L031b - Tue 23 Jun 1998 / Mar 23 Jun 1998 1
CITY OF TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA CITÉ DE TORONTO
The House met at 1829.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND WORKPLACE DEMOCRACY ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LE DÉVELOPPEMENT ÉCONOMIQUE ET SUR LA DÉMOCRATIE EN MILIEU DE TRAVAIL
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 31, An Act to promote economic development and create jobs in the construction industry, to further workplace democracy and to make other amendments to labour and employment statutes / Projet de loi 31, Loi visant à promouvoir le développement économique et à créer des emplois dans l'industrie de la construction, favorisant la démocratie en milieu de travail et apportant d'autres modifications aux lois ayant trait au travail et à l'emploi.
The Deputy Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Pursuant to the order of the House dated June 18, 1998, I am now required to put the question.
Mr Flaherty has moved second reading of Bill 31. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?
All those in favour of the motion, please say "aye."
All those opposed, please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it.
Call in the members; a five-minute bell.
The division bells rang from 1830 to 1835.
The Deputy Speaker: Members, take your seats, please.
All those in favour of the bill will please rise.
Ayes
|
Baird, John R. Barrett, Toby Bassett, Isabel Beaubien, Marcel Boushy, Dave Brown, Jim Carr, Gary Clement, Tony Cunningham, Dianne Danford, Harry Doyle, Ed Elliott, Brenda Fisher, Barbara Flaherty, Jim Ford, Douglas B. Fox, Gary Froese, Tom Galt, Doug Gilchrist, Steve |
Grimmett, Bill Guzzo, Garry J. Harnick, Charles Harris, Michael D. Hastings, John Jackson, Cameron Johns, Helen Johnson, Bert Johnson, David Jordan, W. Leo Kells, Morley Klees, Frank Leach, Al Marland, Margaret Maves, Bart McLean, Allan K. Munro, Julia Murdoch, Bill Newman, Dan |
O'Toole, John Ouellette, Jerry J. Parker, John L. Rollins, E.J. Douglas Runciman, Robert W. Sampson, Rob Saunderson, William Sheehan, Frank Smith, Bruce Spina, Joseph Sterling, Norman W. Stewart, R. Gary Tascona, Joseph N. Tilson, David Turnbull, David Vankoughnet, Bill Wettlaufer, Wayne Witmer, Elizabeth Wood, Bob |
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please rise.
Nays
|
Agostino, Dominic Bisson, Gilles Boyd, Marion Bradley, James J. Brown, Michael A. Caplan, David Cleary, John C. Colle, Mike Cordiano, Joseph Cullen, Alex |
Duncan, Dwight Gerretsen, John Grandmaître, Bernard Gravelle, Michael Hoy, Pat Kormos, Peter Lalonde, Jean-Marc Lessard, Wayne Marchese, Rosario McGuinty, Dalton |
McLeod, Lyn Miclash, Frank Morin, Gilles E. Patten, Richard Pupatello, Sandra Ramsay, David Ruprecht, Tony Sergio, Mario Wildman, Bud Wood, Len |
Clerk Assistant (Ms Deborah Deller): The ayes are 57; the nays are 30.
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Pursuant to the order of the House dated June 18, 1998, the bill is ordered for third reading, to be considered immediately.
Mr Flaherty moved third reading of the following bill:
Bill 31, An Act to promote economic development and create jobs in the construction industry, to further workplace democracy and to make other amendments to labour and employment statutes / Projet de loi 31, Loi visant à promouvoir le développement économique et à créer des emplois dans l'industrie de la construction, favorisant la démocratie en milieu de travail et apportant d'autres modifications aux lois ayant trait au travail et à l'emploi.
Hon Jim Flaherty (Minister of Labour, Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I understand that all three parties have agreed that we would split the time evenly.
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): On a point of order, Speaker: I'm sure the government is mistaken, that they wanted to send this to committee, so I will ask for unanimous consent that we revert the bill back to the committee stage and allow public hearings for two weeks.
The Deputy Speaker: Agreed? No.
Is there consent to split the time equally between the three parties? Agreed. Minister.
Hon Mr Flaherty: Thank you, Speaker. I propose to share my time with the member for Niagara Falls, the member for Lambton and the member for Sarnia.
On June 4, I introduced the Economic Development and Workplace Democracy Act. You will recall that this important job creating legislation would accomplish three key things. First of all, as promised in the April 23 speech from the throne, Bill 31 amends labour legislation -
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. Take your seat for a minute. Could I ask people to take their meetings outside, please. Minister.
Hon Mr Flaherty: First of all, as promised in the April 23 speech from the throne, Bill 31 amends labour legislation, particularly as it affects the construction industry, in order to attract investment and create jobs. The bill would do that by creating a framework for unions and employers to develop major project agreements. These are agreements that will create thousands of unionized construction jobs and long-term, permanent employment for Ontario's skilled workers.
Second, Bill 31 would continue this government's record of putting common sense back into the business of government by ensuring that only construction industry employers need to be considered under the special construction provisions of the Labour Relations Act. That means employers who are not primarily in the construction business, like some school boards, municipalities and retail firms, would not have to be regulated by the special construction provisions of the Labour Relations Act.
Third, the Economic Development and Workplace Democracy Act would guarantee that the union certification process is democratic and that the will of the majority of workers prevails at all times.
Let me elaborate on these three principal aspects of the bill.
For the past three weeks I have been telling members of this House, the public, the media and everyone interested in attracting investment and creating jobs in Ontario why this government is so supportive of this proposed legislation. But let me tell the members of this House once again why the Economic Development and Workplace Democracy Act is an important piece of the government's plan to create jobs and attract investment in Ontario.
The Canadian Chemical Producers' Association has estimated the potential of 42,500 new jobs in the petrochemical industry alone. Bill 31 would allow Ontario to seriously compete for those jobs. It would clear the way for the private sector to work with Ontario's trade unions to build Ontario's infrastructure, to add to Ontario's strong industrial base and to create lasting employment right here in Ontario. What kinds of jobs am I talking about? Well-paid unionized construction jobs for a start, and once those factories and plants have been built and the construction workers have moved on to new projects, then the well-paying permanent jobs begin. Then those jobs are followed by thousands of spinoff jobs, the kinds of jobs that are fuelled by the entrepreneurial spirit of Ontarians, the kinds of jobs that create strong, vibrant Ontario communities.
Interjection.
The Deputy Speaker: Member for Cochrane South, come to order.
Hon Mr Flaherty: Those jobs will come from the multimillion-dollar investments that the passage of Bill 31 will bring to Ontario.
In a letter published in yesterday's Toronto Star, Mr Richard Paton, the president and CEO of the Canadian Chemical Producers' Association, wrote, and I quote, "The government of Ontario is opening the doors to a potential $2.5 billion to $5 billion in new investment in the chemical and refining industries." He goes on to say that the Economic Development and Workplace Democracy Act will create investment opportunities, not only for the chemical sector but for all manufacturers.
For example, let us look at some concrete examples of the kinds of multimillion-dollar investments I am talking about. On June 4, the same day this bill was introduced, Bayer Rubber Inc announced a $300-million expansion of its synthetic rubber unit in Sarnia. As their senior vice-president and site manager has said about Bill 31, it "removes the final impediment that will help us attract more international investment."
Then there is Dow Chemical's multimillion-dollar product development plant, which is the first new facility that Dow has built in Sarnia in 24 years. It will create jobs for 400 skilled unionized construction workers over the course of three years and will be home to many permanent jobs in the resulting workplace. While this is an important facility for the Sarnia area, it is small in comparison to the facilities that Dow Sarnia could compete for if Bill 31 is passed by this House.
Again reading from yesterday's letter to the editor from the Canadian Chemical Producers' Association, "Some $50 billion of new money is being invested in chemical manufacturing projects throughout North America, yet virtually no new investment is finding its way to Ontario." Fifty billion dollars is a lot of money and a lot of jobs and a lot of prosperity for this province. Ontario has the skilled and educated workforce, the transportation infrastructure, the proximity to international markets and the entrepreneurial spirit to compete with the best in the world. But in this particular area we have a missing factor, and that is competitive construction costs. This bill will set the framework so that negotiations can lead to project agreements and competitive construction costs.
What Bill 31 does is put Ontario in the running for dozens of job-creating, multimillion-dollar industrial projects. It takes projects off the drawing board and puts shovels in the ground. It creates well-paid jobs for thousands of Ontario's skilled workers and many of those jobs are union jobs. This is an act that also encourages fair negotiation between project proponents and unions.
It is important to note that Bill 31 does not impose project agreements on unions and employers. It does not dictate the terms of any agreement or any deal to be negotiated. Instead, it sets up a framework where the potential owner of the project can negotiate with the appropriate local unions. For each tailor-made project to become a reality, it requires approval from 60% of all the relevant unions involved. What could be more fair than that? Unions get good jobs; companies gain the flexibility to bid on major industrial projects armed with a workable, cost-effective project agreement; and Ontario can compete for the multibillion-dollar investments that are passing us by today, every day we delay the passage of Bill 31.
1850
Let me move on to the non-construction employer aspects of this bill. Currently, a whole range of non-construction employers are bound by the province-wide construction provisions of the Labour Relations Act. Just because they once hired a unionized construction worker - it could be something as simple as hiring someone to build a countertop in a high school cafeteria - this has meant that many retail employers, municipalities and school boards have ended up covered by the complex provisions of province-wide construction agreements. This is manifestly unfair since, unlike the true construction employers, these companies have little opportunity to influence the agreements they are tied to. That unfairness is compounded by the fact that these employers cannot tender work to non-union contractors, many of whom are small business operators in all our communities.
Common sense says this should be changed and Bill 31 would do that. The bill does not exempt those employers from the Labour Relations Act. It just treats them the same as other employers in the province. We think this is a fair solution for a problem that has been around for a long time.
But this is an act that also benefits small business employers even as it benefits taxpayers. Small and medium-sized construction companies, many of them highly specialized firms, could bid on public construction contracts let by school boards and municipalities. I think you know what would happen if the tendering process were opened to all who can bid and control work. Competition would increase. Public sector project costs would drop. Taxpayers would benefit.
Who are those small businesses that are waiting anxiously for the passage of Bill 31? Let me read some of the letters I have received over the past few weeks. One small businessman from the Hamilton area writes:
"Our company employs 25 skilled tradesmen who have chosen to belong to an independent union...because of their choice of representation [they] have been prevented from working on many public sector projects. As well, private companies whose main line of endeavour is not construction have been prevented from hiring us as suppliers of construction services. Your bill goes a long way in redressing these wrongs."
Here's another letter, from a speciality sewage and water treatment contractor:
"We employ 20 to 30 persons...we appreciate your stance on who can participate in public sector bidding and subsequent works."
Here's another letter from a firm in the greater Toronto area:
"I represent a non-union mechanical contracting company entering its 23rd year in Ontario. We employ 50 non-union tradesmen...we ask no special treatment, just an open competitive bidding process."
There are many more letters from all over Ontario but they all suggest the same thing, namely, that it is only right for taxpayers, for small business people and for the non-construction employers themselves to implement the changes proposed in Bill 31.
In my final few minutes I want to address an important part of this bill. It deals with ensuring workplace democracy in Ontario. The simple fact is that, first, each worker should have the right to vote on whether or not to join a union. Second, the wishes of the majority must be paramount. Up to this point, that has not been the case in Ontario. Specifically, automatic certification, for all its good intentions, does not ensure that the workers' wishes are both sought and respected at all times.
Let me clear. As Minister of Labour, I am firmly opposed to any misconduct during the union certification process. If either side, employer or union, engages in any inappropriate behaviour during the union certification process, the Ontario Labour Relations Board has the powers necessary to level the playing field. Then, and only then, will the OLRB call another vote.
But the key point in this debate is that a vote must take place and the wishes of the majority must be respected. I do not believe that misconduct from any third party, either union or management, should take away an employee's right to vote whether or not to be represented by a union.
Workers' democratic rights must be supported by Ontario's labour laws. These amendments ensure that each employee's vote is respected. Bill 31 also sends the message to all investors that workplace democracy is in place in Ontario and that this democratic spirit is part of our openness to business and investment. Stability and certainty in Ontario's labour laws, as we all know, are good for job creation.
A final word to our critics: They say that Bill 31 is a gift to our supporters. Let me say, the supporters of this government include anyone who champions job-creating investment, anyone who wants to continue improving this province's competitive position and anyone who believes in the principles of workplace democracy. Our supporters, in other words, are all Ontarians who want to draw investment and jobs to their communities. If Bill 31 is a gift to them, then it deserves the approval of all members of this Legislature.
Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): I congratulate the minister on his opening speech and I would like to add a few things to that. One of the things I would like to start off with is to talk about the number of meetings and consultations that our minister and our ministry had leading up to this point. They were extensive. They lasted for over a year.
For instance on June 10, 1996, in Sarnia the Ministry of Labour mediation staff met with Bayer chemical and local building trade unions. July 1996 to January 1997 in Toronto, the ministry continually met with the petrochemical companies, building trade unions and union construction contractors. April 4, 1997 in Toronto, the deputy minister meets with unionized construction contractors. April through June, parties continued with their discussions, keeping the minister involved with how those discussions were going.
June 9, 1997, Ministry of Labour mediation services convened a consultation session with labour and management. January 26, 1998, minister and staff meet with the provincial building trades council. February 9, 1998, Paul Gardner, then director of mediation services at the Ministry of Labour, held consultation sessions with the building trades and contractors. March through April, minister and staff hold face-to-face meetings with building trades and contractors. May 21, 1998, deputy minister meets with a delegation from building trade unions and the contractors.
1900
There has been a large number of consultations on the issues that are contained in this bill. More specifically, I must tell you, as I have indicated before, in July 1997 there was a final proposal made to the Minister of Labour regarding certain labour relations matters in the construction industry from the labour representatives of the industry committee, and in that document those labour representatives - I believe all of the representatives from the building trades council, the plumbers and pipefitters, the sheet metal workers, the warehousemen, the journeymen and apprentices in pipefitting, carpenters, plasterers, masons and it goes on - signed an agreement back in July 1997, after most of the consultations that the minister held, in support of project agreements.
I understand, politics being as they are, there is a need at this point in time, since they didn't actually at the end of the day hammer out agreements with the subcontractors and general contractors on several other issues, that at the end of the day, if you don't get 100% of what you want and there are some other things you may take exception with, you would then go back and say, "No, we are not in favour of that," but indeed the proposal submitted to the Minister of Labour appears to say something else.
With regard to project agreements, if someone is at home and not really understanding - I know Mr Boushy and Mr Beaubien from the Sarnia area know very well about project agreements - the purpose here is simply that in an area of the province where a significant economic project may be undertaken, the local unions can get together with the building proponent and hammer out a separate agreement, separate from the province-wide agreement, and that agreement would set new terms and conditions, perhaps on wages. It would allow for a no-strike/no-lockout clause so there could be confidence that project would start and end and the project would come to fruition.
With the project agreements right now, if all those unions came together with a building proponent, if just one of those local unions said no to such an agreement, the whole thing would fall apart. What we're saying is no, as long as 60% of those unions, for instance in Sarnia, can agree with the proponent on a separate project agreement outside the province-wide agreement, that project and all of that economic development should go ahead. This sets the framework. It doesn't impose anything except that it sets up a framework that unions can enter into with building proponents to build all kinds of projects. As the minister has said, over $5 billion in investment in the petrochemical industry alone is just waiting to happen in Ontario, and we need a shot at that and this helps us. Those people making those investments have said, "Yes, that's going to help us." I think some of the unions out Sarnia way know that it's going to help and are supportive of these project agreements.
Not only does that help these construction workers in those jobs in Sarnia, but after these plants are built it provides thousands of jobs for Ontarians for years and years to come. The $5 billion is only a number of investment that's available in the petrochemical industry. There are billions of dollars of investment just waiting out there that perhaps can also go forward once we have project agreements in place.
I have talked briefly about some of the consultations that have taken place. I have talked about the project agreements themselves. The minister read some quotes from some groups. I would like to read one from the Independent Contractors' Group:
"I am writing to you on behalf of the Independent Contractors' Group (ICG). The ICG is an organization of open shop and unionized construction employers who work to ensure the tendering process in public sector contracts is open to all to bid and perform work.
"We would like to compliment you and your government for the introduction of Bill 31. The amendments to section 126 of the Labour Relations Act dealing with the definition of an employer will restore fairness to the public sector bidding process. Once passed these amendments will allow open bidding on taxpayer-funded projects regardless of employee affiliation within a company.
"Faced with a decision of listening to the rhetoric of the international union leadership or supporting the principles of openness and fairness as proposed by Bill 31, we would urge you to stay the course and continue to support freedom of choice."
Again, that's from the Independent Contractors' Group representing both open shop and unionized contractors in the province.
There were some other people out there who supported Bill 31. The Timmins Daily Press - I know the member opposite talks about Timmins quite a bit - and the title of this was "Ontario Open for Business." The Timmins Daily Press said, "We would applaud the decision of the Progressive Conservatives to balance the rights of business with those of labour to ensure the province will attract more business and more jobs."
The Toronto Sun: "The legislation also addresses restrictive rules that have handcuffed the petrochemical industry, especially in Lambton-Sarnia, which is losing new plants and expansions to the Texas Gulf Coast and to Alberta." We don't want that to continue to happen.
Finally, the Windsor Star says, "Under the proposed legislation, the board must recognize the majority outcome, but still order a new vote if it believes the vote was unduly influenced." Of course, this is referring to the automatic certification provisions which we are addressing in the bill. The Windsor Star also supports that.
There are other newspaper articles that I've quoted from during debate on this bill in the past. One of those, for instance, is from the Sarnia area, which congratulates Mr Boushy and Mr Beaubien for their work in this area. They're happy because they also said Ontario is open for business and that we'll see a lot of jobs in the Sarnia area in the very near future.
In the time since this bill was introduced, there have been some myths and realities. We seem on this side of the House to always have to put out papers called Myths and Realities. We've done that on a variety of issues. You may have seen some of these papers we've put out in the past. I won't go into those other issues at this point in time, knowing the significance and importance of tonight's debate, but with regard to Bill 31, the Economic Development and Workplace Democracy Act, I'd like to address some of these myths and realities.
Myth number 1: that project agreements take away unions' right to strike. The reality is that unions negotiate all the terms and conditions of any project agreement, including no strike/no lockout provisions. Again, as I said earlier, 60% of the unions that are going to work on a project need to agree before that project agreement goes forward.
Another myth is that project agreements force unions to cut wages. Project agreements can only be entered into with 60% of the unions' approval and do not require any adjustment to the wages.
Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): And what do the unions who are involved think about this? They are all against it.
The Deputy Speaker: Member for Algoma.
Mr Maves: Another myth is that construction unions never agreed to project agreements. As I had mentioned earlier, construction unions and employers have agreed in principle on project agreements for almost a year, and in the proposal to the minister put forward by the labour representatives of the industry committee they support project agreements.
Another myth is that there have been no meaningful discussions on the construction provisions of the bill. I addressed that in my opening comments.
Another myth that has cropped up is that employees of non-construction employers can't be unionized. The reality is that no employees will be denied collective bargaining rights. These employers are subject to the same rules as all other employers outside the construction industry.
Continuing along, there are a few more myths that have been out there.
Repeal of the OLRB's automatic certification or non-certification powers invites employer and union misconduct: The bill provides, and this is very important, that the labour board may do anything to ensure a fair secret-ballot vote reflecting the true wishes of employees and making sure that takes place. This is important. You must realize that if anything untoward happens, from either the union doing the organization or an employer whose workplace is facing certification, the OLRB can do any number of things. This bill maybe even opens it up a bit further with the clause saying that they can do anything to ensure that a fair representation vote is taken.
That's the reality that has cropped up: this whole menu of remedies the OLRB can take in a situation where an employer in a certification process may be acting in an improper way. The public needs to know that this large list of remedies is still available, still there, and still will be, I would venture to guess, used quite a bit by the OLRB.
Those are some of the myths out there. It's always helpful to address those and clear them up, as the member on my left here says - not really on my left, but technically on my left.
I want to leave some time. I know the gentlemen from the Sarnia area, Mr Boushy and Mr Beaubien, have worked so hard on this bill on behalf of their constituents. I think the constituents in their communities are going to be among the happiest folks in Ontario when the bill passes because they're going to see such a large amount of development occur in that area of the province.
This government is all about jobs, the 370,000 that have been created in the last two and a half years that we've been in office, and we think that record is going to continue, especially as this bill is implemented. I think Mr Boushy and Mr Beaubien should be congratulated on their role. Thank you very much for the time on this bill.
1910
Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): It certainly is a pleasure for me to rise in the House tonight to speak on Bill 31 for the amount of time I have left. Let me start by saying that in my riding of Lambton this bill will mean jobs for the construction industry, jobs so desperately needed. I will explain why they are so desperately needed.
We have not been able to compete in the Sarnia-Lambton area due to the uncompetitive construction costs and we have lost out on many projects. This bill allows for more flexibility, in that projects can be negotiated locally. These changes will help to address some of the problems and will benefit all the residents of Lambton.
I'm fair enough and wise enough to realize that some union members in the Sarnia-Lambton area may not be happy with the bill. I realize that. However, show me a piece of legislation, member for Algoma, that you introduced in this House when you were in power where 100% of the population supported you.
This legislation also addresses restrictive rules that have handcuffed the petrochemical industry, especially in Lambton, which is losing new plants and expansions to the Gulf Coast states and Alberta.
Let me take you back 10 years in Sarnia-Lambton, where there was an awful lot of downsizing and plant closings. Some 7,000 highly paid jobs were lost. The demographics of Sarnia-Lambton have changed substantially in the past 10 years.
I ask the member for Algoma and the member for Cochrane South, where were you between 1990 and 1995 when the area was suffering economically? Where were you? What did you give us? You gave us the social contract. I ask the individuals in the crowd, how much do you like that social contract? How much debate did we have on it? Was it sent for public hearings? Tell me. Of course the answer is no.
Let me go to a document provided to me by one of the union members in Sarnia-Lambton. The title of the document is The Building Trades' Response to Questions on Bill 31.
The second question: "Don't you support economic development?" "Of course, we do. Real economic development means jobs with fair wages and benefits. What Bill 31 offers is lower-paying jobs that benefit large corporations."
Let me tell you, when I talked to the industries, the construction associations and the unions in the area, there is no doubt that the large corporations would have loved to have had double-breasting in the three-year-and-out programs. They didn't get it. Why? Because we care about the labour force. That's why we put forth project agreements, so people can negotiate locally.
Let's go on to the second question: "Aren't we losing jobs to the Texas Gulf due to uncompetitive construction costs, to remain competitive on large industrial projects?" This is a study by KPMG called The Competitive Alternative. The opposition always likes to refer to KPMG. I guess they are a fairly well-known consulting firm in North America, so it's nice to see that the other side of the equation is also using KPMG.
It says: "According to the study, Canada has the best construction costs, the best business costs and its electricity rates are 25% lower than US rates. Canada holds a competitive advantage over the US as long as our dollar does not rise above 83 cents," and, as we all know, our dollar right now is running about 67 cents.
If that is the case, why is it that the area of Sarnia-Lambton in the past 10 years has experienced unemployment rates of 16%, 17%, almost 20%? If that is acceptable to the member for Cochrane North, it is not acceptable to the member for Lambton. Furthermore, when we talk about low-paying jobs and cutting rates, just remember that with project agreements the unions and the corporation will negotiate the rates.
Let me give you some information. As a member of the Sarnia Lambton Council for Economic Renewal, this information may be one year old, but it's fairly close. The Sarnia labour rate is $34.81. The Gulf Coast rate is $23.50. According to my basic mathematics, that is 48.1% higher in Sarnia-Lambton than it is on the Gulf Coast. We do a lot of good things in Ontario. Engineering is 20% to 30% lower than it is in the States. Major equipment purchases are 24% lower. Bulk material purchases are 27% lower. When we look at the overall costs of labour, it's 37.5% higher. When we look at the overall picture, we are 8% above the Gulf Coast states and Alberta.
In my meetings with the unions, the construction association, I am not one to push for decreases in pay. I don't believe in it. However, if somebody wants to negotiate that, it's up to them. But I pointed to both sides of the equation, that there is a different way to get to the bottom line, such as uniform hours of work per week, overtime, and it goes on and on. There are a lot of ways that we can reach the bottom line of 8% through the project agreements.
Let me assure you that we can do that in Sarnia-Lambton. There is no doubt that some of the business agents and some of the union members are not very happy with Bill 31, but let me tell you that I also got calls from people who are very supportive of the bill.
Another issue: This is in the paper entitled The Building Trades' Response to Questions on Bill 31. It has the question: "What is wrong with negotiating `project agreements' outside of provincial agreements?" It says in response: "Bill 31 amends the definition of collective agreement to exclude project agreements. The grievance arbitration provisions of the labour act require there to be a collective agreement in place. Therefore, there is no process for dealing with a violation of a project agreement. This has serious implications for stable labour relations."
I strongly suggest that the Ontario Labour Relations Board's human rights conditions still apply to project agreements. If you're trying to throw this in the water for somebody to bite on it, people are a little smarter than that. They don't buy that, because they know that the labour relations board still applies to the project agreements.
Then in the third paragraph it says, "The one union, one vote does not consider the amount of work each trade will perform on the project; the number of workers involved from each trade; or the level to which each trade's provincial agreement is impacted by the project agreement."
Local 663 in Sarnia-Lambton has roughly 1,100 members and the electrical workers - I don't know - 350 to 400 members. There is no doubt that Local 663 is the largest local in Sarnia-Lambton, no doubt about it. However, just a year ago we had a situation where 10 out of the 12 unions agreed to an agreement, but because we had two unions, namely Local 663 and the electrical union, that did not want to abide by the agreement, the agreement was kiboshed. Is that fair?
When we look at the economic impact it has on the people in the Sarnia-Lambton area, not only the union workers but the community as a whole, communities are getting smaller because the petrochemical industry is getting smaller. The reality is that we are losing the plants to the Gulf Coast states and Alberta. That is the reality.
Interjection.
Mr Beaubien: I invite you to come and talk to some of our constituents in Sarnia-Lambton and see how they react to Bill 31. Come on down. It's only a three-and-a-half-hour drive. It's a nice area to visit during the months you're going to have off, July and August, so come on down.
Let's keep in mind that Bill 31 will not satisfy everyone in Sarnia-Lambton. It is a given. There is no doubt about it. I realize this. The minister realizes that. The member for Niagara Falls realizes that. The member for Sarnia realizes that. However, the community as a whole can now start to look at a bright future, a bright future not only for the union workers. When I look at the union workers in the locals in Sarnia, they're not 20 and 30; they're mainly 40 and 50. That gives you a reason why they're that age. Then we can look at a bright future for our kids, who will be the backbone of this province in the future.
1920
Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I'm pleased to participate tonight in one sense, in that we at least have the opportunity to speak, but it's probably for the last time, unfortunately. I say it's unfortunate because I think down the road there was the potential for an agreement on all sides, all parties. I saw the documentation and proposals that were made. The member for Niagara Falls talked about an agreement. It wasn't an agreement at all. On July 18 the provincial trades council put forward a particular proposal for consideration, and some of that would have addressed the problems and the reactions and the worries now. Some of the discussions that took place were around the specifics of the proposal. A number of issues that came in with this bill were never on the table.
Therefore, it seems to me that one way to counter that, in what is called the democratic process, is for the government of the day to put forward their proposal in reaction, but then at least employ hearings, "Here's what we heard, here's what we thought, here's what we think could work, here's why." Have hearings. Let the people speak.
One of the most important steps in the so-called legislative, democratic process - and I say this to all members. I say this to the member for Lambton because I know he's worked very hard and I think he believes in what he is saying. I believe that step is the most important one. Any time any government of any stripe doesn't have hearings, I say to the people of Ontario, beware, because they do not have the confidence to put their program before the people and listen to what they say, listen to the reaction. What an arrogant position it is, and how many times have we seen that?
We have two bills here in the House tonight, two extremely important bills. We're going to speak on the other one that's called election financing, a way to buy votes and make sure that the government of the day, with their majority, will be in a favoured position - not very democratic. No hearings either. That will determine how elections are done. It's the single time, if you don't like the government, in which you might place your vote for an alternative, and what's happening? You've got the government of the day proposing a favoured position for themselves because of their connections with big business. That's the way it works. It's unfortunate.
The minister said in his speech tonight, "The well-paying jobs begin once the construction project is finished." I don't know if that was a slip of the tongue or if he meant to say that the well-paying jobs in the construction projects will continue as well and perhaps beyond, once the facility is completed. But he didn't say that. He said, "The well-paying jobs begin once the construction project is finished."
Talking about competitive construction prices, the member for Lambton talked about this and the minister talked about this, and what they had to say was all the factors that contribute to being competitive. They say construction costs in Ontario are higher. That probably varies from place to place. He asked the question, "Why was it in the 1980s or the early 1990s that not much happened in Sarnia?" I don't know, but one reason is probably because of the high interest rates that were there at the time. The rejigging of some of the American petrochemical firms that were replacing some of the Canadian installations and going south, going to Asia or wherever else they were going, to the Gulf states. Then he said, "The 8% factor; we're 8% higher in Canada than others."
I suggest to you that there are other factors. Alberta doesn't have the access to markets. Why do you think there's interest now in the petrochemical area? Because of low interest rates, because of an educated, highly skilled workforce, because of proximity to Toronto, to Detroit, to Chicago, to the Midwest. Those factors weren't mentioned by the members on the government side. Of course, the people in the petrochemical areas are not stupid. Their job is to look at where they should best locate. They want to locate in certain parts of Ontario and of course they want to look for the most profitable arrangement. Understandable. That's the way business works.
But we also have an issue which is called fairness, so when I hear and read the titles of these bills - frankly sometimes I want to vomit because they all seem to suggest the reverse: "the democratic workplace."
On a project agreement you're going to have 60% of whatever unions are there, which was not, by the way, the proposal from the trades council. Let's say there are 10 unions and let's say that three of the unions really have 60% of the work and six of the smaller unions disagree. Do the three larger ones have to go along with it? Yes, they would under this bill. Is that democratic? There's no consideration of weighting of the extent to which any one particular union, or two or three, may have a majority of the work and therefore a majority of the workers. When I hear the minister say, "The well-paid jobs begin once the construction project is finished," that is a worry. That is a worry on the part of many members of the trades.
The member for Niagara Falls also referred to the independent contractors. I had a call from a representative of the independent contractors who said they had some major problems with this. They were worried about this. Also, I understand there was a major general contractor who was trying to speak with the minister, along with a representative from the trades council. It didn't materialize. The minister didn't want to talk to them. He still doesn't want to listen. He's not going to have hearings either, because he's right. He feels he is right, so they'll ram this through and, like many other bills, ladies and gentlemen, that have come back - the property tax bill came back four times because they didn't want to listen. It came back four times because the people who have to implement the situation couldn't make it work, and so we have a problem.
I really don't understand and I would like to hear from the minister. I asked him a question earlier in the week. I asked him why he wouldn't have hearings. If he has the guts to not have hearings, at least have the guts to explain why you do not want to have hearings. It could have been a short period of time. I offered an alternative to you early in the process that might have been acceptable, and that was to take the project agreement section and isolate it, split it off and go to your consultations, bring all the parties together. I would bet you would be far closer than where you are today, if not in full agreement, with having made that kind of arrangement, and then bring it back. I'm sure, if there was agreement, you would have had all sides of the House applauding you. That's called leadership. You gave up too early in the process because you want to move it so quickly. What's the big hurry? We've got some time. We have some time.
Hon Mr Flaherty: Jobs.
Mr Patten: Jobs for sure.
Hon Mr Flaherty: Thousands of jobs.
Mr Patten: Jobs for sure. The minister says "Jobs."
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
Mr Patten: Jobs at any price. It seems to me that every time there is a labour bill - maybe not every time but most times there's a labour bill, what happens? There's an acknowledgement about the uniqueness of the construction sector, the construction/building sector. The same thing happened with the WCB, that particular bill. There are some difficulties. We've got an average size of companies of about seven members up to ones with many more employees. Historically, there's always been an understanding of the sensitivity in the construction area. That's why in 1975 Bill Davis brought in some province-wide negotiations that seemed to work well.
1930
When you talk about changing the role of the labour boards, that this is more democratic, I would like to know who, in operating any organization, any business, any group whatever that had a 99.5% success rate - in other words, and I'll use the statistics from the government side, there were 4,547 applications over a four-year period; 22 of them were challenged by the labour board. That represents less than one half of 1%. That means that 4,400 and whatever it is were successful. It may not be perfect, because there's half a per cent. You tell me what doesn't work. I don't know any business that considers, "If we're off maybe a percentage on this or a percentage on this on sales, revenue, cost or whatever it is, that's going to bring down the company," unless they are really in bad condition to begin with.
I have to finish here because I have three colleagues - one from Ottawa West, one from Lawrence and one from Prescott-Russell - who want to speak on this bill.
There are hundreds of letters that I've received, and I know the minister has as well, but I want him to know that the people he was negotiating with who represent about 50 trades throughout the province feel denied, feel that somehow they were ignored; the issues that have been raised and thrown in, specifically on the non-construction companies, the definition of that, and of course the whole issue of certification, which will cause some discomfort in a fragile sector.
I believe we'll be back in the House in the not-too-distant future to take a closer look at what doesn't work. You can legislate what you want, but you cannot legislate a cooperative attitude in place of negotiating a project or a particular agreement. That's where the fragility has been wounded. That's why people feel they have been denied the process, and when you speak on their behalf, the letters say to you, Minister, that they do not want you to do that. You are misrepresenting their views, and if you want at any time to open up the conversation, you can do that and they are prepared to discuss this. It's a shame that you did not have hearings. I think you will pay the price for this because of the fragility of the sector.
I'll stand down now and allow my colleagues to share my time.
Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I'm glad to speak on this bill. I'd like to share some of my views in this regard in that I think it's important to recognize that over the last number of years in this province we have had a relative period of calm with respect to labour relations. Now, given the current situation with the construction trades, that isn't the case. I think this bill will only inflame that situation or make it worse and I don't understand for the life of me why the government would want to change that good climate, one that's positive and attracts investment, to one that is sour, which I might add would turn away investment. What good is this? What good is it if it's going to be counterproductive? It will have the opposite effect.
If I were a corporation looking at a place to invest, I would be concerned about the climate that is fostered by this bill. This is not to suggest that people aren't going to work in a spirit of cooperation if they can, and certainly they tried to do so with the minister and with this government. The contractors and unions have been trying to solve this problem for some time. I think the minister should have adopted and brought right into the legislation the agreement that had almost been signed back in December 1997, which failed because of some disagreements among some of the parties to the agreement. It failed, no doubt, but why didn't the minister just bring it forward? Why didn't the minister make it part of the legislation, which would have been adopted at that point?
I think you could have optioned out of or allowed for projects valued at less than $15 million. This is what the agreement called for. Generally, on the part of most of the parties partaking in that set of negotiations, there was agreement on that basic point, that projects valued at less than $15 million would have been exempted from these province-wide agreements. That certainly would have helped the small contractor. There's no doubt about that. That's what it was intended to do. Why did you have to take this step, which goes a lot further than that?
It now makes it virtually impossible not to come to the view that what this is all about is an effort on the part of the government to drive wages down in the construction industry. This is the thin edge of the wedge and ultimately it will lead to lower wages. Of course that may create some jobs in the short term and of course there will be people who will look to invest. I have no doubt about that. But is that what we want in this province: lower-wage jobs? Do we want to compete with Georgia? I suppose the government should then stand up and say: "That's what we're doing. We're creating an environment just like they have in the southeastern United States and other low-wage jurisdictions."
Construction jobs are high-paying jobs. They are high-skill jobs. They're difficult jobs, many of them, and they're dangerous jobs. I think this will also lead to a very unsafe kind of workplace because you're driving down wages. I see in the future a lessening of the effort that's made on safety in the workplace, because that too drives up costs. Everything does, by the way. At some point employers will look at all of these aspects and say, "We've got to make things more competitive, so therefore we'll make things less expensive." We won't have the kind of workplace safety that we have built up over the last number of decades.
Ontario wasn't always like that 25, 30, 40 years ago. It was dangerous to work in construction. Let's not forget that. You're driving wages down. You're going to get to the point where safety is no longer an issue of concern for anyone, like an employer. It costs money to encourage a climate where safety is uppermost in the workplace, where it has the kind of placing that it does now, the importance that is has now. So wages will be driven down. That's the net effect of what you're doing here.
I want to refer to the study that KPMG did which was referred to by my colleague the member for Lambton. It was titled The Competitive Alternative. He twisted and turned this. Ultimately it suggested that when they looked at the impact of land purchase, construction, labour, electricity, debt servicing and taxation, Canada leads the world in competitiveness. It included construction costs. All of those things were considered.
1940
My friend was pointing to this study and suggesting that there were other factors. So why didn't Sarnia get the kind of jobs it was looking for 10 years ago? There were structural changes in the economy. Interest rates were at an all-time high. Inflation was the enemy. It was the Bank of Canada that drove interest rates higher than was justified for internal rates of return for projects like this, which are mammoth projects, to make it possible for people to invest, for companies to invest in Canada and, for that matter, in other jurisdictions which had high-interest-rate policies. Remember, the G-7 countries had determined that inflation was the enemy, so interest rates made it virtually undesirable to have an investment policy in any of the G-7 countries, and there was very little investment going on at the time.
It happened that the petrochemical industry - you have to be able to justify these projects. The internal rates of return simply could not justify those projects because interest rates, carrying costs, the cost of debt financing were too high. So when you look at all the various costs, that was probably the biggest reason and, I might say, the only reason why investment was not taking place in the petrochemical industry in the Sarnia area.
Today, that is no longer the case. The climate has changed drastically. So don't use the excuse that construction costs are uncompetitive. They're not. By and large, we are competitive and, by and large, the environment is one where our construction workers, by the way, are some of the most effective and efficient in the world. That's what you're losing sight of here, that we do have a climate where investment has taken place. In fact, the economy has turned around largely because of interest rates being lowered. All the other factors have been virtually the same.
Again, I go back to what I said earlier: You're going to create a very negative climate. You're going to create labour unrest in the province as a result of your fundamental changes here, at a time when we don't need it, at a time when the economy has been recovering, at a time when we're getting job creation in spite of your stupid policies over there. At the end of the day you're losing sight of that. It's important for people to recognize that. And they will, by the way, begin to recognize just what it's all about and how it all adds up. I think people who are viewing this understand that you really haven't thought this thing through. If you did, then you should be honest about it and you should put it forward that you are driving wages further down and that this bill is nothing more than that.
Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): I'm following the remarks by my colleagues from Ottawa Centre and Lawrence with respect to Bill 31. I too have such tremendous concerns with respect to this bill. The remarks by my colleagues have outlined many of the concerns I have, but I do want to focus a little bit on process, a little bit on what the bill is attempting to do, and talk perhaps a little bit on the process of good government.
This bill shows the heavy hand of the Harris government once again interceding in the marketplace to tilt the playing field. It's amazing to hear this coming from a government that campaigned just three short years ago on getting government out of your face, on reducing red tape and getting government out of interference in the marketplace. But here they're coming in with this bill, which they have entitled, in their typical Orwellian Newspeak, the Economic Development and Workplace Democracy Act.
In terms of economic development, I thought the member for Lawrence hit it bang on. It really has to do with trying to drive down labour costs in the construction industry. Why would the government want to do this? Originally, the government said it was consulting with the construction trades industry, both the employers and the unions, to try and facilitate how these arrangements can be put into place to make our economy work more effectively and more efficiently. Indeed, the unions were seduced into participating in this. What has happened? The government has tabled a bill that the unions find anathema, but the employers like it. Instead of being up front and honest and taking this bill out to public hearings, to try and find a middle ground, to try to improve the workings of our economy by taking the criticism that this bill so richly deserves, by trying to strike a balance, it's not interested. They're not interested in listening.
This is the Mike Harris government. The Mike Harris government does not like to listen. The Mike Harris government loves to ram things through. Here we are on our fourth day of debate. This bill was introduced on June 4, and we've had three hours of debate on June 11, three hours on June 15 and three hours on June 16. By rights we should be heading off to committee whereby any taxpayer across this province would be able to come forward. Certainly we would expect to hear from the building trades industry to find out what is good about it and what are the awkward parts. The other players in the field, the unions, the men and women who actually do the work, who actually build these projects, are we going to hear from them? No. The government is not interested in hearing from them. Why? Because it doesn't care. It doesn't want to hear, and it's wrong.
This is a controversial bill. It takes two to build out there in the construction trade industry, and what do we have instead? Those people who actually sweat out their guts to build these things, take their lives in the hands in the workplace and put these projects together, after which we say "It's a marvellous job," they are being deprived of their legitimate voice in participating in this process. What are they going to be doing? I quote here from the business manager of the Ontario Pipe Trades Council: "A lawful protest, including information lines, will likely spread across Ontario unless the government listens. Workers will not stand by and watch our basic democratic rights be taken away without a fight."
This is not providing for a stable environment from which our economy can grow. We have to remember that in Ontario over 97% of all labour negotiations end up being peacefully settled at the table. Why, then, would the government step in and tilt the balance? Well, we know quite clearly it wishes to provide an economic advantage to the employer here, not because there's a crying need to balance in terms of competitiveness. We heard from both the member for Lawrence and the member for Ottawa Centre that the Peat Marwick KPMG study showed that our economic advantage was there and that we were certainly competitive in terms of costs. But no, the government has an agenda. It is an anti-employee agenda, an anti-union-rights agenda, and it's just carrying forward.
I'm beginning to sound like a member of the third party here, but I'm only speaking to what is before us here in terms of trying to deal with an important part of our economy, the construction economy, and how we try to facilitate having a balanced approach to both employer and employee relations. This government is just hell-bent on tilting the playing field.
Another aspect my colleague from Ottawa Centre touched upon was the amendments to the Labour Relations Act, amendments to the Employment Standards Act and amendments to the Occupational Health and Safety Act. I heard the minister stand up and say, "Every certification should be by a majority vote." But what happens when the employer intimidates to the point where no vote will be deemed fair?
The minister knows that every time there is an unfairly held vote, the labour board holds a hearing. There is due process, Minister, and you know this. The labour board doesn't walk in and say, "Therefore there shall be certification." It holds a hearing. The employer comes forward and gives evidence and the employee representation comes forward, likely under the union, and gives evidence. The board, through a fair process that adheres to the principles of natural justice, hears the evidence and makes a determination.
Minister, are you paying attention here? Of 4,547 applications, only 22 were certified, because the labour board said the well was poisoned. It was impossible to hold a fair vote. What happens when it's impossible to hold a fair vote? You say, "Go back and do it again," when it's impossible to hold a fair vote. Quite simply, it's impossible to hold a fair vote when the employer has intimidated by either saying, "I'll close down that business" or "I'll fire you, you and you." The minister can't say it's otherwise. The facts are there. That's part of the process.
The minister knows it wasn't our party's government that brought in that legislation. It wasn't the New Democratic Party, when they held power, that brought in that legislation. It was his party, the Progressive Conservative Party, that brought in this legislation, because there was such rampant, flagrant abuse. Yet this government wants to take it away, wants to open up the doors. It says: "If there has been a violation in the process whereby a fair vote cannot be held, we'll have it anyway. What the heck, second time lucky." No. That's a violation of the due process of freedom of association, of allowing people to make legitimate, fairminded choices about their future. That's what it's about.
Why can't you allow the process to work properly and fairly? What does the government have that it's so scared of allowing the Ontario Labour Relations Board, after conducting a hearing and hearing both sides in the process, to make a decision? Out of 4,547 certification applications, only 22 were ordered certified because it found that the vote the first time was spoiled, was poisoned, because there was undue, flagrant, obvious violation of due process.
It is indefensible to sit there and say, "Oh, therefore we must change this bill." I'm sorry, Minister. I think you've heard from all of us here. You're venturing into an area - the construction trades - where one has to look very carefully at the impact of actions. When one tilts the playing field like this and then does not allow for any public hearings, does not allow for any due process - ah, but I forget, it's the Harris government we're dealing with; the Harris government that brought in Bill 26, the bully bill that tried to ram this thing through; the Harris government that has brought in bill after bill after bill and says: "We have the God-given right to govern. We had an election in 1995. We can dispense with public hearings. We don't need to hear from the taxpayers. We don't need to hear from the people who know better than us how the system works, because we're right."
All I can say is that at the end of the day it is the people who are right, and the people won't tolerate unfair practices such as are envisaged in this bill.
1950
M. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott et Russell) : C'est avec plaisir que je prends la parole sur ce projet de loi 31, Loi visant à promouvoir le développement économique et à créer des emplois dans l'industrie de la construction, favorisant la démocratie en milieu de travail et apportant d'autres modifications aux lois ayant trait au travail et à l'emploi.
Le projet de loi aura certainement un impact sur les lois déjà en vigueur, telles que le projet de loi 49, qui se lit comme suit : «Loi visant à améliorer la Loi sur les normes d'emploi» et le projet de loi 7, «Loi visant à rétablir l'équilibre et la stabilité dans les relations de travail et à promouvoir la prospérité économique...» ce projet de loi sur lequel je travaille depuis plus de deux ans et demi, sur la mobilité des travailleurs et «contracteurs» en Ontario et du Québec. Je croyais voir beaucoup plus dans ce projet de loi qui aurait au moins favorisé les travailleurs de la construction et les entrepreneurs de l'Ontario. Certes, comme tout projet de loi, ce projet comprend des avantages et des désavantages.
L'avantage, c'est que le gouvernement réalise qu'il y a en Ontario un domaine que l'on appelle la construction. La construction est le rouage de l'économie. Malheureusement, l'industrie de la construction a fait un pas en arrière durant sept mois, qui étaient entre juillet 1997 et janvier 1998, où l'on a perdu plus de 19 000 emplois.
Le désavantage, c'est la venue du projet de loi 31, qui causera non seulement des complications, mais plutôt un chaos total qui créera en retour une instabilité dans le domaine de la construction. Dieu sait que nous n'avons certainement pas besoin d'augmenter le degré de complexité dans le domaine de la construction, et il semble évident que le projet de loi 31 favorise et avantage certains groupes d'intérêts spéciaux. Notons comme exemple Wal-Mart, TD Bank, Ellis-Don, pour n'en nommer que quelques-uns, sans oublier que l'introduction même de ce projet de loi 31 est en opposition totale aux principes de la démocratie.
En effet, la société n'a rien à gagner en implantant un projet de loi qui va permettre aux employeurs de congédier, menacer et intimider des employés pour la simple raison qu'ils voteront contre l'union. La loi 31 est encore un autre exemple typique où le gouvernement en place ne se préoccupe aucunement des besoins, des désirs et même de la vie des Ontariens. Ce n'est certainement pas la première fois où le gouvernement va réglementer ou légiférer dans un domaine sans connaître ou évaluer les conséquences à long terme de leurs actes.
La liberté de choix d'adhérer ou non à un syndicat est un privilège qui devrait provenir d'une décision personnelle prise par l'employé lui-même et non par l'imposition d'une loi.
Le 1er juin dernier, j'ai eu l'occasion de faire partie d'une audience publique qui a eu lieu à Ottawa sur le domaine de la construction. Ayant entendu divers groupes provenant de l'Ontario et du Québec, permettez-moi de vous dire qu'il est vrai que certains règlements doivent être établis dans le domaine de la construction - toutefois, des règlements équitables pour tous et non des règlements qui viennent brimer les droits des Ontariens.
Lorsque le gouvernement légifère ou réglemente un domaine, il faut toujours garder l'idée que la liberté de choix est un principe fondamental de la société démocratique canadienne. Pourquoi n'avons-nous pas accepté de tenir des audiences publiques afin d'être à l'écoute des experts ? Nous avons décidé de pousser d'avant et d'essayer de passer la troisième lecture le plus tôt possible, afin de ne pas être à l'écoute des experts dans le domaine de la construction. Il est évident que si nous voulons s'ingérer ou légiférer dans le domaine de la construction, il serait peut-être important de tâter le pouls de la population ouvrière sur cette question. Mais encore une fois, l'opinion des gens, selon le gouvernement actuel, n'est certainement pas un facteur important.
Le gouvernement a à maintes reprises fait allusion dans la déclaration du 4 juin dernier que le projet de loi 31 favoriserait la compétitivité, le développement économique et les relations ouvrières dans les différents domaines de la construction. Ce gouvernement a aussi déclaré que les Ontariens devraient avoir confiance dans les lois de l'Ontario. Est-ce que nous avons confiance lorsqu'on essaye de passer un projet de loi à la vitesse sans écouter ou être à l'écoute des gens qui se connaissent dans le domaine ?
Comment est-ce que le gouvernement peut aujourd'hui croire qu'en limitant les droits des travailleurs d'adhérer ou non à un syndicat, en brimant les droits fondamentaux des travailleurs, on atteint les objectifs de la compétitivité et du développement économique ?
Le 4 juin dernier, le gouvernement faisait également allusion que le projet de loi 31 favorisait la création d'emplois. Pouvez-vous garantir aux Ontariens ce soir que ce projet de loi favorisera les «contracteurs», les travailleurs et les investisseurs de l'Ontario et non les entrepreneurs, les travailleurs et les investisseurs hors province ?
De plus, le projet de loi 31 est, selon votre gouvernement, un véhicule qui favorisera l'efficience, le flexibilité et une meilleure opportunité pour les travailleurs ontariens. Permettez-moi de vous dire que le domaine de la construction en Ontario est un domaine déjà très flexible et je dirais même trop flexible. Parlez-en aux «contracteurs», aux entrepreneurs et aux travailleurs qui, à tous les jours, essaient de traverser les ponts du Québec.
Je regardais dans les coupures des journaux aujourd'hui où l'on a référé que maintenant, dû au fait que ça prenait 100 %, un accord de tous les travailleurs, pour être capable de venir à une entente avec les employés afin d'être compétitif avec des entrepreneurs de l'extérieur ou des entrepreneurs non syndiqués - je voudrais vous dire qu'en Ontario nous avons eu des audiences tout récemment, en novembre 1997. Les employés n'étaient même pas au courant que nous sommes venus à une entente avec le syndicat pour leur dire que : «Vous allez travailler dorénavant à un salaire inférieur à ce que vous avez obtenu.»
Aujourd'hui on dit que ça va demander un accord de 60 % au lieu de 100 %. Le 100 % n'existait même pas. J'ai le rapport ici de M. Tremblay et son fils qui ont dû se rendre devant le bureau des relations du travail et défendre leur cause. Je crois que l'on doit protéger nos travailleurs ontariens, nos entrepreneurs ontariens, qui actuellement n'ont aucune sécurité pour travailler en Ontario, et ce projet de loi ne protégera certainement pas nos travailleurs de la construction de l'Ontario.
J'étais sous l'impression, depuis les deux ans et demi que nous parlons de la construction en Ontario, que nous étions pour inclure dans ce projet de loi la protection de la santé et de la sécurité de nos travailleurs. Nous avons complètement oublié de l'insérer ou de l'inscrire dans le projet de loi. Je disais la semaine dernière qu'en Ontario, dans le domaine de la construction, la Commission des accidents du travail a dû payer à des employés avec des adresses du Québec plus de 50 $ millions en compensation pour les accidents du travail. Est-ce que nous avons quelque chose dans ce projet de loi pour protéger nos travailleurs de la construction ? Absolument pas. C'est peut-être quelque chose pour protéger les entrepreneurs, mais nous avons complètement oublié la protection de nos travailleurs de la construction.
C'était un grand plaisir de pouvoir parler sur le projet de loi.
2000
Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): I just want to say at the outset that I'll be splitting my time with the members for Cochrane South and Algoma.
This evening is another one of those sad days for democracy. What this government is doing is killing democracy one cut at a time. It's death to democracy by a thousand cuts. Tonight they're ramming through another piece of controversial legislation as part of their anti-worker agenda, another time allocation motion to limit the debate that we have. We have a very short time to address our concerns about this bill. Two hours of debate on third reading is all we have, and the government's going to ram this through.
It's not a surprise from this government. It's their standard approach. Every time they introduce a bill, a little bit of debate and then the time allocation motion to shut it down. This is no different.
Our critic, the member for Hamilton Centre, David Christopherson, who so ably speaks to many labour bills in this House, was unable to be here this evening because he's having his nomination meeting, a nomination meeting in which he will be successful, I have no doubt, and will no doubt be successful in retaining his riding in a general election because he hopes to be the Minister of Labour in the next NDP government.
When he asked to have this bill this afternoon, the government wouldn't agree to it. They wouldn't accommodate him so that he could be here this afternoon to speak to the bill.
This is a government that rammed through its election finance reform legislation without consensus of the other parties - unprecedented here. They like to talk a lot about democracy, but that's the sort of democracy we get from them. That's what they mean about democracy.
They like to talk about workplace democracy as well. When they talk about that, well, we can just look at some of the other examples.
Bill 7 permits scabs to work in workplaces that have democratically voted to go on strike.
They have a Minister of Labour who voted on a private member's bill to eliminate the Rand formula. This isn't a Minister of Labour, he isn't a minister for labour; this is a minister against labour. That's what these guys are all about.
It gets worse. They don't even want to have any public hearings with respect to this bill, notwithstanding the fact that the member for Hamilton Mountain said, and this is a story from the Hamilton Spectator, "I'm not sure why we can't have some hearings this summer and wrap it up in the fall." You know who that was? Trevor Pettit, the member for Hamilton Mountain. That's what he said. I thought he was a member of the Progressive Conservative government. They don't even want to listen to their own backbenchers.
I've gotten a number of letters; I know many people have. This is from the Labourers' International Union of North America, the Windsor branch, Wally Dunn. He's the business manager there. Writing about this bill, he says:
"Local 625 is concerned because the workers involved in the construction industry were not consulted regarding this regressive piece of legislation.
"We are asking that you do everything in your power to ensure that Bill 31 does not proceed to third reading.
"We feel that this bill will do nothing but cause discord in the construction industry, which up to this point in time has enjoyed cooperation in the economic growth of our communities."
We're trying to do what we can to get public hearings on this bill, but so far we've been unsuccessful.
I've got another letter, from the Carpenters and Joiners, Local 494, Jack McDowell. He's the president and organizer with that local. He says:
"We respectfully request that this bill be the subject of public hearings across the province so as to give local contractors...as well as labour, crucial input so as to assist yourself," meaning the Minister of Labour, "in better understanding the damage this bill in its present form will do to the construction industry in Ontario. It would be a grave injustice to pass such legislation without consulting management and labour in the arena of public hearings."
Once again, the government doesn't want to listen to this letter and have public hearings. But it's no surprise.
Bill 31 is also known as the Wal-Mart bill. This is what I would call the most anti-worker, anti-labour, anti-union piece of legislation that this government has come up with in its agenda. They talk a good talk about how this is all about job creation, but that's not what it's about. This is all about kicking the stuffing out of unionized workers in the province of Ontario. That's what it's about.
Why is it they are doing that? Fifteen cases in the last four years have used the automatic certification provisions of the Ontario Labour Relations Act to put in place unions where the vote was actually against the union by the workers. It was against the union for a number of reasons, and I'm going to get into that.
One case specifically caused the government to bring forth this legislation, and that was the case of the Wal-Mart store at 1950 Lauzon Road, which just so happens to be in my riding of Windsor-Riverside. That was a case where the unionizing vote results were that the employees at the store actually didn't vote, a majority of them, for the union. The government points to the results of that vote as justification to bring in this regressive piece of legislation.
But the Ontario Labour Relations Board rejected those results, and this is why: They found that the employer violated section 70 of the act. They found that the employer broke the law. They intimidated the workers to such an extent in this case that to have another vote would not lead to a fair result. They had so poisoned the workplace environment that they couldn't have another vote that would be considered fair. How did they do that? The employees asked, "Will the store close if we vote for the union?" and the employer wouldn't answer the question. They wouldn't give them a straight answer. That's why the board certified the union in that case.
In their decision, they said, "This case is a classic example of a situation in which the conduct of the employer changes the question in the minds of the employees at the vote from one of union representation to one of: `Do you want to retain your employment? Yes or no.'"
You can imagine that in a case where employees are faced with a situation like that, they're going to vote to save their jobs or to keep their jobs. It wouldn't be surprising, in a case where an employer was able to intimidate employees to the extent that they did in the Wal-Mart case, that it would lead to the results that it did.
Wal-Mart wasn't happy with those results and they appealed to the Divisional Court and to the Supreme Court. They lost at both levels. This is the extent to which this employer will go to prevent the union from being established in its workplace.
2010
It has been mentioned already here tonight that the legislation that assisted the employees in the Wal-Mart store in Windsor in having a union certified there wasn't legislation that the New Democratic government brought into place, even though there were many pieces of legislation that we brought in to bring in more fairness in the workplace. This wasn't legislation that was brought in during the Liberal-NDP accord of 1985 and 1987. This was legislation that was brought in by a Progressive Conservative government over 20 years ago. It has worked well for 20 years, but now somehow they say that it doesn't work any more. That's the justification they are using to say that a remedy that had been introduced by a Progressive Conservative government over 20 years ago to deal with unfair labour practices of employers, employers who had illegally tampered with the outcomes of votes, was no longer good enough. I say that's a sad day for workers in Ontario.
This government likes to talk about how workers should somehow be put in a fairer bargaining position through this legislation, better workplace democracy, and what they're doing is actually changing the rules to guarantee that there is never a vote that is without intimidation, coercion, firings or a whole litany of anti-union actions that will only be limited by the creativity of employers.
They talk a lot about fairness, but we know what fairness means to them. We saw it in their Tenant Protection Act, an act where they say tenants should be able to negotiate with landlords for a fair rent. We know that the bargaining position of tenants is completely unfair when they're dealing with landlords. It's the same case for employees. Employees aren't going to be able to negotiate with employers on a one-on-one basis and somehow be treated fairly. It just isn't going to happen. They're going to be faced with the situation of voting to keep their jobs, and the question will be, "Do you want your job or not, yes or no?" That's what they mean by "labour fairness."
Under these rules, we're never going to see unions established in stores like Wal-Mart in the future. That's what this government is trying to do. They are trying to drive down wages in Ontario. They are trying to eliminate unions. They are trying to ensure that fairness for workers means permitting employers to get away with any anti-union activities that they are able to, and the only sanction that will be imposed is a fine. It's basically going to be a licence fee for employers to do whatever it is they want to keep the unions out, and businesses like Wal-Mart will gladly pay that licence fee, no matter what it is, because we know they went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada to try to keep the union out. They weren't able to do that and that's why this government is now taking the steps they are taking in this regressive piece of legislation, Bill 31.
I say shame on the government for taking these steps, shame on taking the steps that you're taking against unionized workers in Ontario and shame for not taking this bill out for public hearings. If you're so proud of it, why don't you take it out to the people in the province and let them have a say?
Mr Wildman: I want to thank my friend for giving me some time to speak on this piece of legislation. I'd like to put my remarks on Bill 31 into the context of the companion piece of legislation that we're going to be dealing with later this evening, that is, Bill 36.
Bill 31 is a bill that deals with changes to the Labour Relations Act as it relates to denying workers the opportunity to form collective bargaining units that will make it possible for them to bargain together for fairness in the workplace. Bill 36 is a bill that is designed to ensure that the government of the day has the advantage in an election campaign in a general election in this province and to make it difficult for opposition parties and the public to have a real democratic choice in a general election. They both indicate the attitude of this Tory government towards democracy, in one case in the workplace and in the other in Ontario, in our whole society.
I'd like to also put it in the context of what other things the government is doing at this time. We all know that this government has changed the rules of this House to make it very difficult for members of the opposition to slow down legislation or to ensure that legislation that needs to be amended is changed. We also know that this government has gotten so used to bringing in time allocation and setting and limiting the debate in this House, even with those rules, that we have many bills time-allocated by the Tories. As a matter of fact, it has become routine for the government to time-allocate legislation.
Both of these pieces of legislation, Bills 31 and 36, are time-allocated. We are now dealing with Bill 31 on third reading. We have set two hours for debate on third reading and we have no hearings. We have yet to vote on Bill 36, election finances, but we will be finishing second reading and going to third reading, again with no hearings.
What else is this government doing? The government has brought in a bill called the Condominium Act, which is non-controversial, everybody agrees with it, and what has this government said? They want to have hearings on the Condominium Act. They want to have eight days of hearings on a bill that everybody agrees with, and yet on bills that are controversial, that have raised serious concerns about democracy, they don't want to have any hearings.
Let's look at another time-allocated bill. We have a very complex piece of legislation on the electric generating system in this province, Ontario Hydro, and the government has time-allocated that as well, but in that case, I'll give them credit, they have agreed to hold hearings as part of the time allocation. There will be how many days of hearings on this very complex piece of legislation? Eight days of hearings, the same as the Condominium Act that everybody agrees with and there's no controversy about.
We also have another bill - the government calls it a red tape bill - Bill 25. The government has time-allocated it as well, but they have said, "No, we'll have hearings on it," and in the time allocation motion they said, "We will have hearings next fall when the House comes back," and they have referred that bill for eight days of hearings to the justice committee of this House. Why? Because our party has asked for an investigation into the Ipperwash scandal, into the death of Dudley George, at the justice committee, and by moving that bill, a non-controversial bill to that committee for eight days, the government effectively blocks an investigation into the Ipperwash scandal.
What does that indicate about the Tories' commitment to democracy? It indicates that the government does not want to hear what the people think, does not want to hear from the people who are affected by legislation, unless it's legislation so non-controversial that almost everyone agrees, or it's very complex legislation and so they do have hearings but they have them so short that we're not going to be able to deal with the issues.
On this legislation, Bill 31, the government continually says that this is supported by the labour movement, and yet when they stand to debate the bill, they inevitably quote Conrad Black and his minions and representatives of management and of the construction industry and the petrochemical industry.
The one time that the minister claimed he had a representative of labour supporting the bill - well, twice now. He pointed to the proposal of July 1997 that came from the construction unions - the proposal, not what actually came out in the bill - and then he also referred to an article from the Toronto Star which quoted one of the leaders of the labour movement.
2020
Hon Mr Flaherty: It was the Globe and Mail. Get it right, for goodness' sake. It wasn't the Toronto Star. Come on, pay attention.
Mr Wildman: The Globe and Mail. As one of the members said about the north, that the north is the north, the media is the media when it comes to whether or not they deal with this government and democracy.
The government, though, for some unknown reason has failed to admit that they received letters directly from that same labour leader and other labour leaders indicating what their real view of Bill 31 is. I don't understand why the minister would not quote up-to-date correspondence he has received from those leaders, so I guess I'll have to do it for him.
The minister talks about workplace democracy in his Orwellian Newspeak as if this is going to increase democracy when it has exactly the opposite effect. This is what Patrick Dillon, business manager for the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario, had to say about that in his letter directed to the minister on June 16, 1998: "Amendments to section 11 will allow employers to fire, threaten and terrify workers into voting against the union."
I'd like to refer to one small example which I think comes close to home for the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour, the member for Niagara Falls. This relates to two young people, one Larry Savage and one Amanda Rogers, who were workers at Minolta Tower in Niagara Falls. Last October, 56 of the workers at that workplace signed cards to join a union; in this case it was Local 442 of the Hotel, Restaurant, Hospitality Service Employees Union. Then the employer intimidation started. There was a premature layoff of Larry Savage for union activities, unjust discipline for others, surveillance of employees, and managers spread rumours that they had a list of those who had signed the union cards. On October 10 - keep in mind that 56 workers had signed cards - only 24 voted for the union; 62 voted against.
This particular matter is currently before the Ontario Labour Relations Board. The union is contending that there is no way to undo the poisoning of the workplace related to the layoff, the surveillance of employees, the rumours and the discipline that was taken against the workers, to enable a fair vote to take place. This is because obviously the employer, as far as the union is concerned, has poisoned the workplace through the employer's misconduct.
If this bill passes, even though this issue is currently before the labour board, the board will no longer have the power to certify the union under section 11. All the board would be able to do if it agrees with the union that the issue is so bad that it's been poisoned would be to order another vote. These workers, who've been unjustly disciplined, who've been watched, who've had rumour-mongering, will now have the opportunity to vote again.
As I said earlier, if the government seriously believes that this is democracy, it's the same kind of democracy we used to have in the Eastern Bloc, where they used to get 97% of the voters voting for one party. Why? Because they were intimidated. That's the kind of democracy this government believes in.
What about the other part of the bill, the bill that deals with the construction industry? The minister has repeatedly said that the building trades were in favour of these proposals, mainly the project agreements. I have a letter here, one of these letters that the minister refuses to refer to.
This letter is signed by George Ward, business manager of the Ontario Sheet Metal Workers' and Roofers' Conference. Mr Ward says, "Bill 31 does not in any way resemble the building trades' proposals made to the construction employer group in July 1997." So much for Mr Maves and Mr Flaherty's referral to that proposal in July 1997. Mr Ward says it doesn't resemble that proposal at all.
He goes on to say: "We strongly oppose Bill 31, including its project agreement provisions. We have had no opportunity to provide input on these or any provisions of the bill." So much for the consultation the minister referred to. Mr Ward then says, "It is disingenuous for the minister to suggest otherwise." I suggest that Mr Ward is being polite.
Patrick Dillon from the building trades council goes on to say, again in the letter of June 16, 1998, to the minister:
"The provisions creating project agreements are the complete opposite of anything we have proposed" - the complete opposite. "These provisions will only create instability and chaos in the construction industry."
This is a government that claims it's in favour of encouraging investment and new jobs in Ontario. How on earth is creating instability and chaos in the construction industry going to encourage investment? It'll scare off investment. It's no surprise that a major general contractor like Ellis-Don wanted to meet with the minister to discuss this bill because that company was concerned about instability and chaos in the construction industry. I'd like to know why the minister refused to meet with Ellis-Don.
Hon Mr Flaherty: I met with Ellis-Don. What are you talking about?
Mr Wildman: Okay. Then why have you continued with this bill?
Hon Mr Flaherty: You don't know what you're talking about. You don't even know what you're talking about.
Mr Wildman: Why have you ignored not only the construction unions but the companies -
Interjection.
The Speaker: Order. Minister of Labour, you have to come to order. The member for Algoma has the floor.
Hon Mr Flaherty: But he is being inaccurate.
The Speaker: Minister of Labour, the member for Algoma has the floor. I appreciate that you don't agree with what he's saying, but he's got the floor.
Mr Wildman: Thank you, Speaker. You're so much help.
Mr Dillon goes on to say, "The provisions of Bill 31 allowing so-called non-construction employers" - like the TD Bank, one of those small business people that the government refers to - "to unilaterally decertify despite having been lawfully certified and despite the present process, which allows workers the right to decide for themselves" is another example of something that this government has put into Bill 31 that the unions never agreed to and had no input about.
Mr Dillon finally says: "You are putting everything that is good about the construction industry in jeopardy.... Specifically, in good conscience we will not be able to participate in any project agreement created under Bill 31. By introducing a bill that is viciously anti-union, you have decided that there will not be stability in the construction industry.... Withdraw Bill 31 in its entirety."
If these kinds of opinions are being expressed by Mr Dillon and all the business managers representing the construction trades in this province, how is it the minister can proceed on time allocation without even wanting to have hearings? Why is it that we aren't able to hear the position taken by the representatives of the construction workers and the rest of the labour movement in this province on this bill? Why is the government afraid to hear what the people really think, the people who are directly affected by the provisions of this legislation? Why is the government not prepared to talk to the general contractors in a public way to hear what they think? Why isn't the government prepared to amend the bill so we have true stability in the construction industry? Why isn't the government prepared to amend the bill so we indeed have democracy in the workplace?
I can tell you why this government doesn't want to have hearings. This government doesn't want to hear what people think and they don't want to hear what people have to say about their legislation, because they think they know better than the people of this province. They don't want to be confused by facts. They don't want to hear opinions that disagree with their own. That is because this government does not have any real commitment to democracy either in the workplace or in the province of Ontario.
2030
Mr Bisson: I want to pick up from where the member for Algoma left off, because I think he makes the point. When we take a look at this bill and at what this government is doing in it, you really have to come to the conclusion that this is a case of the government pushing the limit of what they think they can get away with.
This government was not content in coming into this House strictly with Bill 7, throwing labour laws back 50 years in Ontario. They weren't happy introducing a raft of other legislation that literally turned the clock back in this province some 50 years when it comes to workplace security and bargaining in Ontario. The government comes into the House today pushing the limit of what they think they can get away with, and in this particular case are going to be hurting the construction workers across this province.
I want to speak specifically to the economic issue. The Minister of Labour and his friend the parliamentary assistant, along with the member for Lambton, who got up and spoke to this bill - I think we should take the Hansard and circulate everywhere in the Sarnia area and the Lambton area - speak to this bill from the perspective that this is needed to make the construction industry more competitive to allow the creation of jobs in Ontario. Well, there are two problems with that argument.
The first one is, how could it be that Ontario has been for the past number of years the economic heartland of Canada? Why has there been record construction in Ontario with labour laws, some of the most progressive labour laws in Canada? In fact, for years Ontario has led the country when it comes to progressive labour laws. Even the Conservative government of Bill Davis, and before that of Mr Robarts, understood that to have a healthy economy and to have a healthy workplace you have to have good labour laws that set the rules in such a way that there's a balance between, yes, the need of the employer to make a profit, but also the ability of the employee to make a fair wage and to have working conditions that allow them to feel somewhat secure when it comes to their health and safety.
The government argues that they need this to be able to develop the economy of Ontario. The economy of Ontario has done well for the past number of years even with those labour laws. So where is the argument when the government tries to argue that they've got to turn the clock back some 50 years and allow the ratcheting down of collective agreements to make the construction industry more competitive?
There has been all kinds of construction in this province, from north to south, from east to west, in Sarnia, all over the place, and that has been done within the confines of the type of collective agreements we have now and with existing labour laws. Even with Bob Rae's Bill 40 we had record construction. I look at my community of Timmins. We had over half a billion dollars of new construction during the years 1993 to 1996 in the communities of Timmins, Iroquois Falls and Matheson, and that's with some good, progressive labour laws. The argument that somehow there has never been any economic development doesn't stand up.
The second point I want to make on the economic argument is that they say they need to do this because they're trying to get to the issue of project agreements. They want to allow the employer, in this case the person managing a particular project, to go to individual building trade unions and try to negotiate a concessionary contract with at least 60% of those selected trades on that particular job. If that's agreed to, the effect will eventually be to ratchet down the wages of the construction workers.
I want to put this forward. Why is it that every time employers are uncompetitive they come to us, the working people, and pick our pockets? Why don't they look in their own backyard? Why don't we look at the real issues? Why is construction expensive? The cost of land, the billions of dollars that have been made by speculators on the market from buying, holding and selling land. That has been an issue. Why is this government not dealing with it? No. Instead, rather than dealing with your friends the speculators, you deal with the workers of the province and say, "You pay, not the speculators."
Why don't you deal with other issues? You've given all kinds of tax concessions to employers across this country through federal and provincial tax laws. You don't deal with that for a second. Rather, you go back to the employees and you say, "Let's pick their pockets clean." That's how you decide to deal with it.
Why don't you deal with the issue of the price of materials? You say the employers have to be more competitive. Why don't you deal with some of the issues that affect the parts industry, the people who supply the building materials and various equipment needed for construction? I don't see this government dealing with any of that. Why? Because it means they might have to tighten down on their corporate friends. Instead, you come to this Legislature and pick on those people who are least able to defend themselves: the working people of the province.
Then you wonder why I, as a social democrat, get upset? Darned right that I'm upset and darned right that Dave Christopherson, who can't be here tonight because he's at his nomination meeting, is upset and darned right that the rest of this caucus is upset. As social democrats we understand the issue that the employer needs to make a profit and we understand that the employer's got to be competitive, but being competitive doesn't mean you go and pick the employee's pocket clean.
If the government is saying, "We're doing this for economic reasons and we want to make the employer much more competitive," you at the very least have to deal with some of the issues and stop picking on the workers. If you were to do that, maybe then the building trades and other people would say, "The government's trying to be fair." But this is not a question of being fair. It's a question of you picking on workers, pure and simple.
The other thing is that the member for Lambton, with great fanfare and great description, talked about how the construction industry within the Sarnia area that's dealing in the petrochemical industry is somehow uncompetitive as compared to Alberta and the Texas Gulf Coast. Well, excuse me. He went through all of the numbers and listed them - and you can go back to Hansard and check - but the point is that they're dealing with an exchange rate of about 40%. When you work all of that out, we're not less competitive than anybody else. Why has there been record investment in Ontario over the past 50 years? I've seen construction in my riding, as we've seen it in Algoma and in Sarnia and other places over the years, and that's with the labour rates we have today. You can't start comparing what we're paying workers on the Texas Gulf to what we're paying workers in Sarnia-Lambton or wherever it might be, because you've got to take the exchange rate into account. This government tends to forget all about that and tries to compare the numbers in the States without taking into account what the exchange rate does.
The reality is that Ontario is a very good place to do business. Why? Because we have an experienced workforce, a workforce that is capable and competitive and able to compete with the best in the world. All this government is doing is saying: "We're going to allow our corporate friends to make a few extra bucks. We're going to allow them mechanisms to get into the collective agreements and ratchet down some of the benefits and the wages." By their taking money out of the worker's pocket, they're going to give the employer an ability to be more competitive. Well, excuse me. It's not a question of being competitive; it's that you're trying to pick the pocket of the workers.
I also want to address the issue of public hearings, and the member for Algoma spoke to this a little while ago. This government today came into the House and brought together this very controversial bill through time allocation to third reading, knowing full well that the critic from our party, Dave Christopherson, was at his nomination meeting tonight. You guys knew it and you did it on purpose. You brought this bill into the House knowing darned well that the critic for the NDP was at his nomination meeting. You tried to set it up in such a way so that he would not be seen speaking on this bill.
Let me tell you something. You might get away with not having Dave speak on this bill tonight, but come the next election, not only Dave Christopherson, the labour critic for the NDP, but construction workers across this province will be dogging this government because they will remember what this government has done. This government has attacked their ability to negotiate fair collective agreements and keep them in place. This government has attacked their ability to organize. This government is going to be allowing workplaces in this province, through their employers, to poison the atmosphere within the workplace to try to keep the union out.
I tell you now that there are going to be thousands of construction workers in the next election who will not forget what this government is doing.
2040
I've got to finish on this point. We know this is a contentious bill, because the entire labour movement, almost in unison at this point, is saying that this bill is flawed and is going in the wrong direction. This government, at the very least, if it believes in its rhetoric of democracy and its ability to listen, has to send this bill back out to committee. The government has chosen not to. They're saying: "No. We know best. We're going to do what we have to do in order to ram this bill through. We're not going to give anybody the ability to comment on it at the hearings." They know darned well if this bill went to Sarnia or the Lambton area, not only the workers but the citizens of that community would come to our committee en masse to tell this government that they're going in the wrong direction.
I also would like to finish on this point. We have a Minister of Labour here who supposedly calls himself the Minister of Labour. Let me tell you, after looking at this bill and other things this government has done, we should rename the Minister of Labour's position the Minister for the Implementation of the Corporate Anti-Labour Agenda.
The Speaker: Mr Flaherty has moved third reading of Bill 31. Is it the pleasure of the House the motion carry?
All those in favour, please say "aye."
All those opposed, please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it.
Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.
The division bells rang from 2042 to 2047.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.
Ayes
|
Baird, John R. Barrett, Toby Beaubien, Marcel Boushy, Dave Brown, Jim Carr, Gary Clement, Tony Danford, Harry Doyle, Ed Elliott, Brenda Fisher, Barbara Flaherty, Jim Ford, Douglas B. Fox, Gary Galt, Doug Gilchrist, Steve Grimmett, Bill Guzzo, Garry J. |
Harris, Michael D. Hastings, John Hudak, Tim Jackson, Cameron Johns, Helen Johnson, Bert Johnson, David Jordan, W. Leo Kells, Morley Klees, Frank Leach, Al Martiniuk, Gerry Maves, Bart McLean, Allan K. Munro, Julia Murdoch, Bill O'Toole, John |
Ouellette, Jerry J. Parker, John L. Rollins, E.J. Douglas Runciman, Robert Sampson, Rob Saunderson, William Sheehan, Frank Snobelen, John Spina, Joseph Stewart, R. Gary Tascona, Joseph N. Tilson, David Turnbull, David Vankoughnet, Bill Wettlaufer, Wayne Witmer, Elizabeth Wood, Bob |
The Speaker: All those opposed, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.
Nays
|
Agostino, Dominic Bisson, Gilles Boyd, Marion Bradley, James J. Caplan, David Churley, Marilyn Cleary, John C. Colle, Mike Cordiano, Joseph Cullen, Alex |
Duncan, Dwight Gerretsen, John Grandmaître, Bernard Gravelle, Michael Hoy, Pat Kormos, Peter Lalonde, Jean-Marc Lessard, Wayne McGuinty, Dalton McLeod, Lyn |
Miclash, Frank Morin, Gilles E. Patten, Richard Pupatello, Sandra Ramsay, David Ruprecht, Tony Sergio, Mario Wildman, Bud Wood, Len |
Clerk Assistant: The ayes are 52; the nays are 29.
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.
Interruption.
The Speaker: Clear the galleries.
ELECTION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES ÉLECTIONS
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 36, An Act to amend the Election Act and the Election Finances Act, and to make related amendments to other statutes / Projet de loi 36, Loi modifiant la Loi électorale et la Loi sur le financement des élections et apportant des modifications connexes à d'autres lois.
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Pursuant to the order of the House, we will have a vote on second reading. Shall the motion carry? Agreed?
All those in favour, please say "aye."
All those opposed, please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it.
The division bells rang from 2053 to 2058.
The Speaker: Mr Hodgson has moved second reading of Bill 36. All those in favour, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.
Ayes
|
Baird, John R. Barrett, Toby Beaubien, Marcel Boushy, Dave Brown, Jim Carr, Gary Clement, Tony Danford, Harry Doyle, Ed Elliott, Brenda Fisher, Barbara Flaherty, Jim Ford, Douglas B. Fox, Gary Galt, Doug Gilchrist, Steve Grimmett, Bill Guzzo, Garry J. |
Harris, Michael D. Hastings, John Hodgson, Chris Hudak, Tim Jackson, Cameron Johns, Helen Johnson, Bert Johnson, David Jordan, W. Leo Kells, Morley Klees, Frank Leach, Al Martiniuk, Gerry Maves, Bart McLean, Allan K. Munro, Julia Murdoch, Bill |
O'Toole, John Ouellette, Jerry J. Parker, John L. Rollins, E.J. Douglas Runciman, Robert W. Sampson, Rob Saunderson, William Sheehan, Frank Snobelen, John Spina, Joseph Stewart, R. Gary Tascona, Joseph N. Tilson, David Turnbull, David Vankoughnet, Bill Wettlaufer, Wayne Wood, Bob |
The Speaker: All those opposed, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.
Nays
|
Agostino, Dominic Bisson, Gilles Boyd, Marion Bradley, James J. Caplan, David Churley, Marilyn Cleary, John C. Colle, Mike Cordiano, Joseph Cullen, Alex |
Duncan, Dwight Gerretsen, John Gravelle, Michael Hoy, Pat Kormos, Peter Lalonde, Jean-Marc Lessard, Wayne McGuinty, Dalton McLeod, Lyn |
Miclash, Frank Morin, Gilles E. Patten, Richard Pupatello, Sandra Ramsay, David Ruprecht, Tony Sergio, Mario Wildman, Bud Wood, Len |
Clerk Assistant (Ms Deborah Deller): The ayes are 52; the nays are 28.
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Pursuant to the order of the House dated June 22, 1998, this bill is ordered for third reading, to be considered immediately.
Mr Hodgson moved third reading of the following bill:
Bill 36, An Act to amend the Election Act and the Election Finances Act, and to make related amendments to other statutes / Projet de loi 36, Loi modifiant la Loi électorale et la Loi sur le financement des élections et apportant des modifications connexes à d'autres lois.
Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): Mr Speaker, I believe there is all-party agreement to split the time equally among the parties.
The Speaker: All-party agreement? Agreed? Agreed.
Hon Mr Hodgson: It's a pleasure to join in the debate on third reading on this important piece of legislation. I've been listening to the debate over the last couple of weeks and I'm pleased to be able to set the record straight on a couple of issues.
As has been mentioned, I see the member for Windsor-Walkerville is here tonight and he said quite distinctly a few days ago, "We ought not be surprised, because everything we've heard tonight so far twists, distorts and selectively uses comments and quotes out of context." That's why I'm here tonight, because the opposition have done exactly that, and we'd like to put this back into some context.
The same member also claimed that I was avoiding the debate because I have been in question period each day. To the member for Windsor-Walkerville, I've been in question period each day, but I have also been following this debate and I'm pleased to be here tonight.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order. Can the members, if you're actually going to step out, step out. If you're going to meet, step out.
Hon Mr Hodgson: It's very hard to hear in here tonight.
The legislation that we've introduced reflects the work that has been done by representatives from all parties who have worked together for the last number of years. As you know, Mr Speaker, this piece of legislation -
Interjections.
Hon Mr Hodgson: I realize the opposition doesn't -
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I must ask for a general ruling. Are people allowed to mislead the House? Is anybody -
The Speaker: You know what? That's out of order.
Mr Bradley: Is anybody allowed? That's what I'm asking you.
The Speaker: Member -
Interjection.
The Speaker: Yes, well. That is also out of order -
Mr Bradley: It's a theoretical question.
The Speaker: - and both those comments need to be withdrawn. Member for St Catharines.
Mr Bradley: I will be happy to withdraw my theoretical question.
The Speaker: No, no. You must withdraw it. I see it as a veiled attempt to do -
Mr Bradley: Yes, of course, I'm happy to withdraw it.
Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): I guess I could withdraw it, Speaker.
The Speaker: I'm not looking for a guess; I'm looking for a withdrawal.
Mr Hastings: Withdrawn.
The Speaker: This is turning into world wrestling.
Member for Rexdale, in the future withdrawal is simply "Withdrawn." Minister.
Hon Mr Hodgson: I realize the members of the opposition don't want to hear the facts around this issue, but let me try to recount a little bit of the modern history that I know. I know my colleague across the way from the Liberal Party would like everyone to hear the facts, for those who might be watching this on TV.
The fact is that the Election Finances Act and the Election Act itself haven't been changed in 12 years. It was recognized by all members of this Legislature and others who are involved in the election processes in Ontario that the act needed to be updated and modernized. That's why back in 1991 all the parties agreed to set up an ad hoc committee to study changes to modernize and adjust the Election Act.
The ad hoc committee had a representative from the Liberal Party. I see the member of the Liberal Party heckling here tonight. Barbara Sullivan was your MPP who was your representative on that committee. The ad hoc committee reported to the members of the Legislature with a signed memorandum of agreement. As well, there was another process that was set up recognizing in the early 1990s that the act still needed to be modernized.
Politicians hadn't had the courage to enact the changes that would save taxpayers' dollars, modernize the rules, like other provinces have, like the federal government has, and they set up an election commission that had two representatives from each of the parties. The Liberals had two representatives, two representatives were appointed from the NDP to represent their caucus and two representatives were appointed from our party to represent our caucus. They chose a chair, Jack Murray, past party president of the New Democrats. They reported as well to the Legislature with a signed memorandum where they had all agreed.
We could sit around and debate for another eight years and watch the Liberal Party disown their own representative each time because they'd rather play politics on something that they know should happen. That's why they've suggested processes to reform and modernize the Election Act, but then want to disown, hoping against all hope it will pass. At the same time as these two all-party groups signed agreements recommending change, the chief election officer tabled a report with the Legislature last month recommending changes that would modernize the election process, reduce bureaucracy and save the taxpayers money.
After eight years of discussing the issue, even the member for Windsor-Walkerville mentioned in debate last week that in the course of the last eight years there have been three distinct groups working on three distinct parts of two pieces of legislation. Just exactly how many more years and how many more all-party agreements do we need before we finally accept your own representative's recommendations?
The last eight years have been long enough. We would have liked to have all-party consent like we had at one time in this Legislature when we had a minority government. It has only happened once in the history of Ontario. Unfortunately, we were unable to get to all-party agreement. Some parties went out prior to even having discussions among our caucuses on these reports to hold press conferences and try to politicize the issue. It was unfortunate that we were unable to arrive at a consensus that we could all agree with and endorse. It would have been my intent to see that we could have gone forward in that manner. However, like four other provinces in Canada, our government had to act alone on this to modernize and to make sure that we keep up to save the taxpayers' dollars and to streamline the process and to take advantage of new technologies and how we run and conduct elections.
2110
Mr Murray, who was the chair of this election commission and made recommendations, clearly gave advice in January to this House through the Speaker. What he talked about was the need to act. He said, "It would be unfair if you didn't act on this quickly, before an election, to give all the people that are involved in elections time to adjust." I quote his recommendation in his letter to the Legislature, "The commission, parties, constituency associations, volunteers and chartered accountants must have sufficient time to become familiar with changes in the legislation before the next election." That is why, although we wanted to have all-party agreement, we feel it's necessary to act now in lots of time before the next election to give all those who are involved in elections time to adapt and to understand the rules.
Some of the recommendations made by the commission were clearly intolerable to the opposition. Even though they were unwilling to sit down and discuss the issues, they made a number of public statements about what they would accept. We would have liked to have had all-party agreement, but given the fact that they wouldn't negotiate on that, and without making our caucus surrender its right to have an equal say, what we had to do was take from these public statements, these written statements that are on the record. The commission recommended -
Mr Bradley: On a point of privilege, Speaker: The minister has accused the opposition of not negotiating, and our contention would be that our privileges are affected by this because of course we were quite prepared to negotiate but they already had the bill written.
The Speaker: That's no point of privilege. Minister.
Hon Mr Hodgson: That's not accurate either. We had a couple of meetings that I thought were good and it was my hope that we could reach an agreement on it. The bill was not written. There were changes made right up to the Monday.
Having said that, what was on the record was the Liberal Party's recommendation to accept the federal spending limits for elections. As you know, the commission recommended $1.80 per voter. The Leader of the Opposition said, "He wants to raise spending limits double from what they are now...they don't have to go any higher than the federal spending limits." We agreed with the leader of the Liberal Party and we put that in the legislation. The federal limit for total spending is $1.56, and guess what? That's what the legislation says.
The opposition wants to focus only on the increase in the central party spending from 40 cents per voter to 60 cents per voter. To my colleagues in the opposition, that's exactly what the feds spent in the 1997 election. Over and over the Liberal Party kept telling the media that they wanted the federal spending limits adopted. Talk about cherry-picking. The total federal spending limit is $1.56 per voter and, let me repeat, that is what is in our bill.
Last week the member for St Catharines said in his debate, "Massive increases in election campaign spending, dramatic increases in the amount of money that corporations and individuals may contribute to political parties and candidates will ensure that the deck is stacked." We took all the federal spending limits, as they asked, but we did not accept the federal contribution limits because, as you know, the federal elections do not have any limits on their contributions.
Maybe they feel that's acceptable, but our caucus certainly doesn't feel we should go to the federal rules of having no limits on contributions. We put in limits because we don't accept the Liberal position that it's acceptable to have no contribution limits whatsoever. Even the chair of the commission, Jack Murray, the NDP past president, recognized the inequity in the current funding formula for elections: "Spending limits in the 1995 election ranged from $2.03 per voter in Rainy River to 51 cents in York Centre."
I would like to clarify the issues. We've gone to the fewer politicians that the opposition parties voted against, to get it so that in Ontario we have the same number of MPPs as we have federal members of Parliament; we've gone to similar-sized ridings, and it will be clear for people to understand how many dollars per voter are allowed.
I would also like to clarify the issue of excluding travel, polling and research from the spending limits. Polling and research were included in the spending limits only once since 1975. For those watching on television, that's when we brought in financial rules around elections. Only once since 1975 have polling and research been included, and that was the period from 1994 to 1996.
The commission recommended in 1996 that these items be excluded based on "included expenses should reflect expenses that directly promote or help in the election of a candidate." As most people in Ontario know, in the last election the Liberal Party outspent the Conservative Party on polling five to one. So I guess it's safe that the commission is right that ruling out polling as an expense could help candidates win an election.
The commission recommended the exclusion of travel. The reason, quite simply, is because not all ridings are of the same size. The size of a riding and its relative travel costs should not prevent a candidate from running an effective campaign. I believe this favours our current northern incumbents, who just happen to be opposition members.
Legislating these items will ensure consistency, fairness and transparency. Those are the rules today, that's what was recommended by the commission and that's what we put in the legislation so it can't be played with back and forth.
I do want to point out that these items are still reportable and reviewed by an auditor, and then reviewed by the chief election officer, and that's the way it is today. That's how we know that the Liberal Party outspent our party five to one on polling. If you read the bill, you will see that everything that is spent is audited. Whether it's the amount for ads or for polling, it's all auditable and reported, open and transparent so the public can see it precisely.
The members opposite claim that the legislation helps us stack the deck because we've raised more money and the incumbents have an advantage. Let me remind the members that incumbency didn't help anyone in 1985 or 1990 or 1995. In fact, this party was $2 million in debt going into the last election. What helped our party in the 1995 campaign was the fact that we put our platform out to the public for full public scrutiny and a full year in advance of the election. We didn't know when the election would be called.
I think it's important to remind the members opposite that voters cannot be bought. They are interested in what a candidate's policies are, and I encourage the members to concentrate on communicating their policies to Ontarians.
The Leader of the Opposition in question period a couple of weeks back said that politics shouldn't be about money, and I agree. He went on to say it should be about policies and ideas and where we want to take public policy in the future, and I agree with him on that. I'm not personally aware of their financial situation, but I can tell you that on their policy platform they are bankrupt and they need to get their ideas and their policies out there to the public so that the public can choose.
It has been a pleasure to join in the debate tonight. I think that people realize when they look at this in a fair manner that we have to continue like the province of British Columbia and three other provinces in the federation, that there is a need to modernize the Election Act. It will save taxpayers $15 million.
Interjections.
Hon Mr Hodgson: I hear the opposition scoff. Well, $15 million is a lot of money that could be used more effectively in this province.
It's with great pleasure that I conclude my debate. I'll be sharing my time later on tonight with my colleagues.
2120
Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): Normally when I begin to join a debate my opening words have traditionally been, "It is my pleasure to join the debate." But I want to tell you that it is not a pleasure for me to join this debate. This bill and the history of this bill most recently since it has been introduced, perfectly in keeping with the bill that we just addressed, Bill 31, is not based on any kind of an understanding of democracy, certainly the one that I have held, one that says that you have to give a substantial amount of time for the members of this Legislature to devote to debate. That has not been here.
If the minister was so proud of his baby, Bill 36, then why did he refuse, at the time it was introduced, to make a ministerial statement? Why is he ramming this bill through? Why will there be no public hearings? Why are no amendments permitted? If the minister is really so proud of this particular bill and of all that it's going to do for democracy in Ontario, why is he hiding it? Why is he keeping it away from the light of day? I think the answer there is pretty obvious.
As politicians, we talk a lot about democracy and the importance of maintaining our democratic principles, and we often do so at Remembrance Day ceremonies when we remember all that has been sacrificed to protect our basic rights, but too often these fine words and eloquent speeches are taken for granted. People get lulled into a false sense of security and begin to see democracy as something akin to motherhood, something that is unassailable. Certainly I suspect that most Ontarians believe democracy could never be attacked in our province, in Ontario, from within this Legislature - that could never possibly happen. I'm here tonight to tell you, to tell the members opposite, to tell the viewers that I believe that this government bill threatens the basic democratic principles that we have used to govern ourselves here in this province for decades.
Quite simply, I believe that this legislation, combined with the House rule changes we have experienced, threatens to make a mockery of the democracy we are all here to protect, something the members opposite obviously don't understand. They threaten to make a mockery of the democracy which we are to protect and which is here to protect all of us.
For democracy to work, for elections to be fair, there needs to be a level playing field. That's why, for example, we've got spending limits in the province, spending limits to govern our election campaigns, but for spending limits to make a difference, they've got to be real. That means expensive items like polling, focus groups and the leader's tour need to be included in that limit. This bill removes all spending limits on those areas, and in the areas where there are spending limits, this bill dramatically increases those, by over $1.3 million. Mike Harris is going to turn the next election into the largest seat sale in Canada's history. If Mike Harris has his way, the next election will be a seat sale where seats in this Legislature won't be won on the basis of who has the best ideas; if Mike Harris has his way, they'll be won on the basis of who has the most money to spend.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members for Humber and York-Mackenzie, come to order. The member has the floor and has the right to make his speech.
Interjection.
The Speaker: Member for York-Mackenzie, I don't want to have a discussion about it. He has the right to make his speech. That's a given. Member for Etobicoke-Rexdale as well. Leader of the official opposition.
Mr McGuinty: If the members opposite have such a profound interest in expressing their views on this bill, then the question I have to ask myself is, where were they when their House leader, the minister and Mike Harris said, "We are ramming this bill through and there's not going to be any time for full debate"?
I want to go back to this notion of a seat sale. I want people to understand that the problem is that Mike Harris has already begun in terms of advancing the seat sale. He is spending millions of taxpayers' dollars to try and buy votes in this province. This is something that he is shameless about, and the degree to which it is taking place is without precedent.
He is spending $1.3 million on a pamphlet issued by the Ministry of Health. We don't have money in Ontario for nurses; in fact, we have the lowest number of nurses available in the country on a per capita basis right here in Ontario. We don't have money for nurses, but we've got $1.3 million for a pamphlet. We've got another pamphlet here issued from the Premier's office for $700,000. We don't have in Ontario money to send disabled kids to summer camp, but we've got $700,000 for a pamphlet to be issued by the Premier's office.
Here's another pamphlet issued by the Premier's office. This one cost taxpayers $750,000. We don't have money for our classrooms, we don't have money to make junior kindergarten mandatory or available in every single community in the province, but we've got $750,000 for that particular piece of Tory propaganda. And we have just learned today that there is more still to come. The Solicitor General is getting into the act. He is going to increase his advertising budget by over $400,000. We don't have enough money for cops in Ontario, but we're going to have plenty for copies of self-serving government flyers.
Mike Harris is trying to sell this legislation by telling us that this bill adopts, quite simply, the federal spending limits, and that, as you well understand, is simply not what this bill does. This bill increases the spending limits for the central campaign from $2.7 million to over $4 million. That is $800,000 higher than the federal limits in Ontario.
Let's take a look at the minister's own riding of Victoria-Haliburton. Under the current rules, a candidate in that riding could spend $53,000 during the course of a provincial election campaign; under the federal rules, that candidate could spend $67,000; but under this new legislation the minister, in his own riding, is going to be able to spend $75,000. On top of that $75,000, there is no limit whatsoever when it comes to the amount that the minister will be able to spend on polling and his research expenses.
In fact, what the minister wanted to do was to ensure that the limit when it came to provincial campaigns in Ontario was not $53,000 or $67,000, the federal limit, or $75,000, the new provincial limit; they wanted to make it at least $100,000. The only reason that they pulled back from that was that my party set up 103 chairs on the front lawn of the Ontario Legislature and they were shamed into pulling back. That's the only reason they pulled back. They didn't pull back because they saw the light; they pulled back because they felt the heat. They didn't do it because it was the right thing to do; they did it because they felt that they were being shamed into it and they had no option.
The bottom line quite simply is that Mike Harris is trying to buy the next election. He wants to stack the deck in his favour. He is changing the rules so that they suit him. People shouldn't be fooled by the minister's words spoken here this evening and they should not be fooled by what the Premier has been saying about this bill. This bill isn't an effort to streamline, it's not an effort to save money, it's not an effort to bring about improvement in democracy, it's not an effort to make elections somehow simpler, neater and tidier; it's an effort on the part of the Premier to buy the next election. That's what this is all about.
2130
The three parties in this Legislature, it goes without saying, often disagree, and a collision of ideas in this place is an important part of a healthy working democracy. But that being said, we have a long and honourable tradition in this Legislature of working together when it comes to changes to the rules that govern our political campaigns. Until this point in time, until the advent of the Mike Harris government, that was an important principle of our democracy, and we honoured that because we believed that elections held in keeping with democratic principles were, for the lack of a better expression, an honourable sport, one where all the participants, all the players, could agree on a fair set of rules to ensure that no one party, but especially the governing party, could stack the rules in their favour. This legislation, in one fell swoop, changes all of that. Mike Harris is changing the rules. He's changing them on the fly. He's changing them in a way that's completely out of keeping with the traditions and precedents of this Legislature. He's changing them unilaterally. He's changing them without our consent. And he's doing it now without public hearings.
I go back to asking something I asked at the beginning of my remarks: If the government is so damn proud of Bill 36, if they believe it's such a positive improvement in how we conduct elections in Ontario, then why aren't they shouting out all of its wonderful aspects? Why aren't we having extended debates? Why aren't we having full public hearings? Why aren't we allowed to introduce amendments? Again, it's simply because when it's reduced to its simplest, the government is ashamed of what they're doing here. They are embarrassed. They're changing the rules, they're stacking the deck so that they make it easier for themselves to win the next election. That's what this is all about.
The minister tries to justify these changes by pretending that they were put forward by the election finances commission. He said that on numerous occasions. The fact is that's not the case. The election finances commission recommended, and I quote, "Spending limits for parties: unchanged." The election finances commission said that there should be no changes to the spending limits for parties in Ontario. What did Mike Harris do? He ignored them. He decided, unilaterally and arbitrarily, to increase those limits by $1.35 million. That's a 50% increase in party spending limits. On top of that $1.35 million, I want to remind members opposite, he has excluded all the spending on polling, research and a leader's tour from any limits.
I think it would be instructive to look at what the Tories spent in 1997. What did their party spend in 1997? When it came to polling, they spent $609,000. When it came to travel, they spent $352,000. In 1997, they spent nearly $1 million on polling and travel alone. That was a non-election year. They spent $1 million of expenses which, under the new system, the system they're putting into place, will not be accounted for. There will be no obligation to include those and they'll be subject to no limit. I remind members and Ontario viewers that the commission never approved that; in fact, they opposed that. The election finances commission said there should be no changes to the amounts of money that can be spent by a party.
I have said that these changes, together with many other changes taking place in our province, will lead to the Americanization of Ontario politics. Let me tell you why. As the sky is now the limit on polling, research and focus groups, I can guarantee you that there will be a dramatic increase in the importance of pollsters, backroom advisers, lobbyists and advertising agents. I want the members opposite, as well as viewers, to ask themselves, is that a good thing for democracy or is it a bad thing for democracy? Will this lead to more and better ideas or will it lead to more and better ways to manipulate voters?
With the dramatic increase in spending, there's going to be a dramatic increase in fund-raising. That means there's going to be a greater reliance on money and those who give us money. Again I ask members opposite, as well as viewers, is that a good thing for democracy or is that a bad thing for democracy? Does this create fewer or greater opportunities for conflicts of interest?
It's important for members opposite to understand this and understand the answers to those questions, especially at a time when they have refused to introduce into this Legislature legislation that would require that lobbyists be registered so we know who's lobbying the government, what they're after and who they're talking to. The government refuses and we should understand that there is a connection here.
On the one hand, this government is going against the advice and recommendations of the election finances commission by increasing the amount of money that parties can spend in Ontario, and on the other hand, they are refusing to introduce legislation - which is in place, as I understand it, in every other province and at the federal level - that would require lobbyists in Ontario, people who are earning a living lobbying the government, they are refusing to introduce legislation that would disclose who these people are and what they're after.
People should understand the relationship between the absence of that legislation and this legislation, on the other hand, which is going to increase the amount of money that parties can spend in Ontario. Members opposite should understand, they should recognize - they already have a history when it comes to this stuff - the kind of trouble that you can get yourself into without lobbyist legislation and when you allow for an ever-growing influence of money in Ontario politics.
What about this issue of the Niagara casino contract? Would we be there today and what does the future hold for us if the government refuses to respect and to understand the trouble politicians can get themselves into when they don't pay attention to the ever-growing influence of money in Ontario politics?
What about Ontario Hydro? Now there is an opportunity, if ever I saw one, for money to be made. Again, this government simply refuses to acknowledge the dangers that lurk behind that privatization experience. As we move down that path, the only conclusion that we can draw from the government that ignores a recommendation from the election finances commission and proceeds to increase the amount of money the parties can spend, from a government that refuses to introduce legislation that would require that lobbyists be registered, and from a government that has failed to learn from the Niagara casino contract, is that this government is quite simply in favour of an ever-growing influence of money in Ontario politics. They are in favour of the Americanization of Ontario politics. That's what they're all about. That's what they want.
Interjection.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Member for Etobicoke-Rexdale, please.
Mr McGuinty: I said at the time -
Interjection.
The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Etobicoke-Rexdale, you don't have the floor. Leader of the official opposition.
Mr McGuinty: To the members opposite who are expressing an interest in speaking to this legislation, where were they when their House leader, their minister and their Premier, Mike Harris, said there will be no time for full and thorough debate, there will be no time for public hearings and there will be no amendments that will be even considered when it comes to this legislation.
I said when this bill was first introduced - and at the time it was very interesting; it was introduced under the cover of another very significant bill, and that was the Hydro bill - that the bully was back. He'd gone missing for a time. After the throne speech, apparently this government was going to be kinder and gentler, it was going to listen and it was finally going to be beholden to the public interest. Well, that didn't last very long because the bully is back. He's alive and well and he's found inside Bill 36. Once again, Mike Harris and his government are displaying their contempt for democracy, their contempt for fairness and their contempt for some of the basic, what should have been lasting traditions of this Legislature.
2140
We're talking about changes here that are unilateral. They're one-sided. They've changed the Election Finances Act and they've threatened to Americanize our system of elections in Ontario. They threaten to make the influence of money on our politicians even greater than it already is.
Something the government doesn't understand is that democracy at the end of the day is really quite a fragile thing. It may be something the Harris government takes for granted, but it's something that those of us on this side of the House respect and indeed cherish.
Campaigns are supposed to be a battle over ideas, not a competition over who can spend more. So I'm going to ask government members to ask themselves: Do you really think what you're about to do is fair? Do you really think this bill will better serve democracy? Do you really think this bill is in keeping with our traditions, which hold that ideas are always more important than money? I think the resounding answer to all of those questions is no.
This bill is all about money. It's all about who can raise the most. It's all about who can spend the most. It's all about who can buy the election. It's all about giving Mike Harris an unfair advantage at the time of the next election.
But there is some good news. All is not lost. The good news is that the people of Ontario, the voters of this province are going to see through this transparent attempt to buy them off at the time of the next election. I can tell you that this bill, in combination with so many others that have been introduced in this Legislature and passed, is going to be one more good reason why the Mike Harris government is going to be defeated at the time of the next election.
Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): At the outset, I would like to request unanimous consent to split the time with my colleague from London Centre.
The Acting Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.
Mr Wildman: A little earlier this evening, in debating Bill 31, I indicated that I believed it was a companion piece in a sense to this bill, Bill 36, the changes to the Election Finances Act. Certainly in process they're very similar. The government has decided unilaterally in Bill 36 to bring in changes that have a significant effect on the electoral system, the electoral process and indeed on our democracy in Ontario. Bill 31, of course, made changes in the way that votes are conducted in organization drives by the labour movement and decisions made with regard to collective bargaining, particularly in the construction industry.
I see these as companion pieces because, as I indicated, the process is so similar and they both deal with the government's perception of democracy. In both cases, the bills are very controversial. In both cases, the government claims that the legislation is supported by the majority of the participants in the process. Indeed, they argue that in both cases the origin of the bills was related to consultations among the participants. In the case of Bill 31, they point to a recommendation or a proposal that was made in July 1997 by the construction unions for what are called project agreements. In the case of Bill 36, the Election Finances Act, the government points to a recommendation that was made by an all-party commission, the election expenses commission in Ontario. In that particular case, the government minister in charge, the minister for Management Board, is wont to say on many occasions that the government party only has a minority of the members and therefore these are proposals that are put forward essentially by the opposition in this House.
But in both cases, the government, in drafting these pieces of legislation, has gone far beyond what was proposed initially by the participants. In the case of Bill 31, the government threw everything but the kitchen sink into the bill in order to ensure that management's rights, if you want to use that term, were enhanced and the role of the labour movement and workers to enable them to bargain collectively was restricted. In the case of Bill 36, yes, it is true the commission did hold hearings or hold discussions among themselves, I should say, and came forward with proposals which would have taken into account changes in inflation, changes in the electoral map in Ontario and the need to update the Election Finances Act.
But again, the government went much further. The government brought forward proposals that would shorten the length of the campaign period in Ontario, a recommendation that was not proposed by the commission and never even considered by the commission. On top of that, the -
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I believe we don't have a quorum.
The Acting Speaker: Please check if we have quorum.
Clerk Assistant: A quorum is not present, Speaker.
The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.
Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present, Speaker.
The Acting Speaker: The member for Algoma.
Mr Wildman: I appreciate the members coming to listen to the debate.
As I was saying, the government went beyond the recommendations and brought forward proposals which went far beyond what the commission recommended. One of the proposals that was brought forward by the government was to shorten the campaign period. The minimum campaign period would now be 28 days rather than 37 days in Ontario. Before I move forward, I'd like to comment just briefly on the shortening of the campaign period.
One of the arguments that has been made by the government for the need for change to the Election Act is the fact that we now have fewer members, or will have in the next election fewer members in Ontario and much larger constituencies. In southern Ontario many of the constituencies will have many more people, and in many parts of rural and particularly northern Ontario they will be very large geographically. The government has said, "These are larger ridings. We need to update the act in order to take into account that we have fewer larger ridings in Ontario.
"It would seem to me that if that is the real raison d'être, then we shouldn't be shortening the campaign period, we should be doing everything possible to ensure that members can get around to all of their constituents, that candidates can get around to all of the people living in the riding as much as possible and, certainly in the large geographic ridings, should be able to get to the communities. If we are going to change the length of the campaign period, and I don't think there needs to be a change, but if we were going to make that change, we should be lengthening the campaign period, not shortening it, for larger ridings.
2150
The argument has been made: "We're not just changing the Election Finances Act, we're updating it. We should take into account new electronic means to reach the voters." The problem with that, and it's a serious problem, is that in many of these large geographic ridings there is no media outlet, whether it is electronic or print, that reaches most of the constituents. There are very few media outlets that cover the whole riding. In my riding of Algoma-Manitoulin, the northwestern part of the riding is served by the Thunder Bay media, the central by the Sault Ste Marie media and the southeastern part of the riding by the Sudbury media.
What this inevitably means, and what the government seems to be talking about, is that the Conservative Party intends to campaign centrally. What they intend to do is concentrate expenditures centrally and have a large media buy for the whole of Ontario. This means less concentration, less emphasis on the individual ridings or constituencies and more on the central campaign. Inevitably that means a greater concentration on the leadership campaigns and less on the individual campaigns in the ridings with the various candidates.
Obviously in the age of television we already have a tendency to emphasize leadership campaigns rather than the exchange of ideas. Unfortunately, the media tend to see elections as some sort of horse race. They're more into who's ahead and who's behind and who's doing well and who isn't, in terms of the speed of getting to the finish line, rather than the ideas, the campaign promises and the policy differences of the parties. I fail to see why anyone who really believes in the democratic process would want to speed that process further, so that we get away from dealing with ideas and policies and more into campaign leadership horse races.
I think the evidence that the Conservatives really want to emphasize the provincial campaign is shown in the other changes they are making. The fact is that the government is exempting a lot of things. Sure, they've increased the ceilings. They've accepted, they say, the federal limits, because they now have the federal boundaries, but we know that the federal limits in Ontario are actually somewhat lower than the proposals here. But what is more important to me than the increases in the expenditure limits or the approved doubling of the contributions by corporations to campaigns is the fact that in this bill the government is exempting so much of the central campaign from any of the limits. The Conservative Party wants to have the leader's tour, the travel expenses, the polling, the research, the consultants' fees - essentially large parts of advertising - exempted from any expenditure limits. It means also that the central campaign will be able to be doubled. The sky is the limit on most of the expenditures.
I suppose some people watching, and perhaps even a few Conservative backbenchers, might think that the opposition is continually using apocalyptic terms in dealing with legislation and the fact that this government time-allocates, but we are talking about the very essence of democracy and the future of democracy in this province. When we were talking about Bill 31, we were talking about democracy in the workplace. I would point out that in that particular case the government is the one that raised the term by that Orwellian title the government put on the bill, "Democracy in the Workplace." By its very essence, the Election Finances Act deals with democracy and the exercise of democracy in this province.
I hope that people don't think we are crying wolf, that we are being apocalyptic or extreme when we talk about the future of democracy, because we are quite sincere when we talk about this and talk about it in these terms. The process itself is not democratic. The process is one where a government unilaterally decides to change the rules and the party that is in power is changing those rules in a way that will advantage that party in the coming campaign.
Most governments, whatever party is in power, have access to more funds in our system. This bill allows even higher contributions to be made. This bill allows larger expenses to be made under the ceiling, but more important, it exempts so much of what a central campaign does that it means that the party in power, in this case the Conservative Party, which is flush with dollars, will be able to spend so much money that it is indeed dangerous to our democracy. It means that it is possible for a government party to gain power simply because or largely because it has access to more funds and can spend more money in an election campaign.
It has been said in this debate that it doesn't necessarily follow that if a party spends the most money that party will win, and that's certainly true. There's no question about that. The recent California campaign has been pointed to as an example of the fact that you had a very wealthy individual running for one of the parties, who spent enormous amounts, millions of dollars of his own funds, and didn't win, but the irony of that is that the person who lost spent about $20 million, I think, and the person who won spent $2 million. We're still talking about millions of dollars.
Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Transportation): There are 30 million people in the state.
Mr Wildman: It's certainly true that we're talking about a state that has a total population about the same size as the whole of Canada, but I'm just talking in terms of the magnitude of expenditures.
I think we should look at the United States experience. There is not one member of the US Senate who is not himself or herself a millionaire. The fact is that personal wealth is now one of the main qualifications for electoral success in the United States. I admire the democracy of the United States, I admire the institutions of the congressional system, but there is one part of the American system that I find very alarming and dangerous, and that is the fact that money talks in the American system. You cannot win unless you're wealthy. You can't even get into the door unless you're wealthy.
Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I don't believe we have a quorum.
The Acting Speaker: Is there a quorum?
Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): A quorum is not present, Speaker.
The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.
Clerk at the Table: A quorum is now present, Speaker.
The Acting Speaker: The member for Algoma.
2200
Mr Wildman: Thank you very much. I appreciate my colleague's calling for a quorum. I just hope the fact that there are so many Tory members absent and having to be called back in is not a reflection on the quality of my presentation.
I was saying that I'm concerned if we look at the American system, the influence of funding, not just campaign funds but even personal wealth, in determining whether an individual can place his name or her name before the public in running for office, and while I admire the American democracy, I don't think that is an aspect of it that we want to import into Canada.
Hon Mr Clement: That is why we have spending limits.
Mr Wildman: The other thing that is worrisome to me is that partly because of the fact that in the United States there is so much emphasis on wealth and funds in determining the electoral process, we have a concomitant fall in the interest in elections in the United States. We now have a situation where, at the most, only about 50% of the population votes in federal elections. It's less in state elections and it's abysmal in municipal elections. While we have the greatest democracy in the world, we don't have the true participation of the citizens of that democracy in the electoral process. That then raises the question of whether it is really a democracy in terms of the process. Some would argue that it is more of a plutocracy because of the influence of wealth in the process.
My friend the Minister of Transportation says, "That's why we have spending limits," and it is true that this government maintains spending limits in these changes. But as I said, the government allows for increases in expenditures and, more important, is exempting most of what central campaigns do. As a result of that, the sky is the limit on those expenditures.
Having said all that, I want to emphasize that I believe we should proceed with changes to the Election Finances Act carefully, that we should do that through a process of consultation and discussion, that we should follow the examples of the 1970s and 1980s and try to arrive at consensus.
In his presentation the minister argued that the opposition parties did not want to negotiate. That is not accurate. The fact is we had two meetings. The opposition parties, our party certainly, indicated clearly that we wanted to have further meetings and further discussions, and I will tell you - I'm not betraying any confidence at all - that the very day that the government introduced the bill, five minutes prior to the minister's introducing the bill, I was out in the lobby talking to him. I was overheard, as a matter of fact, by a reporter. I said to the minister, "Look, we're prepared to have further discussions on the election expenses commission changes," and the minister said to me, "Well, maybe we can talk about it at House leaders." This was on Tuesday. That House leaders' meeting takes place on Thursday. He said, "We can talk about it at the House leaders' meeting."
I don't know how anybody interprets that, except I interpret it to mean, "Okay, we're going to have further discussions and we'll talk about it on Thursday." The minister, though, to be fair said - I want to tell you exactly what he said - "But we do have to introduce the bill." I said, "Okay, fine, we'll talk about it on Thursday." Five minutes later the minister was in this House introducing the bill. I ask you, my mother, when I was a child, told me that honesty and integrity involve not just telling the truth but telling the whole truth.
Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): So he was not telling the whole truth.
Mr Wildman: I just leave it at that. The fact is that the minister, five minutes before he introduced the bill, was indicating to me we would have discussions about it two days later.
All the members of this House are honourable members, I hope. I hope that, despite our differences, they deal with each other in honesty. I hope that members are forthright. The Chair of Management Board, in my experience up to that experience, was straight with me, even when we had differences. If the minister intended to introduce the bill a few minutes after our discussion, Speaker, I ask you -
Mr Gerretsen: Why didn't he say so?
Mr Wildman: Why didn't he say so? It's not as if I could do anything about it.
On top of that, we now have time allocation and we have no hearings. We have unilateral action by this government moving forward without consensus, without real negotiation, without any attempt to deal with the concerns of the opposition, and we have a government that is prepared to move forward without any amendments, not to deal with any concerns raised by the opposition, not to evaluate them, a government that is going to move forward without any hearings, without any input from the public.
Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I think we've heard this speech.
Mr Wildman: Yes, you've heard it before because you operate this way all the time in this House.
Mr Gerretsen: Come on, you give the same speech every day in here.
The Acting Speaker: Member for Kingston and The Islands.
Mr Wildman: Yes, you've heard it. You've heard it too often. We have a government here that isn't interested in hearing the public, and I don't understand why, because if they really believe in democracy, then they should be trying to hear what the citizens of this province think.
Mr Galt: Why don't you just -
The Acting Speaker: Member for Northumberland, you don't have the floor.
Mr Wildman: He also doesn't have a brain.
The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Algoma, I find this offensive.
Mr Wildman: In due respect to you, I will withdraw.
The Acting Speaker: Just withdraw it, thank you.
Mr Wildman: I withdrew. The member over there laughs because he is, I guess, showing disdain for the process here and for the members of the opposition and that is why I expressed my true feelings about him as well, Speaker.
So here we are. We have time-allocated a bill that is going to affect the electoral process in this province, is going to affect the rights of all citizens of the province, is going to affect the ability of people to put themselves forward as candidates, is going to make it possible for people with money to influence the electoral process even more than they now do, and we are not going to have any hearings, we're not going to have any amendments and the government is going to force it through without any committee discussion.
2210
This is not an indication of a government that is interested in listening to the people or to the opposition. It is not a government that's interested in trying to reach consensus. It is a government that knows more than anybody else, in its view, and is prepared to move its agenda forward despite what may or may not be good for the future of the democracy in this province.
We're not being apocalyptic. We're not crying wolf. We're simply trying to defend the rights of the opposition and the rights of the citizens of Ontario to protect what we have come to value, and that is a democratic system that allows at least some chance for everyone to participate in the political process, no matter how much money they have in the bank.
Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I'm pleased to join third reading debate on Bill 36. I thought I'd first address the issue of the length of the campaign. That issue has been raised by the member for Algoma. Certainly on second reading as well there has been fairly lively debate on the issue of the length of the campaign. As you know, this Bill 36 proposes to change the minimum length of an election campaign in Ontario from 37 days to 28 days.
The member for Algoma raised a point similar to those that have been raised previously by some opposition members about the size of the ridings, that in Bill 81, the Fewer Politicians Act, in the last session this Legislature decided that in the next provincial election we would reduce the number of ridings from the current 130 to 103. That would result, especially in the rural areas, in larger ridings.
One of the reasons the government is anxious to proceed with Bill 36 is that, with the next election approaching, it makes sense to bring in reforms that recognize that not only are there fewer ridings now with a larger number of electors in each riding, but also that the election laws that deal with each of those ridings need to be brought up to date to recognize the changing size and the changing number of electors.
As I have said previously, and as I'll say again, I represent a large riding. It's not as big as the Algoma riding and probably not nearly as big as the Algoma-Manitoulin riding that the member for Algoma indicates he'll be contesting in the next election, but it is a large riding. I assume that I will be running in the next election and that being the case, the riding will be even larger. However, I think it would probably take not 28 days but 228 days for me to get around to have a meaningful discussion of the issues in the election with all the people in that size of a riding. One has to ask, would the public be willing to put up with a campaign of that length? I think the obvious answer is no, the public would not want to have an election campaign that long.
The opposition have raised a lot of concern about the length of the campaign as though there is great public concern over that issue that's been raised in this bill. If I had heard from a lot of my constituents that they were concerned that the length of campaigns was not long enough, I might have some sympathy for that argument. I don't remember even a member of the media ever saying in Ontario, "That darned election just wasn't long enough." I don't know, maybe they have said that. Maybe people whose business benefits from what happens during an election campaign would feel that way.
But I know that prior to 1995, when I wasn't a member of a provincial political party, I followed elections quite closely but I don't remember ever really being wrapped in an election for the full 37 days or 42 days or whatever length of campaign they were. Quite frankly, I doubt there are many people in Ontario, aside from those who are directly involved in a campaign, who have the patience to put an awful lot of attention into a campaign that's longer than 28 days. However, it could be that the opposition members and I simply have a disagreement on that issue. My point is that I think the idea of reducing the campaign from 37 to 28 days probably has widespread public support. We've seen an indication from some of the daily papers in Ontario, including the Chatham daily paper and the Peterborough paper, that they felt 28 days was a reasonable length of time.
I thought I would also direct some comments to the spending limits, because that has been raised by the Leader of the Opposition and by the member for Algoma, who has announced tonight that he'll be running in Algoma-Manitoulin in the next election. That may not be newsworthy. I want to indicate to those watching at home that Bill 36 proposes to adopt the federal spending limits, both for individual candidates and for central parties.
The recent report put out by Elections Canada on the 1997 spending limits in federal ridings indicates that for those parties that fielded candidates in 301 federal electoral districts, when you divide the total amount of money the central party is allowed to spend by the number of eligible voters, it works out to just over 60 cents per voter in central party spending; I believe it's 60.57 cents. So the recommended spending for the central party under this proposed bill is lower than what currently exists at the federal level.
We've been saying all along that this bill makes sense because it adopts the federal expense levels. This was indicated earlier, in March 1998, by the Liberal member for Windsor-Walkerville in his letter to the government House leader, "If the federal expense limits were high enough for the recent federal election campaign, why are they not high enough for Mike Harris?" We agree with the member for Windsor-Walkerville.
We have agreed that rather than adopt the spending limits recommended by the election finances commission, which was $1.40 per elector, we decided as well not to adopt limits that would reflect inflation which would have been about $1.06 per voter, so we went to what the federal spending is per voter, of 96 cents per voter. We think that's reasonable and we think that's exactly what the Liberal position was in March 1998.
Of course those limits which we're fixing at 96 cents under the old rules have ranged, if you look back to the 1995 election, as widely as 51 cents in York Centre, which was the riding with the most eligible electors in 1995, to $2.03 per voter in the Rainy River riding, which had the fewest eligible voters. We think there should be a narrower range and I understand that under this legislation, in addition to the 96 cents per voter, there is an added amount that can be spent by the parties in the larger northern Ontario ridings.
Another thing that I think is important to point out to the viewers is that through the debate we've had on this bill, one can sense there is actually a lot of consensus among the parties on a lot of the issues. The member from Algoma stated tonight that his feeling was that it isn't the party that spends the most money that wins the election, it's the party that has the strongest ideas. In fact the Leader of the Opposition indicated tonight that you can't buy votes, that it's the strength of the ideas that wins the votes.
That was true in 1995 and I think that'll be true in the next election. We heard the evidence earlier in debate, and again from the member for Algoma tonight, of the recent California elections where some of the candidates spent unfathomable amounts of money and in many cases lost to candidates who had difficulty raising any money for the campaign because they were able to convince the voters that the ideas they had were worthy, more worthy perhaps than the ideas put forward by those candidates who had a lot of money to spend.
2220
I've certainly heard consensus in the debate that the idea of a permanent voters' list is one supported by all three parties. Bill 36 contains a number of items that could be categorized as non-controversial, probably non-newsworthy items. It bears repeating that the permanent voters' list is an idea that has been emphasized by the chief election officer in Ontario for quite some time. There's not only the opportunity to incorporate the logic of the same system we have federally with the provincial system, just as we've done with the election riding boundaries; we could also have the same voters' list, keep it updated on a regular basis and save $10 million per election. This is an idea that's already in place in British Columbia, Alberta and Quebec. The chief election officer is urging us to get this legislation passed so that he and his staff can get working on a permanent voters' list. The opposition, if I've read it correctly, have indicated that they think that's a good idea as well.
The idea of bringing in that temporarily absent voters are given the right to vote - if you are a Canadian citizen and were a permanent resident of Ontario for 12 consecutive months and you intend to return to Ontario, you could vote in a provincial election for up to two years while you're temporarily out of the province. This should open the voting process for individuals outside of Canada because of military service and for students living in a new riding. It would make the system simpler for those people. I think this is something the opposition likely will have little or no opposition to.
It's interesting that the Leader of the Opposition spoke tonight and gave quite a forceful speech, I thought, but didn't mention section 19 of the bill, which calls for the removal of the public posting of the voters' list in each polling division. Yet during the last session of this Parliament it was the Leader of the Opposition who put forward a private member's bill - in that session it was Bill 2 - that called for the same idea. We have implemented his idea into section 19 of the bill, and I was surprised he didn't speak to that issue. It really is a personal safety issue. Women and seniors no longer need to be concerned that just anyone can walk up to a telephone pole or a post office and know exactly where they live and that they live alone.
Section 4 of the bill provides for the testing of new election processes during by-elections. We recognize that technology is providing us with opportunities to conduct elections better and better, and section 4 would allow these new technologies to be tested during a by-election.
The electors can be added to the voters' list right up to election day under section 18. If you bring the proper identification with you, everyone in Ontario who is eligible to vote will be able to register on election day. Previously this was really only done well in rural areas. I think that's again a non-controversial item in the bill, a sensible thing that probably all parties can agree to.
Section 62 in the bill, just to summarize, requires that all political advertising, regardless of whether it's a party, a candidate, an individual, unions, associations or corporations, must show who the sponsor of the advertising is.
Registered charities can't make a political contribution in Ontario, under section 60. This again is an item that I don't think any of the parties objected to. When people give their money to a charity for charitable causes, they don't wish it to be used for political purposes, and it won't be allowed.
Section 65 of the bill deals with affiliated political organizations. They cannot accept donations. It's known as political soft money, and we've closed the door on that. Under the old system there was really no tracking of affiliated political organizations that receive money, and now it must go right through the party to ensure that there's a public disclosure of this money being raised.
That raised an interesting point, one that has not been brought up in the debate tonight on third reading, and that is that this legislation requires contribution limits both to the individual candidate and to the party, something that is not provided for at the federal level. I think a lot of people would be surprised to know that there are no contribution limits at the federal level. It certainly came as a surprise to me.
Section 44 of the bill includes a new offence, bribery, and I think that speaks for itself.
Section 37: Rather than the old system, which required that if there was a close result one of the candidates would have to request a recount, under this legislation there's an automatic recount if the decision is fewer than 25 votes. I think that's a very sensible provision and one that probably wouldn't raise any controversy for any of the parties.
Section 14 provides simpler rules for proxy voting so that individuals who know they're not able to vote on election day can get a proxy. Before, a limited list of reasons had to be provided for the restricted use of proxies.
In summary, there is a lot in this bill that hasn't been mentioned in debate because it's generally agreed upon between the parties. However, when it comes to spending limits, we are, as was requested by the member for Windsor-Walkerville, adopting the federal spending limits. We're updating electoral legislation in Ontario for the first time since 1986, and we're doing it primarily on the basis of recommendations made by all-party committees and by a commission composed of representatives from all three parties.
Those are the comments I wish to make at this time.
Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): As I listened to the words of the minister who spoke earlier tonight, I couldn't help but think of Kipling's warning that you have to be able to "bear to hear the truth you've spoken twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools." Isn't that what this government's all about? That's what this debate has been all about. That's what the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay tried to do to this debate tonight: to take the truth and wrap it in rhetoric and distort it, distort the truth, not talk about the reality; to take words out of context and quite simply to not speak about the reality of the bill as it relates to expenditure, to try to spin it, to try to convince people that the government's doing something that in fact it's not doing.
But we ought not to be surprised at that. Mike Harris said they wouldn't close hospitals, didn't he? What are we up to now, 35? Another one today in Kingston, Hotel Dieu in Kingston - 36 hospitals. He said he wouldn't do that.
In the last election Mike Harris said they wouldn't touch classroom education. Wrong again. The list goes on and on and on. All the spin-meisters and all the money in the world that you're going to have to spend can't hide that very simple fact.
I want to review several provisions of the bill very briefly once again and reiterate the points that were made by the leader of my party, Dalton McGuinty, who shamed this government into rejecting its own proposals about spending limits. They knew they couldn't proceed on what the House leader for the government said some months ago was going to happen.
Let's begin with the question of the length of a campaign period - simple to understand. It was said by the minister, it was said by other members opposite that this proposed change was recommended somewhere else. It certainly was. It was recommended by the whiz kids. It wasn't part of the election finances commission report. It was not part of the ad hoc committee. It was not part of any formal recommendation anywhere. Where did it come from? It came from the whiz kids. It came from the purveyors of American politics in this province, the ones who want to raise the spending limits and shorten the length of campaigns, the ones who spent $1.3 million this week on useless Tory government propaganda when they could have spent that money to provide more nurses in our hospitals, to provide more spots for junior kindergarten. That's what this is about. Unlike what the minister said, that key component of change came from nowhere other than the Premier's office.
2230
The sycophants on the other side, like the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay, who will sit and read what he's told to read, and what the minister can say -
Interjection.
Mr Duncan: Obviously, the member for Guelph isn't even aware. She simply believed what was said. Check the facts and don't distort the facts. Don't suggest for one moment that this package was all recommended at one period of time or by one group. The fact remains that it was not. These recommendations were made over 10 years, quite apart from one another. When they really start to stink is when you put them all together, and when they stink even more is when the reality is attempted to be distorted.
What about the party spending? I heard tonight on three occasions the government members say, "We've adopted the federal limits."
Mr Murdoch: That's what it's all about, isn't it?
Mr Duncan: Let me take a moment to review the formula for the government members like the member for Grey-Owen Sound, who tonight is on side with the government again, the member who conveniently abandons his party when it suits him and goes back when it doesn't. What is it, I say to the member for Grey-Owen Sound? Are you with them or are you against them? Where do you belong?
Mr Murdoch: I belong with my ratepayers, whatever they want. Sometimes they like it, sometimes they don't. That's the way it is.
Mr Duncan: The federal formula in this province sets up the following spending limits for central campaigns. The formula is very simple: 30 cents per voter times an inflation factor of 0.605, which results in a limit of $3.2 million. I understand that that's complicated math for some of the members opposite, so I'll now explain to you the math behind the formula you're voting for, the formula that you think is the same, because I know that anything beyond simple arithmetic eludes you. Let's have a look.
Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I fail to see quorum in the House.
The Acting Speaker: Do we have quorum in the House?
Clerk Assistant: Quorum is not present, Speaker.
The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.
Clerk Assistant: Quorum is now present, Speaker.
The Acting Speaker: The member for Windsor-Walkerville.
Mr Duncan: I want to review for the member for Grey-Owen Sound the mathematics again, because he doesn't understand it. I reviewed the current federal formula, which results in spending of $3.2 million. What you're setting up is much simpler mathematics, and it goes 40 cents per voter. You take the number of voters and you multiply it by 40 cents, 0.40, and what does that result in? It results in a spending limit of $2.7 million. That's the current.
What are we going to do in Ontario? What are we going to do to equalize with the federal formula? We're going to move it to 60 cents, which results in expenditures of $4 million, or $800,000 more. So when you suggest or imply that you've adopted the federal limit, you're simply not getting the math properly. You're making a mistake in your arithmetic. It doesn't work. It's phoney. It's distorted. It's not accurate.
First, an $800,000 advantage to the party with money. Then the government took a couple more steps. The government said: "We're also going to exclude, for limit purposes, two types of expenditures. We're going to exclude" - that means subtract - "the cost of polling and the cost of travel." Polling also includes research.
That sounds innocuous enough until one looks at the government's political spending in the last year. Let's review that for a moment.
In 1997 travel spending was $352,000, which will now be excluded expenditures, which, by the way, as you'll know, Mr Speaker, because you're a man of much political experience, is a fairly small amount relative to a leader's tour during a campaign.
Polling: In 1997 the Ontario Conservative Party, the Mike Harris party, the Reform-a-Tories, spent $609,000. What does that total give you? It gives you a total, with the new formula, of $5 million flat. Under the current rules, that same party, the Reform-a-Tories, could have spent $2.6 million.
Interjection.
The Acting Speaker: Member for Etobicoke-Humber.
Mr Duncan: I know the math is a little difficult for those members, so let me tell you what the difference is. That's when you subtract. You've said in here that the federal formula was the same as the provincial formula, and it's not. I understand that you can't do basic arithmetic. Let me tell you what the difference is. The difference is $2.3 million, or an 86% increase.
Now, who is that going to benefit? Let's think. Is it going to benefit a party that raised $2 million in one fund-raising dinner in Toronto? I would think it will. Will it benefit a party that shamelessly spends health care dollars for cheap political propaganda? I would think it will. This is the piece right here: $1.3 million of nurses' salaries, of emergency room relief, of junior kindergarten - that's what it is. It's an absolute abomination. That's who these limits will benefit.
So when the minister and the members opposite get up and say that they've adopted the federal limits -
Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): Tell the truth.
The Acting Speaker: Order. Member for Etobicoke-Humber, you're becoming a nuisance.
Mr Duncan: What happens? It means you spend more money. That will benefit you, so what the minister and the members opposite said - and I can't say they didn't tell the truth. That wouldn't be parliamentary. I can't say that they misled this House. That wouldn't be parliamentary. I can't say that they would knowingly distort and mislead electors. That wouldn't be parliamentary. I can say that you can't do your math, you can't do your simple arithmetic. You know what? That's sad, because what it results in is not only a less informed electorate but an unbalanced and unfair electoral system that benefits those who have versus those who don't.
When the government says it adopted the federal limits, they didn't. What they've done is distorted the reality of their own bill. It's unfortunate that for some reason the members opposite, who say they've adopted it, either can't read or can't do the math. It's that simple. It's very, very simple.
But as I said at the beginning of my remarks, we oughtn't to be surprised, because that's what this government is all about and that's what they're going to spend the additional money on. In addition to the wasted money on government propaganda, in addition to the money you've taken out of junior kindergarten and out of hospitals and out of law enforcement to propagate your own myths, this is what you're about. I would suggest to the government members that all the money and all the spin doctors and all the Republican National Committee gurus and all the advisers you can import won't be able to distort any further the reality.
2240
The people of this province will see through your game. They will see through the masquerade. They know what you're about. You're not about people in this province; you're about money. You're not about truth in advertising; you're about spin. You're not about fairness in the electoral process; you're about winning at all costs. You're not about decent public debate; you're about jamming legislation through without debate. You're not about anything that has to do with the history of this province, a history of balance and fairness and moderation; you're about extremes. You're about everything that's wrong and corruptible about politics and people like you give us all a bad name because you insist on distorting the truth, on distorting reality.
This bill is yet another bill in a long, sad line of bills, a line of bills that we may or may not agree on but that are jammed through without debate, without committee hearings, without an opportunity for the public to participate. It's about stacking the deck. Whether it be against a welfare recipient in Windsor or against a hospital in Kingston, it's about that.
It has nothing at all to do with fair process and an improved electorate and improved democracy. It's about a sale. It's about a seat sale. It's about getting rid of the referee. It's about changing the rules. In my view it's utterly corrupt, it's utterly contemptible. You can laugh tonight and you can jam this through tonight, but the people of this province will jam this legislation and others like it right where the sun doesn't shine on you at the next election. I challenge you to leave this House tonight and have public hearings. Let's have a real debate and let's not try to buy elections. Let's have a fair and open electoral process in this province. This bill, like so many others, is an absolute abomination.
I thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to participate one last time.
Mrs Boyd: I'm tempted to ask my colleague from Windsor-Walkerville, what does he really think? My goodness. The emotion, though, that he expresses I think is felt by most of us and by most of the people we associate with in our constituencies who care about democracy.
The reality of this whole process is just another in a long line of processes that this government has gone through that are eroding and chipping away at the democratic process in our province. It's a fascinating experience to have to spend hour after hour in this place which has so many fine traditions, which has seen the growth and the strength of democracy in this province, to be sitting here again at night watching this government trample over the democratic process.
It's really interesting. My friend from Windsor-Walkerville thought that by laying out the facts and actually doing the math for this government he might convince them that their belief about what they're doing in this bill is wrong. But of course what he doesn't take into account is that this government doesn't want to be confused by the facts. None of this has anything to do with fact. What it has to do with is bullying their way through, winning at all costs. It's all about rewriting the rules of democracy to suit the far right and it's actually an exercise in contempt for the values around democracy that we all hold dear.
It shouldn't surprise us to see them laughing and joking and making fun of those who feel passionately about the process. It's not surprising to see them smirk and joke about the fact that they're destroying yet another tradition in this place around the desire of all members to come to some consensus around change. This just has nothing to do with what we're all used to doing in this place, and of course it's not the first time we've seen that behaviour from this government. It is just another example along the way of how to bully things through, how to ignore and distort the realities of the situation and to present them in a way that suits them.
One of the amusing things about all this is watching the manoeuvring that's happening on the other side. All parties have been government in the last little while, and everyone who has been government knows the hint of panic and the smarmy desire to win favour that always seems to show its face when there's a hint that there might be a cabinet shuffle, right? All of a sudden we see people who have been totally silent in this place jumping up and carrying the flag. You go, "Oh, I wonder if it's him," especially when he announces that he's running in a riding where there is a long-standing incumbent. That's one of the things that happened tonight with the member from Muskoka. Apparently he's running in the riding that is now going to be combined under the Fewer Politicians Act with one of the long-standing front bench of the Tory party. We find little announcements like this thrust in.
We see people self-consciously making sure that they look exactly right. Of course, when the Premier came in, we saw everybody grinning and dutifully laughing at his jokes and trying to be sure that they get in the focus of his attention. It's always kind of amusing at this point. I know that the few members who were here when we were in government used to laugh and giggle over the same kind of behaviour, and certainly the Liberals have been there too. It does add a certain piquancy to what's going on around this electoral bill.
It also explains why it's so urgent to get this bill through, even though supposedly it's not supposed to take place until January 1, 1999.
Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): So what's the rush?
Mrs Boyd: That's what everybody is asking. Why couldn't we have public hearings on this bill? Why wasn't it possible for the Chair of Management Board to wait a couple of days until a discussion occurred around how to get the members around the table, because there are things in this bill, things that truly do modernize the electoral process that most of us could agree to. Of course, the rush and the hurry has caught people's attention. What is the rush and the hurry?
Well, for those who are interested, it just may be that all this rush and hurry is because we're going to have an election before January 1, 1999. I'm looking at subsection 82(1) of the bill, and many of you may not even know that subsection 82(1) is there. Let me read it to you:
"If the Legislature is dissolved after the day this act receives royal assent but before January 1, 1999, subsection 38(3) of the Election Finances Act shall be deemed to read as follows for the purposes of the general election.
"(3) In relation to candidates in the electoral districts of Kenora-Rainy River, Thunder Bay-Nipigon, Thunder Bay-Atikokan, Timmins-James Bay, Algoma-Manitoulin, Nickel Belt and Timiskaming-Cochrane, the amount determined under subsection (2) shall be increased by $5,000."
The public out there is saying, "What is this all about?" This is about the fact that the electoral districts have already been changed by the so-called Fewer Politicians Act, one of the first slams at democracy in this province, when this government decided that it was quite feasible for them to enlarge the responsibilities of members and continually try to cut back on the ability of members to represent. That's been a constant practice here. This provision in the act was to allow for a $5,000 additional amount of money that could be spent on travel in these very large areas.
It's my guess that the reason this whole section had to be put in here is that one of the deep, dark plots that's going on, of course, especially since the economy appears to be taking a nosedive - my, it seems like 1990 again.
2250
Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): The economy seems to be taking a nosedive?
Mrs Boyd: Have you been reading all the concerns about the Asian flu? Did you hear the Prime Minister admit that economic growth was going to be considerably lower?
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mrs Boyd: We heard the Liberals -
The Acting Speaker: If you address the Chair, you won't have any problem with them.
Mrs Boyd: Mr Speaker, you remember the spring and summer of 1990, when the Liberals kept talking about how wonderful the economy was and it was just booming right along, and called an election when they saw what the indicators were doing. I want you to know that we will be watching very carefully, and it will strike panic into the hearts of people in Ontario if this government, with its large majority, with its clear ability to thrust through this place anything it wants to do, goes early to an election. The people in Ontario will know what it's all about. They've left provision for themselves in this act.
I know that my friend from Cochrane South wants to have a few words, so I'm going to stop speaking and we'll go another round to finish this bill.
Mr Bradley: I have only two minutes left in which to make a speech, which is unusual for me. Let me say, first of all, to the people of this province that you can judge a government best by what it does when it thinks nobody is looking. And it thinks nobody is looking when it's passing this bill through the Legislature in the dying days of this session because there has not been the kind of outrage there should be expressed in the news media, perhaps because one individual, Conrad Black, controls most of the newspapers in Ontario. But when they find out, for instance, that there is control over third-party advertising, let me tell you, they'll come flying out.
What this bill does essentially is it makes money king in the elections of Ontario, just as money plays the dominant role in elections south of the border. It means that a government such as the Harris government, which caters to the very richest people in the province, which caters to the most powerful people in the province, will be paid back in spades with all kinds of money from the major interests in this province, who will be paying back the government for the kind of legislation and the kind of regulatory framework it has developed and the policies which it is advancing. What this government is trying to do is stack the deck in favour of Mike Harris and the Conservative Party in the next election.
What it is doing is failing to reach a consensus, which is the normal way of developing a bill of this kind. It is refusing to have any public hearings because it dare not go to the people with these proposals which are so anti-democratic, and it is even refusing to allow the placing of any amendments to the legislation at all - almost unprecedented in this province. That is because this government is ashamed of the bill, and it should be, because it's an attack on our democratic system.
Mr Bisson: In the five minutes that I have, I want to put on record my opposition to this bill and I want to tell you why. First of all, this government, yet again, has decided that it's going to push another bill through the House by way of a time allocation motion. On something as fundamental as how we run elections in this province, supposedly the way that we make the democratic decisions about how we get elected in this Legislature, this government has decided yet again to pass a bill by way of time allocation, not giving the public of Ontario the ability to get their heads around this bill and to take a look at, are the changes that the government is proposing good changes?
Mr Murdoch: Okay, you've got us. We'll sit all July and August.
Mr Bisson: If you're going to give us hearings in July and August, that would be fine. Let's do it. But yet again this government is basically saying it's just going to ram ahead and it's not going to give anybody an opportunity to have any say. Why is that? It's a very simple reason: The government, by way of this bill, is changing the way it is able to raise dollars for the political parties in Ontario. We know this bill does a couple of very serious things that fundamentally change how we raise money in Ontario by political parties and how that money is spent.
I will give you an example. As you know, in a provincial election each leader has what's called a leader's tour. Mike Harris, who is the Premier of Ontario, is going to have a staff, as will the leaders of the two opposition parties, Howard Hampton and the other leader. They will all have a staff of people around them, a bus and probably some airplane charters. In the case of Mike Harris, he'll probably have a jet plane flying around the province to get to a whole bunch of different places. All the support items that go into the tour - the booking of time, the travel, the staff, the computers, the generation of press releases etc - are items that used to be within the campaign limits. When a provincial party was given a limit, as were all the parties, of X amount of equal dollars, you had to account for the leader's tour within that money.
In this particular case, the government is saying that the leader's tour is going to be exempt, which gives the government and other parties the ability to go out and try to raise another $2.5 million to $3 million, just by way of that exclusion alone.
Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): It's a lot of money.
Mr Bisson: It's a lot of money.
The reality is that we know the Conservatives are well placed to go to their business friends, by virtue of passing laws like Bill 31, which they did tonight, and a whole bunch of others, and give the business sector some advantages. And I don't mean small business, because I think they're bad for small business, but the large corporate sector. They're able to go out and get the money.
The government will argue: "It's up to the NDP and the other opposition party to go out there and raise dollars just like us. That's fair." That's what they say. What do you think the ability of the NDP and the other opposition party will be to raise the kinds of dollars that they will be allowed to raise through the changes in this bill? The reality is, it's not going to happen.
This government is trying to give itself an advantage in the next provincial election, pure and simple. Why? I think it comes down to a very simple fundamental: This government cannot win by fair rules.
Mr Baird: We did last time.
Mr Bisson: They can't get legislation through this House through the fair rules of the House, so when they're not able to change the rules, when they're not able to pass bills in this House by fair means in the House -
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Order, members for Durham East and Nepean.
Mr Bisson: This government has gone through and changed the rules of the Legislature. They say, "We can't operate with fair rules that give the opposition a responsible opportunity to slow the government down when they need to," so they change the rules in the House. When it comes to elections, they say: "If it comes down to just us out there trying in our regular way to sell our message, we think we're going to have some problems. We need the ability to crank up the advertising dollars to the maximum possible amount so we can give ourselves an advantage." That's why this government is doing it. They're saying, "We can't win the next election by way of fair rules, so we'll change the rules in order to give us an ability."
I think that's cynical. I think it speaks reams about what this government is all about. All I would say is simply this: Maybe we're at the point of looking at what they're doing in England and looking at changing the campaign rules in quite an opposite direction, so that every party and every individual running in Ontario comes at it from an equal perspective. This will give the Tories a huge advantage.
The Acting Speaker: The member for Mississauga North.
Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Natural Resources): I think it's worth examining what the member opposite has said to find out who in fact is cynical here. We've heard from the member for St Catharines this evening. He's talked about this government having rich friends and he's talked about this bill making money king. We've heard that argument from the third party. We've shockingly heard it, I think, from the member for Algoma tonight.
If you look at the annual report of the Commission on Election Finances you will find quite a different story. Under individual contributions, you will find the Liberal Party at $169, the leading recipient from these rich people. The Conservatives are $121. If you look at union contributions, you'll find the NDP leads the list with -
Interjection.
The Acting Speaker: Order, member for Ottawa West. The member for Mississauga North has the floor.
Hon Mr Snobelen: Let me say that over again. Our friends from the third party lead the list in union donations with an average of $763 each. Perhaps even more startling, in the area of corporate donations, the Liberals are in first place with an average of $930, the NDP are in second place with $910 and our party collects an average of $522. I put it to the members of this chamber: Who in fact is protecting their rich friends? It's the parties opposite.
The Acting Speaker: Mr Hodgson has moved third reading of Bill 36. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?
All those in favour, say "aye."
All those opposed, say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it.
Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.
The division bells rang from 2300 to 2303.
The Acting Speaker: This reads:
"Pursuant to standing order 28(g), I would like to request that the vote on Bill 36, the Election Statute Law Amendment Act, be deferred until June 24, 1998."
Signed by the government whip.
Hon David Turnbull (Minister without Portfolio): I seek unanimous consent to call the 35th order, second reading of Bill 44, An Act to amend the City of Toronto Act, 1997, which stands in the name of Ms Lankin.
The Acting Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.
CITY OF TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA CITÉ DE TORONTO
Ms Lankin moved second reading of the following bill:
Bill 44, An Act to amend the City of Toronto Act, 1997 / Projet de loi 44, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1997 sur la cité de Toronto.
Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I am sure all members of the House will understand that I am both honoured and excited tonight to have this bill come forward and to know that it is going to be passed into law in Ontario. I say directly to the member for Nepean, as I look to the members of the community of East York who are here in both members' galleries, that it is indeed a proud moment.
Applause.
Ms Lankin: Thank you.
The history of this bill: When the government announced its intentions to bring forward megacity legislation, it's not a surprise to you for me to say that there was considerable opposition within the area of Metropolitan Toronto, which included the cities of Scarborough and Etobicoke and Toronto and North York and York and the borough of East York. There was considerable opposition, but none so mighty and none so fierce as that of the residents and the truly proud people of the community of East York. Many of the leaders of that fight-back movement are here in the galleries tonight. It is with shared pride - I know they feel a sense of accomplishment in what is about to happen tonight.
During the megacity fight-back, East York began the campaign. In fact, I again proudly wear tonight the colours of yellow and black in celebration of their yellow ribbon campaign, and the signs, you'll remember, in yellow and black in which they fought vigorously against the megacity. In fact, that unique community, the small borough of East York, had an incredible turnout compared to most municipal elections in the megacity referendum - not just an incredible turnout; they had an 81% No vote in that referendum. It was the most significant No vote of all the city communities of the now new megacity of Toronto.
I guess in a way that's history. We lost that one, right? That's gone. The government announced the legislation was proceeding. What did the people from East York do? Did they give up? No. As the song says, they picked themselves up, brushed themselves off, started all over again and said, "If you're going to force this megacity on us, then we want it to work for the people of East York, and we want fair, democratic representation in our community of East York." They demanded of this Legislature fair representation.
They pointed out to us that the population of East York is about 108,000, and that with only two councillors, as the legislation proposed at that point in time, they would have representation of one councillor per about 54,000 residents of East York. They also pointed out that the average ratio for all of the 28 proposed wards in the new, big megacity of Toronto was about 39,000 residents per councillor. They were at 54,000, the high end; 39,000 was the average; the lowest, just for your information, was in the city of York, and that was 35,000, very close to the average. So there's no way it could be considered democratic representation for the people of East York.
They said no and they fought back. They tried, through representation, myself and my colleague from Riverdale - who has been my partner through all of this effort, and I appreciate her help and her support - to bring this issue forward. We moved amendments to the bill. I remember the day in committee, I remember the shame that that amendment didn't carry. It could have. With some different actions, some different representation, it could have passed, but it didn't. The megacity legislation passed without fair representation for the people of East York. We kept hammering the issue here in the Legislature to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and he finally said, "I'm not going to do anything, I'm not going to fix it, but if the new city of Toronto wants to fix it I'll abide by their decision," never believing that the people of East York could organize, through their effective representation, to get the city to agree. They did.
2310
They worked that council. It took a couple of tries, a couple of votes and a couple of fix-its along the way with a couple of bumps in the program, but they accomplished that and they got the new city of Toronto, largely through the incredible leadership of the former mayor of East York, Mike Prue, now councillor for the ward of East York. Through his leadership at city council they accomplished that. That was the magic moment, because when we came back in the House and asked the minister, "Now that the city has said yes, now that they have agreed that East York needs fair representation, will you support it?" the minister, I will say a man of honour, kept his word and said, "Yes, we will support it and we will work with you for your bill." I appreciate that and I applaud the minister for that. It is appreciated.
So here we are tonight. I just want to say, because I want to leave time for my colleague from East York to speak, that there are a lot of people who have built the community of East York. The leadership is here tonight. In terms of the municipal leadership, we think of the years from 1967 to 1972, when True Davidson was the mayor. It was quite amazing in those days for a metropolitan community to elect a woman as a mayor, and there she was, a strong community leader, a strong figure. She was followed by Willis Blair. I got words of encouragement and congratulations for tonight from Willis. He's at a foundation meeting at the East York General Hospital and couldn't be here, but his words are here and we appreciate that support.
He was followed by an appointed mayor, Leslie Saunders, for a period of time. Then came the amazing years from 1977 to 1982 with Alan Redway. Alan called today and said: "I want to be there; I'm with you, Frances. This is wonderful for our community. Thank you. My wishes are with you and Marilyn and the people of East York tonight." So his best wishes are here. Following that was a period of time when Dave Johnson was the mayor, and then of course Michael Prue. Michael is here tonight, and he's joined by people from East York: Gail Nyberg, who is the former chair of the board of education in East York, now the chair of the new Toronto district board of education, and of course many members of Team East York whom I see here tonight, and people from the community. We applaud you in your work.
It is a moment of true pride, because it's not often that a private member's bill will make it through into legislation, particularly one of a controversial nature, as this has been. I know there are members of the Legislature who believe that the new city of Toronto council is too big and unwieldy. I'd agree with them, but you don't fix that problem on the backs of the mighty, fierce, strong, loyal people of East York. Those people have fought for equal representation. Tonight they win it. In future, if we fix the problems of the size of the city council of Toronto, inherent in the process will be fair, democratic representation for the people of East York. I am proud to be part of making this happen tonight. I thank you all very much.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs Marion Boyd): Further debate?
Mr John L. Parker (York East): I will keep my remarks short. It's tempting, on occasions like this, I suppose, when we're reflecting on the history of a community, to touch on some of the political figures who have served from time to time, but I would suggest in the case of East York to do that, tempting though it is - and very fine political leadership we have had over the years - is entirely to miss the point of East York. The essence of East York is its people. East York is very much a grass-roots community, a community that is led from the grass roots by the people. The leadership has the greatest respect for the people they represent, recognizing that in a position of political leadership it's a privilege to represent the people of East York, who have themselves sustained that community over many years.
Before coming here this evening, between the vote earlier this evening and tonight's debate, my wife and I were able to take in the second half of the symphony concert tonight. It was the proms concert. It was a great reminder to me, with all those Union Jacks and crosses of St George on display, of the origins of East York, its English origins.
East York, remember, is a community that is represented by the white rose of York and the British bulldog. It's for good reason that those are the symbols of the community of East York, because that is the origin of East York; that is the foundation and those are the traditions of East York. Those traditions and the service that East York has given to this country and to the world in two world wars are reflected in the street names. The street names reflect that: names like Warvet, names like Merritt, names like Valor, names like Dunkirk. These are local names in East York, and a park with a name like Dieppe Park. They reflect the essence of East York.
Although that is the origin of East York, East York has become home to many communities from right around the world, none more proud than the strong Greek community that currently finds its home in East York and is a very important component and a very strong contributor to the richness of today's East York. East York today is home to many communities from all parts of the globe, and that is a richness that is continuing to build with each passing day.
But it's the people who are the essence of East York. Regardless of the municipal structure, regardless of the political leadership, regardless of whether there is a borough, whether there is a megacity, whether there's a community council or whatever, it's the people who are the essence of it.
I support this bill. I support this bill tonight not because I have any concerns whatsoever about the future of East York under an amalgamated Toronto. The future of East York and the future of Toronto will only be better, only be stronger, under amalgamation with the rest of the communities surrounding us. None of that will change the essence of the people of East York and what it is that makes East York so important.
That is not why I support this bill. It's not sour grapes over the megacity. I support the megacity. I think that was the right thing to do. It's about time that a government had the courage to bring about amalgamation in Metro Toronto and put Toronto on a footing where it belongs and that it deserves to have and to set the stage for the future as we work together with the communities around Toronto and take our place worldwide and help to bring this province and this country into the next century and into the next millennium on a better footing than we've ever had before. I support amalgamation. That's not the issue here.
The issue here is representation on the city council, and as a strict matter of arithmetic, a strict matter of numbers, it is quite clear that the representation of East York on the Toronto city council right now is out of balance with the representation of the other wards. That is something we have an opportunity here to correct.
East York has about 101,000-odd residents. It has two municipal councillors, so about some 50,000-odd residents per councillor. That is a much larger number of residents per councillor than other wards in the new city. Adding a third councillor will bring the ratio down to about one councillor for every 34,000 or 35,000, and that's in line with what we see elsewhere in the city. It's important to note that in doing that, that does not bring East York to the other end of the spectrum. It puts East York in line with other communities in the city. It is fair to the residents of East York without being unfair to anyone else.
In terms of community representation on the new city council, the community of East York has some 100,000-odd residents. The community of York, by comparison, has about 134,000 or 135,000 residents, and they have four councillors for those 134,000 or 135,000 residents. So with about a third more people, they have two times the representation. Giving East York a third councillor will bring some balance into that degree of representation as well.
For those reasons, it strikes me as entirely appropriate that East York should have greater representation on the new city council, and for that reason I support this bill.
2320
In so doing, I wouldn't want to suggest that this is the entire solution to the issue. I point out to the House that under the legislation that gave rise to the new city, and under the amendments to the Municipal Act introduced by the same minister, Minister Leach, the new council has the authority, the power, to make changes in its own makeup at the time of the next election. It has the opportunity now to turn its mind to the correct, more appropriate, more updated revision of ward boundaries right across the board. Just because East York was the most serious example of imbalance in representation doesn't mean it was the only example.
Remember, the ward boundaries that were used were the old ward boundaries of old Metro Toronto which were established I think under the Peterson government. It would be appropriate and it is timely for the city council to take advantage of this juncture and the powers that they have to amend all of the ward boundaries and bring them all up to date.
In doing that, they may want to consider the benefits and the merits and the wisdom of reducing the total number of councillors to a number that's more manageable than the 57 councillors that will lamentably result as a result of this amendment. That is a matter for the city council to consider, and I would urge them to turn their minds to that. From all accounts I've heard, they're finding that they don't need the benefit of another councillor to make council work. They do for the purposes of making representation fair for the voters and the residents of East York, but in terms of making council work, all of the evidence so far suggests that council would work just as well, if not better, with a smaller number of councillors. So that is a challenge that remains for the city council to address, and I urge them to get on with that.
In the meantime, we have this bill before us that will bring fair representation to East York. Like the member for Beaches-Woodbine, I applaud the minister for living up to his commitment and allowing this measure to pass.
With those remarks, I conclude my comments this evening and indicate my support for this bill.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate? The member for York - Oakwood.
Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): Thank you. Most of Oakwood is in the city of York; part of it is in the city of Toronto.
As the member for York East said, in the city of York we have four members on the megacity council. It has about 130,000 citizens and we have four reps, and East York, which is about 103,000, has two.
I guess this takes us back to the hearings we had on the megacity. I remember that a number of people brought this forward. A number of deputants, who they never listened to, said: "This is not going to work. You can't have two reps." Part of the legislation said you were going to create a community council, and how can you create a council with two people? That's what they tried to do, and obviously it's not working. It's not working from a community council perspective and from a representation perspective. That's why it made sense a year ago to have the third councillor. It makes eminent sense today to have the third councillor.
I know this government is caught up in talking about fewer politicians, fewer representatives. I would think that it's time people started reflecting how important it is to err on the side of representation as opposed to the so-called fixation that this government has about downsizing representation, centralizing. This is sort of the flavour of the year or the flavour of the month.
I think East York does stand for something. I served with a number of mayors from East York. I served with the Minister of Education. I know Willis Blair and Alan Redway, fine people. They represented the fine people of East York who, during the megacity battle, as I think Frances Lankin said, really led the way in terms of giving people hope who had lost hope in that battle against this big government.
The two major dailies and all the media were against the people who didn't want to have the megacity, but East York was like the little David versus Goliath, who said: "We aren't going to cave in to big government or big media. We believe in community." They did that every day. They used money out of their own pockets to buy signs and ribbons and buttons. They didn't use government propaganda machines. With their leadership, they stood this government and the big media on their ears.
East York had a spirit that you couldn't wash away with spin speeches in this House, you couldn't wash away with that phoney piece of propaganda that went door to door early on, the contemptuous piece of propaganda that the Speaker ruled in contempt of the House. East Yorkers didn't believe that. They believed themselves, because East York always prided itself on participation.
East York was the only council of the six councils where if you wanted to make a deputation, you could go to any council meeting and make a deputation to the full council. You couldn't do that at Metro or the other five councils. East York always had an open door; I know Mayor Prue had that policy, and the other mayors did. They always had an open door so people could walk down the street and go in and see the mayor or one of the councillors and tell him what for.
That is why the people of East York were so against the megacity, because the megacity took that away from them. That's what they feared and that's why they opposed it, not because of any political ideology, not because of any kind of sophisticated political formula. They said, "Listen, we've had good service, and we don't have a lot of money." East York never had a lot of money. They always had a very small industrial base, but they always squeezed every cent to give their citizens good basic service in recreation and in terms of services for seniors, which they've always had a significant number of for their population. They prided themselves on having an open door and giving real, sincere service.
This is quite a contrast when you're in a big city like Metropolitan Toronto. The one-size-fits-all approach that this government has did not fit the people of East York. They said: "We don't want your one size fits all. We want a government that's close to us, that we can hold accountable, so that if they get us angry, we can go and speak to them." And they did, frequently. East York council meetings were frequently packed.
You go to megacity council meetings, and unless there's a really hot issue, you're lucky to find 10 people there. This is for a city of 2.3 million. Yet East York council committees were always filled with citizens who not only went - excuse the language - to bitch at government, but also went there to say how to make it better.
They also contributed to the local Lions Club and to the home and school associations. These people didn't only complain; they also rolled up their sleeves and pitched in in East York, and that's why things were so good in East York. Sure, they didn't have a lot of money, they didn't have all these fancy new high-tech solutions, but they had good, honest, accountable government they could ask questions of.
I think at least this bill does give East York that representation which they like so much. As far as I am concerned, the more representation East York has, the better. I think it's important to keep that East York spirit alive so we can all learn about East York and how to make good government across the city and across Ontario. Long live East York.
2330
Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): First of all, I want to thank the member for London Centre for taking my place in the chair tonight so I could be in my seat to speak to this bill.
Second, I want to thank and congratulate the member for Beaches-Woodbine for coming up with this idea of a private member's bill to get a third councillor. I have to admit that when the member first introduced it I didn't have a lot of hope for the bill's actually getting through.
I do know that after it was introduced, the people who are sitting here tonight, the mayor, or the former mayor - I still refer to him as the mayor; I forget - Mayor Prue over there and others immediately, although they were fighting for that third councillor all along and that is where the member for Beaches-Woodbine got the idea, because they were unable to convince the government to allow that. Some time after the member for Beaches-Woodbine introduced this bill, it became clear that there was in fact a really good chance that we could work together in an unusual way in this House, in a non-partisan way, to get the bill passed.
Again, I want to congratulate and thank the people from East York who are sitting here tonight who worked so very hard. I think this was an opportunity and an example of a group of people working in a non-partisan way.
I look in the galleries tonight and I see New Democrats and I see some Tories, although some of them don't admit that they're Tories, and some Liberals possibly. I know that we have all-party support for the bill tonight. I think we should be very proud because this is a rare time in this House where we all get together and do something together in a non-partisan way that is for the good of the people and, in this case, for democracy in Toronto.
I want to thank the minister for sticking to his word. He told me, and he was very clear about it, he doesn't agree with it. He made that very clear. He made the commitment and after the city council decided to go ahead, and they would run the by-election, he did keep to his word and he did say that he would support it.
I believe the member for Oakwood spoke earlier about the spirit of East York, that they had a strong spirit. I've got to tell you that's still there. I've been phoning people from East York recently and in fact inviting them to my nomination meeting which is coming up soon and getting their addresses.
Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): Where would they go? Give us the address.
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): What's the date? Where is it and when?
Ms Churley: It's Thursday. But what's interesting is that, without exception, everybody who gave me their address on the telephone said the street name and then said, "East York," quite emphatically - not Toronto, but East York - every single one of them independently of each other.
It is a very strong community. That is something I learned during the whole megacity debate, where I had the honour and the opportunity of working with these fine people who gave everything they had - everything. They worked day and night, first of all, to convince the province to not go ahead with the megacity, and then to try to get the by-election for the third councillor. I think what we're seeing here tonight is the testament to their hard work and their dedication and their commitment to their community of East York.
I am really proud and really honoured to stand here tonight, having played a part along with my friend and colleague from Beaches-Woodbine and along with my now new friends from East York. We all worked very hard together to get here tonight, and I want to congratulate them in particular for their dedication and their hard work. I would join with the member for Oakwood and be a little corny here and say, "Long live East York." Thank you all very much for supporting this bill.
Hon David Turnbull (Minister without Portfolio): First of all, I'll start out by saying I am going to support this bill tonight and I am very pleased to see this before us. I will mention a little bit about how I know East York. My wife actually ran a little one-hour photo store for many, many years on Bayview Avenue and we got a very keen attachment to the people of East York, particularly the people of Leaside, I should say, during that time.
Leaside is one of those really rather unique communities in Toronto which has its own very distinctive characteristics. The people are careful and good and caring. That isn't to suggest they don't have these characteristics in other parts of town, but there's a very special spirit about Leaside, as anybody knows who crosses the street to the west side of Bayview Avenue. You'll be very clearly told that is not Leaside, and indeed it isn't. There's a different characteristic to the other side of Bayview Avenue. The people of Leaside are people we have a great deal of admiration for and people my wife and I got to know well, particularly my wife.
In fact, the interesting thing about this bill tonight is it's a bill to add an extra councillor to this area. That's appropriate because we know the numbers weren't quite right. In giving this extra councillor to East York, it changes the balance so that there are some other areas of the city which have a lower ratio of representation than East York will have with this.
Ideally, we should always in a democracy seek to have approximately the same number of voters in each circumscription of the vote. I would hope that the council, nearing the end of its first term, will get around to the whole idea of rebalancing the number of people in an area and hopefully reducing the number of total politicians. That would be totally consistent with what we put out a year before the election.
We said that we intended to reduce the number of politicians in the provincial Legislature because we believe that's good for the taxpayers. We believe that the politicians in the province should be able to serve the same number of constituents as federal ridings and in fact that's what we're moving to. We're reducing it down from 130 ridings to 103 ridings and we will reduce the cost to the taxpayer of running elections quite considerably.
The immediate goal of this bill is to make sure there's a better balance for East York, and that's good. But there is a further goal and the goal is to make sure that as they move to this rebalancing, East York is well represented in the discussions about rebalancing the size of each ward.
I want to congratulate my colleague the member for Beaches-Woodbine, who was talking. I congratulate you on bringing this forward. I also want to point out to the Legislature that my colleague John Parker, the member for York East, had in fact produced in his office a bill very similar to this and -
Interjection.
Hon Mr Turnbull: I feel it's very unsporting for the member for Beaches-Woodbine to make that noise.
Mr Bisson: It wasn't her, it was me.
Hon Mr Turnbull: Quite frankly, I remember very distinctly when I had a private member's bill, in third party position. I sent the bill over to the government of the day, the NDP, and guess what? One of their members introduced it ahead of me, a certain Mr George Mammoliti. You may remember him. Later on, he admitted that the minister had asked him to bring the bill in so that in fact the government of the day would get the credit. But that is not the way we have worked in this. We have worked cooperatively with the member for Beaches-Woodbine.
Interjection.
Hon Mr Turnbull: It's entirely true. East York will get the representation it deserves and it will work towards an organization for the next municipal election, which hopefully will reduce the number of politicians, will work towards reducing the cost of government, which was totally consistent with what we said in the Common Sense Revolution, which we put out a year before the last election.
For anybody watching this on television, if you have your copy of the Common Sense Revolution, I'll make references to the pages. We talked about less government spending on page 7. We talked about fewer politicians on page 8. We talked about restructuring bureaucracy on page 8. We talked about doing better for less, a concept that neither of the parties opposite are particularly familiar with, on page 15. We talked about spending smarter on page 16.
Interjections.
Hon Mr Turnbull: I see we've hit a nerve with the opposition.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
2340
Hon Mr Turnbull: We talked about less government on page 17, and less government is what we should be striving for -
Interjection.
The Acting Speaker: Order, member for Oakwood.
Hon Mr Turnbull: - because we serve the taxpayers better.
I seem to have hit a little bit of a nerve but there is nothing in what I am saying which is in any way diminutive of the people from East York. We're in support of the people from East York, as indeed has been the ministry. We are saying that it is appropriate that the council of Toronto move towards more economy so that it serves the taxpayers better.
The communities in Toronto, particularly the communities in East York, I believe will survive very well because people still talk about Leaside, which disappeared as a municipality in 1967 and today is one of the most vibrant, if not the most vibrant, communities in the whole of Toronto.
Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): It may surprise some of you to know that I actually lived in East York, on Glenburn Avenue, for some three years, from 1969 to 1971. It was within about one block of Victoria Avenue. But that's not the point.
The point I'm simply trying to make is that the mere fact that we agree with this bill - and I happen to agree with this bill and have from the initial outset. I didn't agree with megacity and our party didn't agree with megacity and our party certainly didn't agree with the Fewer Politicians Act. I think it's rather an irony that the government touts the Fewer Politicians Act as a mechanism whereby we're saving the taxpayers' money. Yet on the same night that a government member talks about that bill, we have also passed a bill which in effect allows the governing party in this case to spend an awful lot more money in running elections, and we all know they have the ability to do that.
Certainly the fact that we're supporting this bill in its entirety and completely - perhaps it never should have been introduced because East York never should have been taken off the map of this metropolitan city - doesn't mean for a moment that we in any way agree with what this government has done with respect to the Fewer Politicians Act and with respect to the megacity act.
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I'd like to propose unanimous consent for the member for York East, Mr Parker, to produce the bill that he has in his office here tonight.
The Acting Speaker: That is not -
Mr Bradley: Agreed?
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: I hear a no. Is there further debate?
Interjection.
The Acting Speaker: Order, member for Etobicoke-Humber.
Seeing no further debate, Ms Lankin has moved second reading of Bill 44. Is the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.
Hon Mr Turnbull: Madam Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to move third reading of Bill 44, An Act to amend the City of Toronto Act, 1997.
The Acting Speaker: Is there agreement? Agreed.
Ms Lankin moved third reading of the following bill:
Bill 44, An Act to amend the City of Toronto Act, 1997 / Projet de loi 44, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1997 sur la cité de Toronto.
Mr Baird: Just ramming it through. No committee hearings.
Ms Lankin: The member for Nepean is asking whether or not we would like to have committee hearings. I have told him already tonight I would be delighted but I suspect, and I've been told by the government House leader that that is out of the question. I appreciate that we are moving to third reading and that the bill will be enacted.
I don't intend to take long at this point. I've made my comments tonight. I thank the members who participated in the debate, even those who provided a little bit of revisionist history. I thank them all. I do have to say that this could have been done in a much easier way. To the member for York East I must say, "Too little too late." To the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the government House leader and those who have made this possible, along with the support of the Liberal Party and of course my colleagues and the people of East York, we're delighted to see this become law tonight.
With that I will take my seat, and look forward to the vote.
The Acting Speaker: Ms Lankin has moved third reading of Bill 44. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.
Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.
Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I realize it may be a little difficult for you serving in the chair to answer this question, but as a House leader I would like to get some clarification. We have government bills, private members' bills, private bills, and now we have another category called bill in your office?
The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of order, member for Algoma.
CHILD CARE SUPPLEMENT INFORMATION COLLECTION ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA COLLECTE DES RENSEIGNEMENTS NÉCESSAIRES À L'OCTROI DU SUPPLÉMENT DE REVENU POUR LES FRAIS DE GARDE D'ENFANTS
Mr Baird, on behalf of Mr Eves, moved second reading of the following bill:
Bill 28, An Act to permit the Collection of Personal Information for the Payment of the Ontario Child Care Supplement for Working Families / Projet de loi 28, Loi permettant la collecte de renseignements personnels en vue du versement du supplément de revenu de l'Ontario pour les familles travailleuses ayant des frais de garde d'enfants.
Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): The 1998 budget proposed a new Ontario child care supplement for working families that would be delivered monthly to 210,000 families, for 350,000 children under the age of seven years. The budget proposed that payment of a supplement would start late in 1998. To ensure that payments begin in 1998, personal information to determine entitlement for the supplement must be collected by early this fall. Bill 28, if enacted, would authorize the collection of this very important information.
The bill provides that information collected under this act is to be destroyed if legislation establishing the supplement has not been enacted by March 31, 1999, and repeals the authority to collect information on April 1, 1999. The Information and Privacy Commissioner was consulted in the drafting of this bill, and this bill reflects the advice we heard from the commissioner.
I could give some background to this bill. In the 1997 budget Ontario introduced a refundable tax credit for lower-income families who incurred child care expenses. This $40-million tax credit provided up to $400 for each child under the age of seven years. It is estimated that 90,000 families claim this tax credit in respect of 125,000 children. The 1998 budget proposed that the existing $40-million Ontario child tax benefit be combined with $100 million available under the national child benefit initiative to create a new $140-million Ontario child care supplement for working families.
As I mentioned, this supplement would be delivered monthly to 210,000 families with 350,000 children under the age of seven. The maximum annual supplement would be $1,020 for each child under the age of seven. Lower- and middle-income working families and families incurring child care expenses in order to attend school or obtain training would be eligible for the supplement. The supplement would be reduced by 8% of family net income in excess of $20,000 and by provincial-municipal child care subsidies. Families would be required to apply for the supplement.
2350
The budget proposed that the first supplement would be paid in late 1998 and would consist of benefits accumulated from July 1998, and thereafter a supplement would be paid on a monthly basis. In order for the first payment to be made in 1998, the budget indicated that families would be required to apply for the supplement by September 30, 1998. Application forms would be mailed out to potential families by late August, and legislation to implement the supplement would not be introduced until the fall of 1998. In order to collect the information, the government has presented Bill 28 towards that.
This bill is designed to help put more money in the hands of hardworking families in the province who are raising children. The government wants to support those lower- and modest-income families in raising children. The measures contained in the budget are designed to do that. These measures are of course part of an overall plan, an overall strategy to try to put more money in the hands of hardworking families, because we know that the effect of years of high taxes have had a tremendously difficult impact on far too many middle-class families across Ontario. So the whole motive of this government is to try to put more money in their hands to allow them to raise their families and allow them to make choices on how to spend what is often their own money.
That's why the personal income tax reductions are a big part of that plan, which the child care initiatives that I just outlined complement. The tax cuts allowing hardworking taxpayers to keep more of their own money are extremely important. The province of Ontario, when this government was elected, was not in good economic shape. For many years Ontario had been the economic engine of Canada. Ontario had been a magnet for jobs, investment and opportunity, but over a period of 10 years, from 1985 to 1995, a very different Ontario emerged. Ontario became known as a mismanaged debtor. We had become overgoverned, we had become overregulated and we had become overtaxed. The lack of hope and the lack of prosperity in Ontario was of real concern to us.
We made a very difficult decision, but it was a decision that was virtually unanimous. We could decide to fight the deficit or we could decide to fight unemployment. This government chose to fight unemployment. We chose to try to create an environment for job creation. We said that job creation was more important than fighting the debt. I don't apologize for that, because saying to the unemployed people in Ontario in 1995, "Step aside, we'll balance the budget first and then we'll try to deal with your concerns," would have been wrong, it would have been immoral and it would have been the wrong route. It's the route the people of Ontario rejected. They said yes to job creation, yes to initiatives designed to encourage economic expansion, yes to allowing hardworking taxpayers to keep more of their hard-earned tax dollars. They said yes to allowing consumer confidence to rise. The plan is indeed working.
One of the members who is generally a fairly wise member was talking earlier in a rather strange way that the economy might not be doing terribly well, but I look at an article from the Ottawa Citizen from earlier this month: "Indicators Point to Expanding Economy: More Jobs, Rising Retail Sales in Ottawa Generate Optimism and Consumer Confidence."
That's exactly what the economic policies relating to last year's child care supplement or to the tax cut were designed to do. "Rising employment and the solid performance in key business indicators continue to show the Ottawa-area economy is in a strong expansion mode, a review of the latest economic indicators shows."
I can recall the days when I was campaigning for a seat in this place, in 1994 and 1995, and unemployment in Ottawa-Carleton topped 10.8%. If there was one single thing that was worse than that, it was the lack of hope and opportunity for the future, because while far too many people were unemployed, far more were worried about their family and about their future.
Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): They were worried about their kids.
Mr Baird: The member for Etobicoke-Humber says they were worried about their kids, whether they'd be able to get a job when they graduated from school. They were worried about their own jobs, whether they'd be able to keep them. They worried about whether they'd have the economic security to retire with dignity and in comfort, and that was at 10.8% unemployment - a national tragedy. We went to work, fulfilling the economic program laid out in the last provincial election -
Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): How much debt did you take on?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs Marion Boyd): The member for Ottawa West.
Mr Baird: The member for Ottawa West asks how much debt we took on. A lot less than the red book promised in the last provincial election. The two economic -
Mr Cullen: Compared to you -
The Acting Speaker: Member for Ottawa West, order.
Mr Baird: The two economic plans put side by side: The implementation of our plan is actually seeing less debt than the red book forecast. The Liberal Party promised to balance the budget in four years. We promised to balance the budget in five years. I'll bet when the numbers are compared, we will have exceeded the numbers in the red book. I am convinced about that.
But some members want to walk away. Some members supported tax cuts. I was reading an interesting press release dated Thursday, February 16, 1995: "McLeod Reinforces Commitment to Cut Taxes."
"Ontario Liberal Leader Lyn McLeod said tonight a Liberal government of Ontario would cut taxes. `It's time the government started following a policy of zero tax increases. A Liberal government will reduce overall taxes.'"
Mr Cullen: Why do you have the same bond rating as the Rae government -
The Acting Speaker: Member for Ottawa West, I don't want to have to warn you again. Please come to order.
Mr Baird: I'm not going to bring up the issue that members from Ottawa sometimes cause trouble at this hour of the night in this place.
I am pleased to talk again about this important piece of legislation that's before us. It's very important to put it in context because this is a measure contained in the budget.
The member for Oakwood, Mike Colle, said, "I don't want to be part of the mushy middle any more."
Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): He changed his mind in the last three years.
Mr Baird: He did indeed.
The member for Windsor-Sandwich: Do you know what she said? "How can we go in guns blazing when we would have been doing the same thing?" But the member for Windsor-Sandwich isn't here to defend herself on that.
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Government members, come to order.
Mr Baird: It's a very, very important -
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Your nose is getting brown.
Mr Baird: I could do more quotes. How about the member for Windsor-Walkerville? "We've been far too fuzzy for far too long." He goes on: "We're going to have to some day decide what we stand for and then stand for it. We have some serious navel-gazing to do."
Interjection: Who said that?
Mr Baird: The member for Windsor-Walkerville. A very important thing.
Mr Bradley: Somebody make sure Mike gets a copy of this. Brown, brown, brown.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr Baird: But the province of Ontario is in stronger economic shape than it was just a few short years ago, and that is indeed good news. Since this government took office -
Mr Bradley: Brownest nose.
The Acting Speaker: Member for St Catharines.
Mr Baird: - there are 363,000 total net new jobs in Ontario. That represents about 45% of all the jobs created in Canada over the same period, and that's incredible.
Mr Hudak: Any jobs in Nepean?
Mr Baird: The member for Niagara South says, "Any jobs in Nepean?" Indeed, 5,000 jobs coming to the city of Nepean - the Nortel expansion. Again to the member for Niagara Falls: "Tech Boom Triggers New Development: Skyrocketing Building Permits Show Sector's Impact."
"The local economy got more good news yesterday as Nepean announced an incredible 365% jump in the total value of building permits issued."
The Acting Speaker: It being 12 of the clock, this House is now adjourned until 1:30 of the clock tomorrow.
The House adjourned at 2400.