thing, though, and that is that the public knows governments are in trouble. They know now, after nine years or so of the federal government doing the very least. You've got to give them credit for educating the public about debts and deficits.
Hon Bob Rae (Premier): Ha, ha.
Mr Jim Wilson: The Premier laughs, but they --
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Before the blood pressure of the member gets too high, I would like to simply know whether anyone has seen the hat and the gloves of the Sergeant at Arms. They appear to have vanished this evening.
The Speaker: The Sergeant at Arms has not vanished. The member raises a good point. We shall look for the gloves, and the member for Simcoe West has the floor.
Mr Jim Wilson: I would hope that comment, Mr Speaker, is not indicative of the level of concern of the Liberal Party with respect to this issue. I take it in the jest that it was made in, but I don't appreciate the interruption in my thought for what was not a point of order.
Hon Mr Rae: Jim, get up again.
Mr Jim Wilson: You may not think this is important, and my comment that at the very least people have a much better understanding of debts and deficits --
Hon Mr Rae: Yes, by watching those turkeys up in Ottawa, that's how.
Mr Jim Wilson: Well, the Premier says, "By watching those turkeys up in Ottawa." Hey, Bob, they tune in here once in a while and watch your deficit grow too, so I would watch whom I criticize and where your finger points. Okay, all governments are guilty then, but debts and deficits are another topic.
The point I was making is that people realize that governments have to get their spending under control. They realize that work has to be done in the health care system to get better bang for the buck, and I think they're prepared for that public debate. So why don't we have it? We don't have it because nobody's got the courage to have it except, I may say, and I'll wait for the applause, for my party.
We took a lot of heat in the last election by telling the truth about where we were with the health care system. I remember Mr Peterson having great fun labelling Mr Harris "Mr User Fee," which I felt was a very unfortunate way that particular issue went in that campaign. The Premier may want to get up and correct me, but I think he also indulged in some of that unfair play. That is the heat of a campaign and I understand that; I don't like it.
2320
We simply said at that time that there are hundreds of millions of dollars in user fees in the system now. This government through its long-term care reform, by the way, added another $150 million worth of certainly medically necessary services. If you asked whether your grandmother should be covered in a nursing home, I think most of the public would agree it's a pretty darned important thing for not only her but for your family, and they bring another $150 million worth of copayments or accommodation payments, or whatever way you want to call it: It's a user fee.
They raised, as one of their first acts of office, the fee paid by people who take ambulance transfers or emergency rides in ambulances. It's a $45 flat rate, whether you're homeless in Toronto or whether you're a millionaire. That's the emergency transfer. It's substantially higher than that if it's a non-emergency transfer. We've never had that discussion.
I could go on. I have computer lists of all the fees that are charged in the health care system and I intend to use that in the next election, I put everyone on warning, should they say there aren't any fees in the health care system. I think I could go on ad nauseam listing them.
In the last election we tried to be honest, we tried to say, "Look, we are not in favour of adding any more user fees to the system until we've had a full, public and honest debate about where the current user fees are in the system," recognizing current reality, "and where those current fees should be appropriately placed," because there is no rhyme or reason.
I want to go back to the Montreal discussion, with the province of Quebec. They confirmed for me exactly what all provincial governments are doing, and that is, delisting services, hoping that somebody like an in vitro fertilization interest group won't take them to court and say, "We believe it's medically necessary; here is the scientific data," and take them all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada to try and prove the point that it's a violation of the Canada Health Act.
Somebody some day is going to do that if provincial governments and the federal government don't smarten up and stop delisting around the edges. We're delisting now just on the stuff we think we can get away with without somebody actually trying our tactics. I think the day will come, and it may come soon. It may come from other provisions in this act and certainly provisions in Bill 100, where people are losing their patience with the tinkering in the health care system, with the mismanagement in the system and where people are going to start to exercise their right to go to the courts of this country.
I want to close, because I want to leave my colleague time, just by listing what's happening currently in the hospital sector in Metropolitan Toronto. First of all, with the Rae days -- sorry, let's do the physician sector first. With the physician sector in the province, the government I think is in a bit of a quandary. Doctors want to take Rae days because even with the 4.8% rollback on their fee-for-service billings now, there is no way the government can reach its social contract or expenditure control plan or Bill 50 targets. So what they're saying to us is that the most you'll get out of that process is about $50 million, leaving a significant couple of hundred million dollars shortfall. At some point -- we think the crunch will come in February or March -- if there's no coordination of these Rae days -- those are days off that physicians will take -- or nothing done between now and then, because this part of the agreement extends to March 31, 1994, you will see physicians close en masse across this province. Talk about creating chaos in the system and talk about inaccessibility, again in violation of the Canada Health Act, to medical services if all the doctors' offices close and are forced to close in February of March because there's been no resolution of this issue.
The point is that with the 4.8% rollback now, you can't possibly achieve the objectives that your Treasurer has already stated must be achieved under the social contract in this sector. So they have two options: allow the physicians Rae days, to figure out another agreement with them to claw back more money, to delist more services than the $20 million already contemplated, or to let the deficit rip. I will be interested to see what response the government has. Had they listened to us in the first place, they would not be in this position today, end of point.
With respect to physicians in Bill 50, I want to read think, what are some really telltale quotes. Dr Howard R. Wexler, medical director of the intensive care unit, London's University Hospital, expressed genuine concern about the effects of the social contract on health care in the London area. Dr Wexler was quoted in the London Free Press as saying, "So far nobody's died because of the social contract, but I can't promise that won't happen down the road. I can see the day coming when we're going to wake up and there's going to be no more room to manoeuvre within the system."
The Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario, Elizabeth Jensen, past president, says in the London Free Press on November 20, in a section called "Toll on Patients," and the title of the article is, "Death Fear Due to Cuts Targeted at Ontario Hospitals".
"According to the past president of the Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario, the slashing of health care dollars is already taking a toll on patients. Elizabeth Jensen said a patient in a London hospital was recently forced to call the Bell Canada operator on a bedside phone and had the operator call the hospital switchboard to get a nurse to the patient's room."
There's another nurse in the article and she notes that: "The true impact of the social contract on health care delivery won't be felt until later. 'Financially, we must provide seven Rae days between now and March 31 and nine days after that. How will that affect patients?' she asked. 'It's like if your child misses extra days of classes. How does that affect his education? You don't know until later.'
"But according to Jensen, the past president of RNAO, representing about 14,000 nurses, layoffs have created a severe nursing shortage. 'There are horror stories out there. I've had families tell me they've seen one nurse during an entire shift, and she was too busy to help them.' Jensen said nurses are reluctant to speak out about the problems 'for fear they'll be on the list for the next round of layoffs.'
"'It's a very stressful time, there's a lot of fear out there and it's a real tragedy,' she concludes."
In Peterborough, Bill 50 means no more doctors, we are told. As a result of Bill 50 and the social contract, Dr David W. Swales of Peterborough said he "will be forced to close his practice in mid-January, a full two and a half months before the end of the fiscal year. As a result of his having to close, Dr Swales said patients will 'have a hard, hard time. It's going to be unpleasant.'
"Dr Swales says that two other family doctors in the Peterborough area will also have to close their offices and two more family doctors are heading south of the border. As a result, he estimates 10,000 patients could be affected. Part of the problem for Dr Swales is that he opened his practice in 1992, which further caps his income."
In Windsor, the title was, "Bill 50 Means Growing Waiting List." "Dr Gary Ing, president of the Essex County Medical Society, said that physician days off, which they are forced to take at some point between now and March, will swell waiting lists for certain treatments. Dr Ing said waiting lists for knee and hip replacement surgery, which is now at five to six months, will swell by a month or two in 1994."
2330
In Sudbury, the title of the letter to me was, "Bill 50 Punishes General Surgeons." Bill 50 and the social contract will have a profound impact upon one of the province's most treasured resources, our general surgeons. The following is a quote from a letter written by Dr Kealy, chairman of the section on general surgery for the Ontario Medical Association. Dr Kealy writes:
"The working conditions for general surgeons are appalling. When it comes to emergency or urgent admissions needing surgery, twice as many of these were operated on during evenings and weekends than during normal operating hours.
"The recommended OMA-OHA guidelines for on-call are a maximum of one night per week (Monday through Friday) and one weekend per month.
"It is not surprising that general surgeons in the province feel they are propping up a deteriorating health service at the expense of their lifestyle and that of their families.
"General surgical practice simplistically can be divided into two forms of practice.
"1. The consultant practice generated through our offices and dependent on ability, availability and affability.
"2. The hospital-generated practice that involves many of the emergencies that we are called upon to deal with on a day-to-day basis, which most of us have been happy enough to provide through an unwritten social contract."
To continue the quote: "Despite our contributions to the system, general surgeons remain the poorest-paid of all surgical specialties. We feel that the recent social contract legislation is punitive to our group. Our section, despite the fact that our utilization has scarcely changed in the last 10 years, is now obliged to cut back our volume of work by 5%, provide the same in-hospital and emergency services as previously, return 5% of last year's gross billings, be subjected to the employer health tax despite the fact that we are paying it for our employees and, worst of all, allow us to be subjected to a 12-day lockout between now and March 1994.
"Laughren, the Treasurer of Ontario, at a meeting in Sudbury categorizes us as public servants. If we were public servants, he would need three times as many of us to do the same amount of work.
"If we are to provide the same services that we have done unstintingly and without fanfare in the past, the terms and conditions of services must be changed.
"We have put up with terms and conditions of service that are practically Dickensian in nature and which we find it more and more difficult to tolerate, particularly when the Ministry of Health chooses to ignore our valuable contribution to the health care of the province which in the past we were happy to do through an unwritten social contract." That's the end of the quote from Dr Kealy.
Briefly, in Leamington, "Bill 50 caps are unfair and unwise." Dr Alan Russell from Leamington believes the physician caps imposed by Bill 50 will have a negative effect on care in the Leamington area. The following is an excerpt from a letter written to me by Dr Russell:
"I graduated from Memorial University Medical School in 1989 and came to Ontario in January 1991 in response to an advertisement in the Canadian Medical Association Journal. During my two years in the emergency department, I was paid a salary under the alternate payment program. I occasionally worked in walk-in clinics and did fill-in 'locums' for vacationing general practitioners. During that time period, approximately 15% to 20% of my gross income came from fee-for-service billing. In the fall of 1992, I was approached by a local general practitioner and his partner to consider taking over his existing medical practice. This physician was ill and unable to carry on a full-time practice. My ultimate decision to enter general practice was accelerated by the passing of this physician. I resigned my emergency post to take over this vacated general practice.
"Leamington is a small town with 11 GPs. Three of these physicians are very close to retirement. In the next couple of years there will be an even greater physician shortage in this area. Since January 1993, I have been overwhelmed by new patients, not fully realizing the magnitude of the physician deficit. Currently, I see approximately 35 to 40 patients per day, frequently turning back many due to time constraints. My personal feeling is that quality patient care is severely jeopardized when a physician exceeds this number."
Dr Russell goes on to describe the problems he has had with the unjust billing caps that have resulted from Bill 50. "Those physicians with no previous fee-for-service income are given a designated 'cap' based on provincial 'averages.' This figure does not account for different areas having widely different physician-patient ratios. GPs billing OHIP exorbitant fees over past years will not be forced to incur the financial burden. Instead, a new physician such as myself is to take the brunt while the 'old boys' club laughs all the way to the bank.
"I could have gone to Toronto, Hamilton or London, but opted instead for a small-town setting with a need for physicians. Now I am to be penalized for doing quality, cost-effective, salaried work in the local emergency department. It would have been to my financial benefit to see high-volume, minor complaints in a walk-in clinic just to increase my fee-for-service earnings.
"The current proposals are to be retroactive to April 1, 1993, and run through March 31, 1994." As an aside, he doesn't talk about what's going to happen in 1995 and 1996 as a result of this bill. "Following these guidelines, my cap will be reached as of December 31, 1993. One would thereby assume that for January, February and March 1994, I will not be paid for patient visits. What is to become of the 800 monthly visits seen in my office? Since it is not in the interests of other local physicians to see them, these patients will be left without care."
While the government will blame the OMA for Dr Russell's predicament, the blame lies squarely with the government, whose panicky Bill 50 and social contract have produced desperate solutions that ignore quality and care and treatment and, in particular, quality and provision of services in underserviced areas in this province. I would ask the government to withdraw this bill. It has not improved since my time in this House on second reading debate. They must withdraw the bill, have a frank and honest discussion with the people of this province about the true state and direction of our health care system, include all of the 24 regulated health professions and get on with the job of properly managing the health care system in Ontario.
The Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Simcoe West for his contribution to the debate and invite any questions and/or comments.
Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I just wanted to comment on my colleague's speech. If the government had paid careful attention to what he had said, it would recognize the gleam of truth in the fact that it's managed to disguise user fees under every other conceivable name, but they are still user fees. "Parental contributions" is insulting to the intelligence of the electorate, the whole idea that you hide behind all of this Newspeak. Newspeak was predicted by George Orwell, and indeed it has come to pass in this Parliament.
My colleague brings to bear so much wisdom; I hope you've listened to it, taken it in. Go home and think about it and come back and be contrite, because this bill is the wrong bill by the wrong government to do the wrong things with our health care system.
The Speaker: Further questions and/or comments? The member for Etobicoke West.
Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): You weren't even here for the speech. How could you possibly ask any questions?
The Speaker: The member for Yorkview, please come to order.
Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I wanted to first of all compliment the member. I think it was a well-documented, well-researched speech.
Interjections.
Mr Stockwell: It was. A lot of work went into that. I know at first hand that the member works on his speeches personally; he works on them diligently and writes them and researches them all and spends a great deal of time and effort looking into a lot of issues that he finds not only important but very dear to his heart.
One of the important issues touched upon by the member from Simcoe, as well as the member for York Mills, is this idea of changing names, and I saw it in Bill 79 as well, where they changed "quotas" to "numerical goals." They changed "user fees" to "parental contributions," "copayments," "accommodation expense," and they think that by changing names they thereby changed definitions.
What's going to surprise them to no end come election time is that simply because they changed the name but did not change the definition -- a user fee is a user fee is a user fee, and they campaigned vehemently for many decades against user fees, as well as their federal party. They will find, as the member pointed out quite clearly, that the people of this province don't accept changing words but not changing definitions. I compliment the member. He'd make a very, very good Health minister.
2340
Mrs Sullivan: There are many issues in the member's speech which I would like to discuss, but I will start with the issue of user fees. I will tell you, I believe many of the arguments he's put forward in this area are specious ones.
If a user fee is high enough to add revenue to the system, it will deter only two groups of people from access to health care, and those two groups of people are the poor and the sick. If a user fee is too low, it will be only an administrative burden, will not be deterrent to wasteful use of the system, and in fact will cost rather than add.
When user fees that are in the health care system itself are there, if they are described, by example, as residential copayments, I believe that is in fact what they are. They do not affect the actual delivery of health care services. If they do and become user fees, to my mind they are absolutely unacceptable.
I also want to move to the area the member addressed with respect to health cards. I remind this House that under the government of the Progressive Conservative Party, there were 26 million people eligible for health care services in Ontario when the population of the province was nine million.
The purposes of a health card are threefold: First, it should be a record of entitlement; second, it should be a financial and administrative tool; third, it should be a tool for the management of the health care system itself. None of the issues that the member has addressed in his speech recognizes those issues. In fact, the record of his party in ensuring that entitlement was limited to those who were eligible was extraordinarily poor.
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): We had the opportunity to listen to about an hour and a half of a diatribe that was so far off base it was amazing. I take this opportunity to comment on a couple of points the member made. The member went on at great length about the great job the federal government did of indicating to the people of Canada the importance of the debt. I would say to the honourable member that they didn't even do that properly, for God's sake. They dealt in Ottawa for some eight or nine years and basically didn't do anything to try to manage the system. I would ask that any time the member gets up in this House and does what he does, that he try to do a bit more research.
The Speaker: The member for Simcoe West has up to two minutes for his reply.
Mr Jim Wilson: Because of the time, I'll be yielding the floor to my colleague.
The Speaker: Is there further debate?
Mr Bradley: I'd like to make a very brief intervention this evening on this. I would like to have done it within the confines of two minutes but it will probably take about five minutes to add a little to this debate, because I think it's an important bill. I wasn't going to, but I've listened and I've been prompted by some of the words I've heard this evening to intervene, because I have a little more history perhaps. The government House leader and I, who have been here since 1977, will have some recollections about some previous initiatives in the field of health care.
One we recall exceedingly well was the raising of the OHIP premiums, or the attempted raising of the OHIP premiums, by W. Darcy McKeough, who was the Treasurer of the province at that time, by some 37%, the largest increase I can ever recall in a fee which was applied unevenly to people across this province. The government which succeeded the Progressive Conservative government abolished, with the support of those sitting on the other side of the House at present, OHIP fees because there was a general recognition between people in the two parties at the time that OHIP fees weighed much more heavily on some than others.
I also want to note that one of the pillars of the Progressive Conservative Party in terms of its health care plan was allowing doctors to extra-bill. In fact, I recall a situation in this House where there was a filibuster conducted by Larry Grossman, I think it was, as the leader of the party at the time, and other members of the Progressive Conservative Party. They insisted that there had to be extra-billing permitted for doctors in this province. That issue has been decided, and we see it coming back again with some of the comments that have been made this evening.
I listened very carefully, because I follow politics carefully, to the leadership campaign of the Progressive Conservative Party when there were two individuals, Mike Harris at that time, now the leader of the third party, and Dianne Cunningham, who is the member for London North, and they were contesting the leadership. I remember that one of the issues that divided them was this desire to have user fees in the system. Mike Harris insisted that there must be user fees in the medical care system. It reminded me of a meeting with some people during the election campaign. This was the Taxpayers Coalition Ontario, which has certain views on many issues. There was -- I call him a Tory lawyer, but he may be a Reform lawyer now, sitting there and asking me what I thought of user fees -- I call them deterrent fees -- in the system. He was making a strong case for it and wondered why I was so persistent in my opposition to user fees. I guess I put it in one way; I said:
"That is why you are a Tory and I'm not a Tory, because you're in favour of user fees. You believe there should be one rule for the rich and the privileged and one rule for the rest. I cannot, in all good conscience, have one rule for the rich and the privileged and one rule for the rest when it comes to such a basic need as medicare."
I hope that we don't go down that path. I understand there's a dialogue on now, and we have to have that discussion taking place, but I certainly hope we don't go down the path that Mike Harris had recommended to this province of user fees in the field of medicine.
I also want to reiterate, because there's been some criticism of the government and of the previous government about the cards, the special health cards that we have at the present time. As I think the member for Halton Centre has appropriately pointed out, back when we had about eight million people in the province, there were 26 million people eligible for OHIP at that time. But of course, memories begin to fade, particularly among younger members who may have been in university or high school at the time, that the Tories were putting the rates up.
I promised I would not go into a good deal of detail today, but I thought members would be interested in those facts. The last fact I want to mention, because I did hear it being mentioned already, and that was going back into the history of the social contract. As I recall, the government put forward the bill and promoted the bill. That's the government's prerogative. The official opposition, the Liberal Party, voted against it on second reading and third reading, making a judgement that it was not good for the province, and that's a judgement that parties make.
What was most interesting was watching the Progressive Conservative Party, which on second reading was in favour of it, and then when the heat came in from around the province from both the business community and other people affected by it, did a complete flip-flop. We heard the "bang, bang, bang" from the leader of the third party at that time about how the Progressive Conservatives were solid on this. In fact when it came before the House, they ended up voting one way on one reading and another way on another reading.
Members want to proceed with the debate this evening. We want to move on to other legislation. So I just thought that members would appreciate having some recollections placed on the record for us this evening.
2350
The Speaker: I thank the member for St Catharines for his contribution to the debate and invite any questions and/or comments. Is there further debate?
Third reading of Bill 50: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.
Be it resolved that the bill be now passed and entitled as in the motion.
RESIDENTS' RIGHTS ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES IMMEUBLES D'HABITATION
Resumption of the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 120, An Act to amend certain statutes concerning residential property / Projet de loi 120, Loi modifiant certaines lois en ce qui concerne les immeubles d'habitation.
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): When we left off last, the member for Yorkview had the floor.
Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): Forget it.
The Speaker: Is there further debate?
Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I'd like to just lead this off by reading a short extract from the Toronto Star. It reads:
"The NDP government's proposal to bring all Ontario renters under the same tenant regulations provides a timely reminder that rent controls have outlived their usefulness.
"Last week, the government introduced the residents rights bill, which would legalize about 100,000 in-house apartments and subject them to rent control and the Landlord and Tenant Act. It also would extend those rights to about 47,000 vulnerable tenants who live in apartments or rooming houses that provide therapeutic care."
Here's the very interesting statement:
"Considered within the context of a rent control system, the move makes sense. But instead of extending rent controls, Queen's Park ought to be ending them entirely.
"Brought in as an election promise in 1975 by the Tories under Bill Davis, rent regulation has seriously curtailed private-sector activity in the rental market. The evidence shows that apartment developers drifted away to build condominiums, office towers and shopping malls, causing the supply of rental units to dwindle. During the booming 1980s, demand soared, vacancy rates plummeted to less than 0.1% and the housing crisis was born."
That opening part of this article in the Toronto Star dated December 1, 1993, is quite telling. The reason I say it's telling is because the Toronto Star has always been a most vociferous proponent of rent controls. Finally, they seem to have seen the light, that it hasn't worked in the best interests of tenants.
That, above all, is the yardstick we should measure it by, because with the shortage of rental apartments, landlords were able to charge whatever they wanted. There's no doubt about it that in all of the markets in the world where rent controls have been removed in a reasonable period of time, rental stock has increased and the affordability of the apartments has increased. Seen in that light, that we should be taking away rent controls where they are applied at the moment, it seems crazy that we should be applying them now to this other sector.
There can be no doubt about it that we must ensure that vulnerable adults are protected, but let's turn to the residential aspects of allowing apartments within houses as of right. We take away local planning authority, which has always been one of the Holy Grails of the NDP. It has always been the leading NDP politicians in Toronto who've always suggested the importance of good planning. I just want to mention people like John Sewell, Jack Layton, Richard Gilbert, Dale Martin, Howard Moscoe. They've always been harping on about the importance of vesting the local planning authority in the local municipality's hands.
This absolutely trashes zoning, because as of right, any single-family house can be turned into a multiple dwelling unit. You can create a basement apartment. You can take any town house, no matter how small, and you can make a separate apartment, make two units out of it.
One of the reasons that zoning was created was to ensure that we had a framework whereby we could plan a community, plan the delivery of services like fire, ambulance and police, which are vital services to serve a community. We take away all of these rights from a municipality. Municipalities are mad about this move by the NDP government and they have spoken out.
The former Bill 90, which this bill replaces, was opposed by AMO very vociferously. They have already indicated that while they haven't met on Bill 120, they are of the same view, that this is essentially the same bill repackaged.
The minister, in defending this bill the other day, started talking about the vocal minority who speak out and say, "No, we don't want these basement apartments," and somehow this was so unfair that the vocal majority would have sway but that local politicians paid attention to that vocal minority. This is the crazy thing, Mr Speaker, and you know very well, because you know which party you come from, that your party won with a very vocal minority in the last election. You won with less percentage of the popular vote than Frank Miller had when he got his minority government. These are the peculiarities of the first-past-the-post system. So a vocal minority was able to seize a majority government.
What has happened with this vocal minority that formed the majority government is they're saying: "We couldn't care less what any of the municipalities think. We are telling them that we insist that we are trashing the zoning. We're going to let anybody who wants an apartment in their house have it." There are many communities where the very heart of the community is founded around the principle that they are single-family houses. The people, when they buy houses and move in there, know that. Yes, there are some examples of where the community may turn a blind eye to the Widow Smith because she decides that she needs to take somebody in to help her income, and by and large, the individual choice of neighbourhoods to tolerate a violation of the zoning works pretty well.
What we're seeing here is the government saying: "We couldn't care less about the availability of parking in the neighbourhood. We couldn't care less about the fact that if you suddenly double the population in a neighbourhood and there's not enough parking, maybe fire trucks won't be able to get down the street. That doesn't matter, because we have an ideology that we think basement apartments are a good thing." All we have to do is look at what happened in Russia at the turn of the century after the Revolution and all the proletariat moved in and they had to have complete ethical division of the apartments. I always remember that scene in Doctor Zhivago where Dr Zhivago returns home and to his chagrin he finds that the family home has been overrun and the commissar of the building announces that it was far too big for one family. I guess the commissar for housing in Ontario is dictating that single-family houses are far too large for any single family and that's what's happening here.
Municipalities have said they don't want this legislation and they have said they have serious reservations about the implications of this in the long term. When you consider how local taxes are collected -- they are on the basis of the assessment on a building. An assessment is not changed when it becomes a two-family unit, because the value of the building does not necessarily go up as a result of that. So now you can have two families in a house using double the amount of community services, but you're only getting one pop of taxes for that municipality.
Where does the minister think the money is coming from? It's certainly not coming from this government, and particularly when you talk about Metropolitan Toronto, because this government won't give any money to the school boards, so all of the taxpayers are on their own and in the case of this government, with the social contract they're saying any savings they achieve will have a negative grant. What is a negative grant? That is newspeak for the fact that they're going to take money away from the municipalities that the government never gave in the first place, because the last government, the Liberal government, took away what small amount Metropolitan Toronto got to the public school board and now the residents of Metropolitan Toronto are on their own. They're just out of luck. They have to pay every penny to support the school board, notwithstanding that the government says, "Oh, we've got the social contract, so we're not going to allow the residents of Toronto to benefit from that." No suggestion of those taxes being sent back. No, the government wants them.
Once again they're bringing in another law which the municipalities don't want, which has the potential for doubling the population in some areas, and yet you won't be able to get a penny more of property taxes. Think about it. How will you fund the school boards? This is crazy legislation.
There's no right of entry for municipal inspectors unless the tenant invites the inspector into the building. I can tell you that this is fundamentally wrong. We should allow municipalities access to ensure that safety standards are in force.
I see that the Speaker's getting a little uncomfortable. I do wish to continue with this debate, because I have some very important points to get on to the record. It being 12 of the clock, I will adjourn the debate.
The Speaker: It being 12 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 10 of the clock tomorrow morning.
The House adjourned at 2402.