The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

PLANT CLOSURE

Mr Bradley moved resolution 13:

That, in the opinion of this House, since General Motors announced its intention on February 24 of this year to close its St Catharines foundry eliminating over 2,000 employment positions in addition to 750 women and men who were to be laid off indefinitely as of March 1 and over 100 people who will lose their jobs as a result of the decision to discontinue the 3.1-litre V-6 engine; and

Since the St Catharines General Motors foundry is a cost-competitive, world-class, high-quality operation with a highly skilled and motivated workforce; and

Since the loss of these jobs will mean the loss of $130 million in wages and salaries to the economy of the Niagara region and the province of Ontario; and

Since the implications for businesses and industries that service and supply the auto sector are extremely negative and serious; and

Since whenever a production line and a significant part of a plant shuts down, the fixed cost of maintaining the rest of the operation increases and the quality of components from elsewhere cannot be guaranteed;

The Legislative Assembly of Ontario should urge General Motors to continue the operation of its foundry in St Catharines.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 94(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation. I will then continue in rotation after that, with 15 minutes for each party.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I appreciate the opportunity to speak to my resolution today, although I wish that I did not have to introduce such a resolution. This is a matter which has united the members from the Niagara region, the member for St Catharines-Brock, the member for Lincoln, the member for Niagara Falls, the member for Niagara South and the member for Welland-Thorold. All of us are affected and the people we represent are drastically affected by what is dealt with in this particular resolution.

As members from the Niagara Peninsula we are determined, as I am sure all members of the House are, to ensure that the Legislative Assembly will be aware of the problem confronting St Catharines and the automotive industry in the province of Ontario and that we will do whatever we can to ensure that those problems are on the front burner as far as this Legislature is concerned. Of course, the purpose of this resolution is to attempt to convince General Motors that with the support of all members of this House we wish General Motors to keep open its foundry in the city of St Catharines.

The private members' hour allows us an opportunity -- and it's done by a lottery, for those who are perhaps viewing today and are not aware of it. Today I have an opportunity, as a result of that lottery, to introduce something of importance to me. I can think of nothing more important to the community of St Catharines than the more than 3,000 jobs which will be lost in our community.

The role of members is to emphasize what is important not only for the province but in particular for our individual communities. We are elected in electoral districts. People there expect us to reflect their views and to bring to the attention of our colleagues the problems that confront us and to deal with those problems in an appropriate fashion. This resolution will allow all of us in the Niagara Peninsula and others who have a special interest to participate today.

Last fall members will recall I was raising, particularly in December of that year, in speeches and in questions to various ministers, including the Premier, the potential problems that would be confronting the automotive industry in the province of Ontario and, to be parochial, the problems that would be confronted in St Catharines. One does not want to be an accurate prophet in matters of these kinds, but I recall asking the Premier about the future of the foundry in St Catharines and the engine plant in St Catharines at that time and directing questions, I believe to the Treasurer and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

Those of us who have followed the auto industry, and that certainly includes everyone who represents an area that has a significant auto factor, were aware that there was an overcapacity crunch coming in North America. All the predictions were there. People within the trade union movement, people within the industry, those who watch economically the province of Ontario and North America as a whole recognized that there were going to be problems arising.

The ominous sign, as far as I was concerned in December last year, and a very obvious sign, was that Robert Stempel in the United States announced that some 74,000 jobs would be eliminated and several plants closed in General Motors operations to put them in a better business position. One can figure out, because he did indicate at that time, that operations in both Canada and the United States would be affected. One could conclude that the potential was there to affect Ontario operations. Certainly time told us that it did affect one Ontario operation rather drastically.

Anyone who has kept a close watch on the North American market and on the auto industry worldwide knows this crisis isn't over. The announcement was made of some 14,000 job losses, and I calculate that leaves about 60,000 jobs to be eliminated yet. We're not talking about statistics. Those who have worked in industry, those who have been part of job losses, those who have represented ridings where people have lost their jobs know we're not talking about simple statistics.

We're talking about women and men who are our neighbours, our friends, our relatives, acquaintances, people we know in the community, people we see at the supermarket, people we see at the hockey arenas, people we see throughout the Niagara Peninsula and beyond our borders. These are people who have relied upon the automotive industry, have invested their talents, have invested their time, have made a personal commitment to the automotive industry, and they are people who hope their jobs could be protected by developing good markets, by government policies which will be conducive to that.

We recognize that there is a worldwide problem out there, that the competition is stiff throughout North America and throughout the world. That is why our industry in St Catharines, our foundry in St Catharines, our engine plant and our components plants have all endeavoured to become exceedingly competitive, exceedingly efficient. We have in St Catharines what I consider to be, and I am sure it's an evaluation which is shared by my colleagues, a world-class foundry, a top-notch foundry. We have a highly skilled and highly motivated workforce working in that foundry and the adjacent engine plant and of course in the components plants in other parts of the city.

People then would be justifiably surprised that when General Motors was making its choice of eliminating plants and eliminating jobs, it would select the St Catharines foundry and the St Catharines engine plant for the loss of those jobs. But previous to that, and I think this is important for members to note, because we in the Niagara Peninsula know this, early in 1992, early this year, there was an announcement of some 750 indefinite layoffs at General Motors to take effect about March 1.

I don't want to say these people have been forgotten, but the emphasis has been on the 2,300 jobs that will be lost as a result of parts of the engine plant and the foundry closing. Somehow these 750 people on indefinite layoff -- and those of you who have worked in a plant, have been part of the trade union movement or in management know what the word "indefinite" means. It's a very ominous word; you'd rather have a definite time where there's a layoff and ability to come back. Those people have lost their jobs. That's why we total over 3,000 jobs lost in our community.

1010

I had hoped that when I raised this issue, and it's a very difficult issue to deal with in December, that we would see those signs. The reason for raising it with the ministers and the Premier was to make those contacts with General Motors to tell them, as all of us here feel, that we have good plants here in the province of Ontario and our operation should be kept going.

What was particularly disappointing, I think, to workers in our plants was the fact that we in Canada in General Motors had shown a profit of $323.3 million for the year 1991. Usually when you're making a profit, when you've got an operation which is efficient and when you have a highly skilled, highly trained and motivated workforce, you can anticipate that you are not going to be directly affected by layoffs. But on that fateful day -- all of my colleagues in the House would know -- of Monday, February 24, 1992, the announcement was made. It's a bare announcement to come to people, but it certainly shocked our community. It was a very difficult day for those who worked in the plant, for the members of city council, regional council and those of us who sit here from the Niagara Peninsula.

All of us wondered why we in St Catharines would be affected by this. It did not make sense to us that St Catharines would be affected. That is why I brought forward this resolution today, to ask members of the House to join those of us from St Catharines, to join the Fight Back Committee of the Canadian Auto Workers Local 199, to join those in the industry who are interested -- the chamber of commerce, the business associations in St Catharines, all citizens of St Catharines -- in asking that General Motors reconsider its decision and keep that operation open.

We must recognize that when the foundry goes down it has reverberations throughout the plant. This has been pointed out in Local 199 News. Sandy O'Dell, who is heading up the Fight Back Committee in the Local 199 News, has outlined clearly in an article he wrote what the ramifications are throughout the plant:

"It means that you cannot control the quality of the products coming in. It means that the components that you're going to utilize in your plant are going to cost more because you have to transport them there and it may come from a less efficient facility."

For this reason I have introduced this resolution and hope to gain support -- I anticipate the full and unanimous support -- of members of this House. Later on during the debate I'll have an opportunity to elaborate on this matter and deal with other issues related to this. I look forward to hearing members of the House and look forward to their support for this resolution.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): The member for St Catharines' resolution this morning pertains directly to General Motors' decision last February to close its St Catharines foundry.

The member wants the Legislative Assembly to urge General Motors to continue operation of its foundry in St Catharines for the following reasons: The decision to close the foundry will eliminate well over 2,000 jobs; the St Catharines foundry is a -- and I quote from the resolution -- "cost-competitive, world-class, high-quality operation with a highly skilled and motivated workforce"; the loss of these jobs will cost the local economy close to $130 million; whenever a significant part of a production line closes down, the costs of maintaining the rest of the operation and the quality of components from elsewhere cannot be guaranteed, and the repercussions for other businesses and industries that supply the auto sector could be devastating.

This resolution should be supported because of the great history and economic significance of the auto industry in St Catharines. The garden city of St Catharines has deep traditions rooted in the auto industry. The closing of the foundry could be the first of many cuts that eventually drive the auto sector from St Catharines and area.

The downsizing of General Motors has rippled, and will ripple, throughout the auto sector in Ontario. The town of Collingwood, which I have the privilege to represent, has plants such as the Libbey Owens Ford Glass of Canada plant, the Goodyear hose plant and Reynolds-Lemmerz, which rely on a thriving auto industry.

As many members of this Legislature are aware, because I have raised this issue several times in the House, the town of Collingwood has been ravaged by the current economic recession. In 1990 the town of Collingwood, which is about one tenth the size St Catharines, lost close to 2,000 manufacturing jobs because of plant closings and layoffs through downsizing. Not only did this take a whopping bite out of the town's tax base, but morale in the town was at an all-time low. The morale was even lower than at the time the Collingwood shipyards closed, because the recession forced cutbacks in other sectors such as retail and home building, which meant workers had nowhere to turn.

One of my first acts as the member of provincial Parliament for Simcoe West was to urge the NDP government to do what it could to save the jobs of workers at the Harding Carpets plant in Collingwood. Through the Ontario Development Corp, I was pleased to announce that we were able to save many of these jobs at Harding Carpets.

However, the unemployment situation in the Collingwood area remains high, largely because of policies by the current government and its Liberal predecessors. While I support the resolution of the member for St Catharines, I find it ironic that a Liberal member would suddenly be interested in saving jobs and plants. When we look at the record, "irony" is certainly the word that comes to mind.

It was the Liberals who increased taxes at an unprecedented rate, introducing 33 new taxes over their five years in government. It was the Liberals who introduced the employer health levy, which represented one more reason why industry would want to leave Ontario and why industry would not even consider locating in Ontario. It was also the Liberals who let our infrastructure slip, which meant our transportation routes and our hydro rates are now less attractive to industry than they were during 42 years of PC government.

The NDP has followed the Liberal tendency to tax anything that moves. As well, this government has introduced its labour law reforms, which are costing, and will cost, more jobs in Ontario. Investors throughout the world now see Ontario as being closed for business.

The NDP, which came to power claiming to represent the interests of workers, has only served to deal further injury to workers. With its misguided economic policies, the NDP government has thrust worker after worker on to Ontario's unemployment rolls and stripped each individual of the dignity that accompanies meaningful employment.

The following is a list of companies that were driven out of Ontario last year or downsized because they found it difficult to compete after six years of successive taxing and spending policies of the Liberals and the NDP. As the member for St Catharines has made us all aware with his resolution, when a company leaves, there is a significant impact in a community and a rippling effect throughout the province. The following is that partial list of companies and businesses that have left or downsized in the last year:

1020

Adtek Pipe and Tube Inc, 54 jobs; AKZO Coatings Ltd, 29 jobs; Amdahl Communications Ltd, 48 jobs; Ball Packaging Products Canada Inc, 61 jobs; BASF Canada Inc, 59 jobs; ASEA Brown Boveri Inc, 57 jobs; Canada Packers Inc, 125 jobs; Canadian Pacific Forest Products Ltd, 120 jobs; Caterpillar of Canada Ltd, 430 jobs; CCL Custom Manufacturing, 205 jobs lost; Central Soya of Canada Ltd, 65 jobs; Colorization Inc, 124 jobs; Commander Electrical Equipment Inc, 23 jobs; Corning Canada Inc, 134 jobs;

Fame Furniture Co Ltd, 50 jobs; Friskies Pet Care Products, 137 jobs; Grace Meat Packers, 97 jobs; Holiday Inn Canada Inc, 79 jobs eliminated through downsizing; IMI Cornelius Canada Inc, 52 jobs lost; Ingersoll-Rand Canada Inc, 19 jobs; Inglis Ltd, 285 jobs; J. Pascal Inc, Scarborough, 76 jobs; J. Pascal Inc, Brampton, 54 jobs; J. Pascal Inc, Mississauga, 49 jobs; J. Pascal Inc, Thornhill, 63 jobs; J. Pascal Inc, Newmarket, 54 jobs; Kellogg Canada Inc, 118 jobs;

Maclean Hosiery Co Ltd, 75 jobs; Murata Erie North America Ltd, 47 jobs; Norgraphics Canada Ltd, 62 jobs; Peel County Restaurant, 75 jobs; Rockwell International of Canada Inc, 191 jobs; Safeco Manufacturing Ltd, 57 jobs; Service Corp, 77 jobs; Sklar-Peppler Furniture Corp, 55 jobs; Skyline Triumph Hotel, 200 jobs; Southam Murray Printing, 445 jobs; Superior Performance Products (Canada) Inc, 106 jobs;

The Poultry Co, 158 jobs lost; The Windsor Arms Hotel, 92 jobs; Bundy Corp, 254 jobs; Cambrian Footwear Inc, 150 jobs; Domtar Inc, 97 jobs; Greb Inc, 222 jobs; Joseph Ingram and Sons, 124 jobs; Komdresco Canada Inc, 118 jobs; Novacor Chemical Ltd, 55 jobs; Newlands Inc, 42 jobs; Rockwell International of Guelph, 30 jobs; Rockwell International of Cambridge, 53 jobs; Tracon Engineering Inc, 75 jobs; WCI Manufacturing Ltd, 198 jobs.

Other plant closings include A&P retail stores; Amstel Brewery of Canada Ltd; Beatrice Foods; Bendix Safety Restraints Ltd in Collingwood, which this House has heard so much about; Fabulous Formals in Midland; Flex Technologies Ltd in Barrie; General Tire Canada Inc in Barrie, which cost 867 jobs, and Rudy Huffen Ltd in Orillia, just to name a few.

There are still many more firms that left Ontario last year. This represents a tragic and shameful record for a government that claims to represent workers.

I support the member for St Catharines' resolution because after 21 months of NDP government rule, one characteristic towers over all the others, and that is that the NDP in government is vastly different than the NDP in opposition, and workers in Ontario have been left to fend for themselves.

During the last election, the now Premier, Bob Rae, made a point of telling anyone who would listen that his party had a corner on compassion. Perhaps Bob Rae would now like to explain to my constituent, Mr Charles Hawton of Collingwood, whatever happened to the NDP's monopoly on compassion.

Mr Hawton is 63 years old. He was one of the many Harding Carpets workers in Collingwood who were laid off last year. Mr Hawton applied for benefits under the program for older worker adjustment but was refused earlier this month. He was refused not because he didn't qualify under POWA. Mr Hawton, as I said, is 63. He has been employed for 15 out of the last 20 years, which qualifies him for the program, and the layoff he was involved in had a significant impact upon the community, another criterion met. His age makes his chances of re-entry into the workforce prohibitive at best.

The Minister of Labour refused Mr Hawton because not enough workers between the ages of 55 and 64 were involved in this layoff. As a result, Mr Hawton will be forced to go without, even though other older workers in Collingwood, particularly those who were laid off at Bendix, are now collecting POWA benefits.

The rationale behind this decision is callous, appalling and at best perverse. The NDP government has now become so wedded to rules that it has forgotten to consider basic common sense and humane compassion. As a result of this decision Mr Hawton, who is an older, unemployed worker, cannot receive benefits simply because he's caught in a numbers' game and the numbers do not add up in his favour.

It appears the government has to have a certain number, and it has to be a high number, of people laid off before it's willing to take action. It's a far cry from the days gone past when we prided ourselves, as did the other party in this Legislature, to the point where we were looking for fewer workers laid off, hopefully none, and where when one or two were laid off benefits were available.

Over the past 21 months we've heard and read a lot about the NDP's commitment to labour in Ontario. However, this commitment to labour is more accurately portrayed as a willingness to enhance the power of union bosses at the expense of ordinary workers in this province.

Recently the Ontario Ministry of Labour disputed the application of four workers at Arnott Construction in Collingwood to be decertified from their union, the Labourers' International Union of North America. The labour board scheduled two hearings, one last Friday and a second one, if necessary, tomorrow.

However, these four workers, who work and live in the Collingwood area, were forced to travel to Midland at their own expense, highly inconvenient and a highly suspicious decision by the labour board. The reason given by the board to hold the meeting in Midland as opposed to a more logical and practical meeting spot in Collingwood, where it would be easier for workers and their representatives to appear, was that Collingwood lacked proper meeting accommodations. That is ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous. The largest tourism spot in Ontario doesn't have proper accommodation for a meeting? "Ridiculous" is the only word I'm polite enough to use this morning.

It would appear that the Ministry of Labour is more concerned about making life difficult for these workers, whose only crime is that they want to get out of the union because they don't agree with it. This episode, I claim, is consistent with the NDP's policy to prop up union bosses through labour law reforms rather than doing what is best for labour, and that is creating an economic climate that results in the number one priority for workers across this province: jobs and job security.

I will be supporting this resolution this morning because I believe in maintaining jobs and I believe the greatest dignity we can give our fellow human beings is the opportunity for employment. I wish the government shared that belief. I wish they'd find the compassion they claim to have and help workers like Mr Hawton, and be conciliatory to workers who want to leave their union because they feel it's best for their own economic security. But I fear this government doesn't listen. It continues to drive ahead with a pro-union-boss agenda and is ignoring the very workers who put it in power.

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): I rise to support this resolution. I personally thank Mr Bradley, the member for St Catharines, for raising an extremely important issue for my community and really for all of the Niagara Peninsula. The members for all of the Niagara Peninsula, as he has so ably pointed out, support his resolution and in fact have been working behind the scenes on many occasions to make sure that the jobs in this community, the city of St Catharines, are assured. Let us all be very clear that the foundry, which is in my riding, affects the entire Niagara peninsula.

I would also like to take this time to remind viewers and members of this House that this factory has a long history in the community. Generations have earned their living at MacKinnons, which was the predecessor to General Motors. For more than 100 years, the auto industry has been a mainstay of the community and the peninsula. Those of us who have taken up the political banner know how widespread the net of employment is tossed in the peninsula, and I know that as many as 12,000 people will be affected by the 3,000 jobs lost. So it is of great concern for all of us to realize how much the economy of the peninsula will be affected by this one announcement in February.

1030

Let us be clear that major purchases, be they houses, cars or refrigerators, are currently not being made in the same way that the business community of St Catharines has become accustomed to. There is a high anxiety level because many people believe that another shoe is going to drop.

My personal concern is that the kind of quality work the foundry and its employees have done, and are doing in reality as we speak, hasn't been recognized by head office in Detroit. The frustration level of the workers is very high. They have taken great pride in their work. They know their productivity is high. They have in fact been very innovative.

Let's be clear that the foundry will be cannibalized. There are machines and technologies that are being moved out, as we speak, to provide the means for the factory at Saginaw, Michigan, to produce the kinds of products we have so ably produced in St Catharines. The morale of workers, as a result of seeing this cannibalization taking place, is low.

As the member for St Catharines has also pointed out, there is an awful lot of groundwork that has to be done to make sure the quality of the work is maintained over the next few years until the final closure is complete. It is absolutely crucial that a high-quality product is maintained because, not only for the next two years but in the whole Save the Foundry campaign, we really have to continue to convince the company we can produce a good product.

I hope everyone remembers that the Canadian arm of General Motors made $340 million for the company; that's profit, ladies and gentlemen. It is a positive sign that this company and other plants within this province and within Quebec can in fact produce good product. It is recognized worldwide, yet what happens? General Motors in Detroit has decided to close a productive plant in St Catharines.

I would also remind members of this House that the employees, the members of Canadian Auto Workers Local 199, and the management team as well have responded time and time again to the demands for increased productivity. I'd like to take this opportunity to place on the record again the $340 million worth of profit for General Motors, and I would like to echo my continued disappointment that the company has not revised its decision to keep the foundry open. This is a profitable plant.

I echo my sentiments, again with my brothers and sisters at CAW 199 and my colleagues in this House, to continue their efforts to save the foundry. I know all members of this House representing the Niagara ridings are working to change the mind of General Motors. Let me also remind the member on the Conservative side that CAW 199 supports this government's changes to the Ontario Labour Relations Act.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Bradley, do you wish to do it now? No. The member for Lincoln.

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): Mr Speaker, I have a real interest in the resolution of Mr Bradley, the member for St Catharines. I happen to have 26 years' seniority at General Motors and I need four more years in order to retire. If I'm not successful in my next run to be here in the government, I'll be back at General Motors, and if this happens, it doesn't guarantee that I'll be back at General Motors.

I'm a stationary engineer, which is a special trade, and if they cut down in the powerhouse, I'll get eliminated, even though I've got 26 years' seniority. So I have a real concern with this. Not only that, being elected, coming here, these people at General Motors are looking to me to speak out for them in the Legislature to protect their jobs.

I have to disagree with the member for Simcoe West when he's talking about unions. Maybe he's never worked at that plant, but there are people like Sandy O'Dell, Ron Davis and Gabe McNally who are meeting with the company, they're meeting with the chamber of commerce, they're meeting with the community on how to save the foundry and General Motors in St Catharines. If the member ever has a chance to come down to St Catharines to one of the meetings, I would welcome him to come with me and with other members of the Niagara area.

The one thing we have to take a look at is that General Motors is the engine of the Niagara Peninsula. Everyone somehow depends on General Motors of St Catharines in the Niagara Peninsula. Taxes that are paid in Welland, the wages come from St Catharines, General Motors. It doesn't matter whether you live in Wainfleet or you live in Dunnville or you live in Grimsby or you live in Lincoln, it has an influence on the economy in the Niagara Peninsula.

The one thing is, right now a lot of the GM workers just received their holiday pay and in a lot of the stores the economy picks up for the couple of weeks in July when everybody gets their vacation pay. A lot of them spend it in the Niagara Peninsula; they don't take it outside the Niagara Peninsula.

The other thing too is that there are a lot of jobs in the foundry that will disappear. Where are iron pourers going to get another job as an iron pourer or a patternmaker? Even though the man has 28 years, it doesn't mean he's going to get a job down the road as a patternmaker or an iron pourer. Those jobs aren't all over in Ontario; they are very few. So we have a very special industry there in St Catharines.

I've travelled for General Motors, I've been to Saginaw, I've been to the plant in Buffalo, and the plant we have in St Catharines is superior to all of those plants. That is the cleanest foundry you'll find in any foundry throughout North America. The people who worked in there made it that way, improved it. The production at that plant was the first modular iron plant to produce crankshafts, so we've been ahead of time at that particular plant. As my colleague here says about moving equipment out, we're moving the technology we've built in St Catharines to other plants.

But I have to say there are some other people I'd like to mention: a fellow who has 26 years, John Wright -- he's a patternmaker and he'll be gone if the foundry shuts down -- and Aaron Bessems. There are quite a few of my friends who will be losing jobs there, but the thing is some people say, "I'll have enough seniority that I'll be able to retire before the plant closes down," but they're closing their eyes to where their children are going to be getting a job in the Niagara Peninsula if this is the case. We have to look forward to say, "Let's save the foundry, let's everyone in this assembly wind up getting behind the members of Niagara to save the foundry at General Motors in St Catharines." I'll be voting in favour of this resolution.

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I will be supporting Mr Bradley's resolution as put forward today in support of the people of the GM plant in St Catharines and CAW 199. I know a rally took place a few months ago and Mr Bradley participated along with Mr Kormos and a number of other members from the Niagara area. I know they enjoyed the rally, but I think it's only one sign that has to be kept up in making sure that the plant is there. I believe the workers themselves have been competitive. As we live in the auto sector, I've eaten the word "competitiveness," but competitiveness is not cheap labour at the same time. This union has been very cooperative in looking at ways of making sure it can be more competitive.

It could be that one of the decisions behind the boardroom doors in Michigan is that there is a US election coming up and they wouldn't want to disappoint the Republicans in making sure that Bush is not defeated in one way or another and making sure that the Democrats don't get one more foot up on him in the state of Michigan. That wouldn't be one of the cases I hope that the board members of GM are now deciding upon. But as a representative and working in the auto sector, I have a feeling it is one of them, as we've started to read a book about what is going on in the United States.

Another indication is that they talked about the plant not being cost-efficient. The upgrading of the Saginaw plant compared with the costs for the St Kitts -- the St Kitts plant will cost about $60 million and it will cost much more to upgrade that plant in Michigan. That just reaffirms the position of, is it a political decision or not?

1040

Just to let you know -- and I've heard the members from the Tory party who always indicate what they always do and blame everything on the NDP, but they don't look at the federal government and its free trade agreement -- one of the things the unions have done is to make sure they can negotiate a retirement package for their workers which will be offered to them this Friday, showing the willingness and cooperation of the union in making sure their workers are well protected, though the company has turned its back on them, making sure those employees about to retire with 28 years' seniority will be able to retire with a pension and that there are programs in place.

I compliment the union for making this major stride of trying to alleviate some of the worries. If you've ever looked in the eyes of an individual faced with a plant closure and seen them running with tears, wondering how they're going to provide for their families -- I know what the members of Local 199 and the management people who will be losing their jobs are going through, because it's one dramatic impact and interruption of a family that could be caused by it.

The other part I'd like to lay out, as being a person of the parts supplier industry, is that it will affect the people in the riding of Chatham-Kent, because we supply to St Catharines, to the GM plants, and it will hurt us. It's not only for the members from St Catharines but also for us. I'm going to bow my time to try to let another member from the Niagara region speak, but I thought it was important that a member for southwestern Ontario speak on their behalf.

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): Many of my constituents in Niagara Falls work at GM and, as the member for St Catharines initially stated, there are going to be drastic effects across the whole region. Certainly there will be for my constituents. I want to reinforce the fact that's already been stated that this is an efficient plant. There is no doubt about that; it has been proved. It is cost-effective and there are many highly skilled workers in the Niagara area.

I want to note also that there has been very significant community involvement over the past few months. I attended a meeting with labour, union, the chamber of commerce, the mayor, many people, and they are all backing the call to save the foundry. I want to point out that this type of community involvement, not just in St Catharines but across the whole peninsula, has to continue to make this successful. There was also a rally I attended when thousands of people marched to the plant, I believe, at the beginning of May. I was with my colleagues Peter Kormos, Mr Bradley, Miss Haeck and Mr Hansen. We stood together.

I also recall at this point a documentary film I saw called "Roger and Me." It showed the utter devastation of Flint, Michigan, when the GM plant closed there. I'd hate to see that kind of image of what might happen in our communities, so I urge GM at this point to reconsider this decision. I think we have to be realistic. This is a business decision. This is a North America-wide decision, and I want GM to consider it for sound, logical business reasons and see that this is the place to stay.

Mr Bradley: I appreciate the comments from members of the House in support of this resolution. My colleagues from the Niagara Peninsula and my colleague the member for Chatham-Kent, who has been involved in matters of this kind before, recognize that this has a devastating effect not only on our local community but on the province of Ontario and ultimately our country.

When I look at the importance of the automotive industry, it cannot be overemphasized. It has been estimated that one in four jobs are related to the automotive industry. I think of people from northern Ontario -- for instance, the member for Sudbury is in the House. In Sudbury, where I used to live, they produce many metals which are used in industry, which are used in vehicles. The steel industry in Hamilton and in Sault Ste Marie, the plastics industry in Sarnia and eastern Ontario, the fabric industry, the rubber industry -- all of these components go into the making of a vehicle and all are important to our economy because they produce not only the jobs and revenues for people themselves, but for government.

The Fight Back Committee, in a publication it put out for members called It's Time We Had Canadian Content Laws, had some rather interesting facts that I think should be shared with members of the House. First of all, they stated that, "A GM St Catharines worker's average wage is approximately $40,000." That's important to St Catharines; it means those people can make the purchases of services and goods that are going to be beneficial to our community and province. And then, "3,065 jobs will be lost due to the closing of the foundry and the loss of the 3.1 engine.

Here's something rather interesting: "Payroll taxes for these 3,065 workers would amount to $612,000 for Canada pension and $856,800 for UIC premiums -- gone. Based on employer health tax of 1.95% of payroll, Ontario's health plan would lose $597,675. The company's Worker's Compensation Board payments of $700,000 would also disappear.

"Lost taxes from workers would amount to approximately $2.8 million, from lost revenue on Canada pension and UIC premiums paid by the workers.

"Finally, the government must now pay the laid-off workers UIC for an average of 40 weeks. This amounts to approximately $52 million.

"None of this takes into account the 'multiple effect': the spinoff jobs that will be lost when these people are laid off, when GM stops buying goods from its suppliers, and when its workers stop shopping." We recognize there is a diminishing of the economy. "Nor does it include any social cost associated with unemployment or welfare. Nor does this include that the foundry alone pays for and uses 44% of the city of St Catharines hydro. Nor does this include the loss in revenue of approximately 20% of the property taxes for the entire city of St Catharines, which the foundry and parts of the engine plant account for.

"The spinoff jobs directly related to auto workers is a four-to-one ratio. This means that if 3,065 auto workers lose their jobs, so do 12,240 other workers in our community. These figures are staggering. Forget the money for a minute and think of the people struggling to find food and shelter."

In other words, the emphasis is on people in this particular document. The Fight Back Committee has led the fight, but it has had strong support, as my colleagues from the Niagara Peninsula have pointed out, and it's going to be important that we unite as members of this House and as members of our society in fighting for those who are employed in the automotive industry.

The reason I pointed out its effects on the rest of the economy is that there are some people who like to sit back and say, "It's time something like this happened," or "We should become more competitive," and "It's a natural reaction to a recession," and so on. Often they are people who are envious of some of the jobs that are there, but they have to remember that these men and women who work in these industries are making purchases elsewhere, are requiring services elsewhere and that this industry and the people in the industry are exceedingly important to the total economy, not only of the Niagara region which we represent but also of the province and the country as a whole.

I would like to look at what I consider to be some of the solutions, some of the things we can do, perhaps in the future, to try to ensure that the automotive industry continues.

The first problem we encounter is the free trade pact. Without a doubt, it had a very negative effect on the automotive industry. It was pointed out by the government and I think most members of this House in the last session of the House and in this session of the House that the free trade pact and the changes made as a result of the free trade pact -- and by the way, anticipated changes if there's a free trade pact with Mexico -- have an effect on jobs in North America. They have an effect on jobs in Canada and in Ontario.

1050

Jim Peterson wrote in the Financial Post on Thursday, March 19, an article that was quoted in the Fight Back Committee's report. I'm going to try to pick out just one part of it. I've read it into the record before. He mentions:

"Under the free trade agreement, Canada gave up the duty remission programs it used to attract Japanese and other foreign auto assemblers to Canada in the first place. Now it is clear that our secure access to the US market promised under the agreement is just one more broken commitment."

He points out the importance of the automotive industry and talks about the 1965 auto pact, which was a good document. It was a controlled trade between Canada and the United States. It was mutually negotiated. It was to benefit both Canada and US workers.

Mr Hope: Level playing field.

Mr Bradley: It was a level playing field, as the member for Chatham-Kent has revealed.

Jim Peterson, the federal member for Willowdale, the Liberal critic for industry, came up with the following conclusion in this rather lengthy article. He says:

"Foreigners should either produce their fair share in Canada or have their share of our market restricted to at least the European Community's limit of 15% to 17%. In conclusion, renegotiation is critical to undo the harm of the free trade agreement and ensure Canada a fair share of auto jobs. Canada must not sign any new deal that does not meet these minimal standards."

So in international agreements we must be very careful that we protect the auto industry, our fair share of the market.

Second, the high dollar has had an effect, without a doubt, on all industries in Canada. We are more competitive when our dollar is down. Ask people in northern Ontario about the pulp and paper industry or the lumber industry and the effect of the dollar moving upwards on those industries. The same is true of the automotive industry. In Canada, we should not have an artificially high dollar, which I always consider is an unwritten part of the free trade pact having a bad effect on our automotive industry.

Members have heard me speak at great length in the House about -- well, it's passed now, but I'd like to see us remove the gas guzzler tax from automobiles. One of the things we did, and which no doubt the members of the NDP caucus did in caucus because they don't have the freedom that a member of the opposition has to be openly critical of government -- except for one member I can think of, from Welland-Thorold, who occasionally does so. They don't have the same opportunity that we in the opposition have to publicly deal with matters of this kind, but I'm sure that behind the closed doors of the caucus members who represent automotive centres across the province of Ontario were saying to the Treasurer, the Premier and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, "Please don't expand further the tax," because there was a contemplation of expanding the so-called gas guzzler tax that I refer to as the tax on auto workers. I think that's devastating for the automotive industry.

What all of us want is a win-win situation. First, we want people to be purchasing vehicles so that auto workers and others have jobs; that's stimulating the economy. Second, we want the environment to be protected. We do that by having people replace their old clunkers with new vehicles. The newer vehicles have better emission controls -- better pollution controls, that is -- and they have better fuel efficiency. If we can do that, we can solve the problems, to a great extent, of both the economy and the environment. So I know those arguments will continue to be made.

We must use some caution on the gasoline tax. We can't allow it to jump too high at a time which would discourage people from using vehicles all the time. We must have some moderation in that, but let's be careful that we don't tax ourselves in the future -- it hasn't happen yet -- out of automobiles completely. There are some people, by the way, in this province who would like to see that happen.

I also hope the Treasurer would consider, if things persist, removing the sales tax on automobiles for a short time. I could be foolish up here and say he should remove it for ever but he needs the revenue, and there isn't anybody in the province who doesn't know you need some of those taxes for the programs the people of Ontario say they want. So I would ask for a temporary removal of the provincial sales tax on vehicles to stimulate the economy. There are other taxes, of course, that I'll recommend you remove completely some day.

I also believe we should check the cost of the production of power and the availability of power in the province. That's hard to do. It's not easy to produce electricity in Ontario any more. The cheap ways are pretty well gone; it's now expensive. We work at conservation, of course, but we are losing our advantage in terms of the cost of electric power. Somebody in the automotive business said to me that we won't have any foundries, any electroplating plants or anything that requires large amounts of electricity if the rates continue to rise at the level they're rising. Second, they're concerned about the availability, well into the future, of electrical power. So that's something, as members of the House, we'll want to assess and keep in mind as we are dealing with the automotive industry and other industries.

I also believe we should promote Canadian products. One of the slogans I always liked that was brought out, I think, by the CAW back in the early 1980s was, "Buy the car your neighbour helped to build." If there's one thing we can all do, it is purchase the cars -- and they're made right across the province -- that your neighbour helped to build. I'm not here to tell the people of Ontario what car they must buy, but I can tell them that by purchasing vehicles produced in the province or whose components are heavily produced in the province of Ontario, they benefit the workers in those industries directly, but they benefit themselves because the revenues are coming in to the government of Canada, the government of Ontario, local governments, and of course purchases are being made in those communities.

I have always owned a General Motors product because I've always lived in St Catharines since the age I could drive a vehicle. I've always felt it was important that I assist my neighbours on my street, who for the most part worked at General Motors. I am a person who has been paid out of the public purse, as a teacher first of all and now as a member of the Legislature, and I think that's the least I can do for those who are there.

We have good products. I get tired of hearing people say that North America can't produce good vehicles, that somehow if a vehicle is produced offshore it's of higher quality. That just is not true. My colleague who worked at General Motors in the years gone by, Ron Hansen, knows that; Cristel Haeck from St Catharines knows that; certainly Shirley Coppen, from the riding of Niagara South, has people working there; Marg Harrington from Niagara Falls, Peter Kormos of Welland-Thorold -- all those people know we produce excellent vehicles in the province of Ontario and that they're easily competitive with others in terms of quality and price. We have that opportunity to be able to do something directly ourselves for our community.

Another suggestion came from Bob White, the former president of the CAW. I want to congratulate Buzz Hargrove on assuming that position. I'm sure he'll be defending the automotive industry as vociferously as Bob White. But Bob White had this suggestion that appeared under, "CAW's Bob White: Dramatic Auto Policy Required." One of the paragraphs in here says, "Ontario should establish an "Auto Department" to assess on an ongoing basis the industry's weaknesses and strengths, to keep up with international developments and to monitor and initiate policy."

I think a separate department of the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology -- or another ministry, but MITT is the logical ministry -- would be a good idea because of the importance of the automotive industry, so there could be a concentration on that. All members who have spoken have described the importance of the industry and its ripple effect throughout the community.

These are some suggestions that might be helpful. We in government are limited in what we can do, but we can create a positive investment climate in Canada and Ontario. We can initiate policies that are going to protect those industries which deserve protection and we can assist workers to become even more highly skilled as the changes in technology take place.

The member for Chatham-Kent mentioned most appropriately that the CAW has been cooperative with the companies in terms of the changing technology. They recognize that to be competitive there have had to be some sacrifices made, but they've been done in such a way as to alleviate some of the concerns of people as new technology takes over. We in this province believe we have a good product. We have good workers. We have an excellent plant in St Catharines. We have a foundry which I believe is second to none in North America and the world. We have a good engine plant there.

My plea, which I think has fallen very much on receptive ears, and a plea which has been made by many in other venues, is to General Motors to reconsider its decision, to keep its foundry open in the city of St Catharines, to keep its engine plant open in the city of St Catharines and to maintain the employment levels that are so important to St Catharines, the Niagara region, the Niagara Peninsula and the province of Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker: You have an extra two minutes.

Mr Bradley: I think that for the most part people would agree with many of the contentions I brought forward, but I would like to use my additional two minutes as an opportunity to commend people who have worked hard on this.

It's easy to simply accept the fact that a plant is going to move. People are sad about it, they're angry about it, but it's sometimes easy to simply go home and forget about it. Well, we've got a lot of people in our community who are not prepared to do that. Certainly the members who represent the Niagara region in the provincial House and the federal House are concerned about it. The local community representatives at the regional, city and town levels are united in their efforts to see this employment maintained in St Catharines. There are people from the business community and organized labour, people who have nothing to do with the industry directly at all, who have worked very hard on this.

1100

I want to commend the Fight Back Committee executives: Ron Davis, who is the president of Local 199, CAW; Gabe McNally, the vice-president; Harold Stubbert, who has taken over now as the chair of the bargaining unit; Sandy O'Dell, who is the chairman of the committee; Bruce Allen; Gary Martin; John Michaud; Ken McShannon and Len James. These are people who on a daily basis are working and initiating efforts to maintain this industry in St Catharines.

For the sake of Ontario, for the sake of our country, and most appropriately, for the sake of our community, I hope there are receptive ears at General Motors. We speak as a united voice, members of the New Democratic Party, the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party in this House, and I'm sure we speak for people of virtually every political affiliation in this country when we ask that General Motors look at the facts and look at an efficient, world-class plant with the best workers we could have in North America sitting there.

We ask through this resolution that they reconsider their decision and that they keep the foundry open in St Catharines; in fact, expand operations in Canada.

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

MOTOR BOAT OPERATORS' LICENSING ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR LES PERMIS D'UTILISATEURS DE BATEAUX À MOTEUR

Mr McLean moved second reading of Bill 17, An Act to provide for the Licensing of Motor Boat Operators / Loi prévoyant la délivrance de permis aux utilisateurs de bateaux à moteur.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 94(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I'm pleased today to present this bill once again for the consideration of this Legislature. I welcome the opportunity to provide some opening remarks also on an issue that I consider to be extremely important. It is an issue that has gained the support of thousands of people who practise safe boating on Ontario's waterways. More important, it is an issue that has captured the attention of the countless friends and relatives of those who have been seriously injured or killed in boating mishaps.

I'm here today to urge you to give second reading to my private member's Bill 17, An Act to provide for the Licensing of Motor Boat Operators, and I'm here today requesting that you send this bill to a standing committee of the Legislature for public hearings where it could be amended in response to some of the concerns that you might have and those that have already been brought to my attention.

The focus of my private member's bill is on boater education, safety and licensing. These are the issues that must be addressed because increased congestion on our waterways and a new breed of boater who demonstrates that he does not care or does not know the fundamentals and courtesies of safe boating have made boater legislation inevitable.

There are more than one million boats on Ontario's waterways. The province has more boats per capita than anywhere else in North America. As boating activities increase during the summer months, boaters are finding greater demands made on their skills and experience.

The most common, total and fatal accidents are a result of the victim falling or being thrown overboard after a boat collision or a boat capsizing. In a large number of these fatal accidents, the victim was not wearing a lifejacket or personal flotation device, or had consumed alcohol, or had encountered rough waters or had been neglectful or careless while in the boat.

I believe many injuries and fatalities could be prevented if boaters were more familiar with boater education, safety and licensing. If they were, they would be more aware of the boating environment, their own limitations and the power of their boat and the water. In other words, boaters should be required to take a motor boat operation and safety course. Skill and experience are not always enough to prevent boating mishaps. The boater must know his boat safety practices and be willing to apply those practices in order to avoid critical situations.

Far too many people perceive recreational boating as relatively safe and they may ignore or fail to see the obvious risks. They may violate regulations designed to reduce the risks of accidents and they may fail to prepare themselves for unexpected equipment failure. Their perceptions may determine their response to dangerous situations.

Private member's Bill 17 is my response to the several factors that relate to the possibility of a boating accident. The first group of factors relates to the boat operator's character and condition, including experience, skills, physical condition, safety, knowledge and attitude. The second group relates to the environment and includes weather, water conditions, boat traffic and obstructions. The third group relates to the craft itself and includes structure, mechanics, equipment supply and fuel supply.

All boaters must be aware of potential dangers and risks and how they can avoid them. It is extremely important for us to raise public awareness of acceptable boating practices. That's what we're doing today.

Effective public awareness depends on where and with whom potential boating problems exist. I believe the boater education, safety and licensing thrust of this private member's Bill 17 will contribute considerably to public awareness and help to reduce the number of tragic boating accidents, injuries and deaths that occur each year on our waterways.

It is interesting to note that lower speed limits, stricter law enforcement, boater education and the licensing of boat operators were among the 22 recommendations recently made by a coroner's jury in Barrie examining the deaths of a King City man and a Waterloo woman who were killed in a 1990 Labour Day boating accident on Lake Joseph in Muskoka.

Not only is the idea of licensing boat operators on our waterways long overdue, but the recommendation to make education for boaters mandatory is an issue that must be addressed.

The following is recommendation 7 from the coroner's inquest. That recommendation is:

"We strongly recommend the licensing of recreation powerboat operators. We request the Ontario government have a licensing system in place by December 31, 1992. The following is a list of minimum requirements:

"a) Must have completed an accredited boating safety course [such as] Power Squadron, Red Cross etc." There could be other avenues.

"b) The course content for an accredited boating safety program will be derived from the Canadian Coast Guard Safe Boating Guide, as well as rules 5 and 6 of the collision regulation.

"c) A written examination, possibly multiple choice, must be successfully completed to a pre-set standard of 80% correct.

"d) Licence to be renewed every three years on birth date. This would work in conjunction with the motor vehicle drivers' licensing system."

These are recommendations from this jury in Barrie with regard to that boating accident. It goes on:

"e) "Non-residents could be exempt from the licensing requirement. Safe boating guides, provincial and local rules and regulations be made available in as many locations as possible for these people [such as at] marinas, police stations, tourist information bureaus" and other appropriate locations.

"f) A licensed 12- to 15-year-old operator may only operate a boat with a maximum 25-hp motor, unless accompanied by an adult." They go on to list how the licensing system should be implemented.

As I said earlier, it's my hope that this House will give this private member's bill second reading and send it to a standing committee of the Legislature for public hearings, where it could be amended to take into account the recommendations of the coroner's inquest.

As well, I would consider amending clause 2(b) to enable non-residents of Ontario to operate a motor boat in this province for a stipulated length of time to stimulate tourism. I would like to delete clause 3(1)(b) from this bill. The other change that I want to make is to delete subsection 5(2), because this is already covered in federal law.

In my previous bill that was introduced here, the great thrust from the NDP government's parliamentary assistant to the Solicitor General was that this bill wasn't appropriate because this was covered under federal law. I have deleted that now, so this will take the argument away with regard to it.

1110

The member who will probably speak on behalf of tourism will probably indicate there's nothing in this bill with regard to having our friends coming here and being able to boat. I want to change this in the bill to allow those people to come to this province and enjoy what we have and not have to obtain a licence if they want to enjoy our waterways.

I introduced this bill because I have received an enormous amount of support from boaters, from the police, from cottage associations and from the medical community, as well as from individuals from the public and relatives of victims of boating accidents, victims like Anne and Doug Lapp of Orillia, who wrote me a letter with regard to the death of their son. I'll tell you that the Lapps know the dangers of the waterways. They indicated when their youngest son was killed by a Sea-Doo:

"We are aware of the dangers of these machines. Like snowmobiles they are difficult to control and are used mainly for the thrills they produce. We feel they are particularly dangerous to swimmers as they are driven too close to shore and in some areas known to us, parents can't allow their children in the water, in front of their own homes."

Yesterday I was on CBC Radio Noon, and the callers related that very experience they have had with regard to their coming too close to shore. The new federal regulations are a help, but in my round-up remarks I will elaborate on that.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): It's a pleasure to join in this debate on Bill 17 in respect of the member for Simcoe East. I can recall that roughly a year ago, when this bill was previously introduced, I spoke to this bill on behalf of the Solicitor General, to whom I was parliamentary assistant at the time.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): So what do you do now?

Mr Mills: The member is saying, what am I doing here. I'm here today to represent the member for Windsor-Sandwich, who is the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transportation. Unfortunately he can't be here this morning because he's in Windsor celebrating with his wife the birth of a newborn son, Anthony. So I'm here to put the point of view across for the Ministry of Transportation.

We over here certainly understand and support the member for Simcoe East's intent, and we also share the widespread concern with the deaths and injuries that occur every year in this province as a result of recreational boating accidents. We also understand the pain and emotional heartache these accidents cause families and other loved ones, and we all share in that pain and that heartache.

Approximately 60 people are likely to die in boating accidents this year in Ontario. This is completely unacceptable. Fortunately the number of fatalities per year has declined steadily over the past six years, largely due to the efforts of the Ontario Provincial Police in enforcing existing laws. In addition, the OPP, the Ministry of Natural Resources, the RCMP and municipal police forces all carry out boating safety programs, and we strongly encourage continued effort in this regard.

At this time we feel it makes more sense to continue our efforts to promote boating safety as a means of reducing deaths rather than to attempt to establish a system of licensing operators. Licensing of boat operators is an area of federal responsibility, so this legislation goes beyond our constitutional jurisdiction.

That doesn't mean we should reject the member's intent out of hand. As I said a moment ago, we all share the same concerns. We too want improved safety for everyone using Ontario's lakes, rivers and waterways. We are looking into what we can do. We are attempting to determine the options available to us. We are not pretending the problem doesn't exist.

These efforts are still in the preliminary stages, but I can tell the members of the House that the Ministry of Transportation, the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of the Solicitor General are working together to ensure that all possibilities are considered.

It would be beneficial if we could develop a system that would improve water safety while at the same time providing funds for enhanced safety awareness and stronger enforcement programs. We are confident our investigations and our initiatives will lead to a system that encourages responsible conduct and a safer boating environment.

I can conclude by saying that when the options have been explored properly and some decisions are made, this House will be advised of that promptly. I thank the member for his concern and I assure him that we share those concerns.

Mr Sorbara: Let me begin by congratulating my friend the member for Simcoe East on bringing forward the bill he is sponsoring today, An Act to provide for the Licensing of Motor Boat Operators.

Part of our responsibility in this Parliament is to take on issues, causes and approaches to public policy that have a deeply personal concern to us as individual members. Sometimes, as in the case, for example, of Bill 143, the government's bill to put Metro's garbage in York region, they also become important provincial issues of public policy so they tend to dominate the debate in the Legislature. But so very often individual members take on projects of this type that my friend the member for Simcoe East has taken on, and they work extremely hard in order, first of all, to bring the public's attention to the issue they are trying to promote, and then to do the work necessary to actually change the law and add to the fabric of public administration in a significant and positive way.

I would say to my friend the member for Simcoe East that in that regard he's done an absolutely marvellous job. I know personally how strongly he feels about safety on the waterways of this province and how urgent he feels it is for the government to take some step to reduce the carnage -- there's no other word for it -- on our waterways.

I note that my friend the member for Durham East referred to 60 deaths as a result of boating incidents over the past year, and those are 60 tragedies. My friend the member for Simcoe East, who is sponsoring this bill, is advocating that we can solve the problem at least in part, if not in total -- I think he's frank in his admission that he's not going to solve the problem totally -- by providing for a system of licensing for all those people who operate motor boats, save and except those boats which have an engine under 25 horsepower.

I want to tell my friend the member for Simcoe East that I'm going to vote against the bill, not because I think he is wrong in his approach -- I'm going to set out the reasons during the course of my remarks -- but in my own view there are reasons why we should not now at this time adopt this principle of licensing all those people who operate motor boats except of the very smallest kind.

1120

In saying that I'm going to vote against the bill, I want to make two points very quickly. First of all, that's not particularly the policy of my party in this regard; it's a personal view I have of this approach at this time.

The second point is that I don't in any way question or qualify his determination to get the Parliament of Ontario to do something important to reduce accidents and deaths as a result of the operation of motor boats. Indeed, I think there will perhaps come a time when we have a piece of legislation emanating from this Parliament that will do a very effective job of regulating the operation of motor boats in a way that will reduce deaths.

While I'm on that subject, I want to make a point that my colleague the member for Renfrew North, the deputy leader of our party, who was not able to be here at this debate, has asked me to place clearly on the record. He himself is very supportive of the bill and he himself thinks that the carnage on our waterways is one of the things we have negligently ignored in this Parliament. Were he here, he would be speaking in favour of the bill and supporting its consideration by a committee of the Legislature and ultimately its passage and incorporation into the laws of the province of Ontario.

I have some other concerns, and they really relate to three things. One of them is that I don't believe at this time that requiring individuals who operate motor boats to get a licence to do so is going to get to the heart of the problem. The heart of the problem is those operators of motor boats who, whether they had a licence or not, would be operating boats carelessly and negligently, notwithstanding that they had gone through the process of applying for a licence.

In these difficult times when every single taxpayer dollar is important, if we were to set up a superstructure -- an expensive superstructure, I'm sure, when you think of all of the people who occasionally operate motor boats -- when you think of setting up all of that and perhaps only reducing the problem by a fraction of a per cent, I as a legislator in this province have to ask myself fundamentally whether that's a good use of resources and whether there isn't a better way to deal with the problem. Because the vast majority of people who operate motor boats do so very carefully and very competently and with great regard to the rules of the waterways and the safety of not only their own passengers, but other people who are operating boats on the same waterways.

I don't really think we're going to solve the problem with a licensing system, yet we're going to build a very expensive new branch of public administration, with people charged with taking the tests and issuing the licences and renewing the licences and all of the stuff that goes along with the business of operating a licensing system.

That's the first point: I don't think we're going to solve the problem.

Second, in the issuing of licences where people have to have licences, namely, in the operation of motor vehicles -- your driver's licence -- we have such a terrible problem in public administration in this province as almost to be a scandal. What am I talking about? I'm talking about the fact that now for the individual citizen to actually make an appointment to take a driver's test requires some three, four, five or, in some cases, six months' notice to the licensing office. I think this is patently unfair. It's one of those areas where the government has a fundamental responsibility to operate an efficient system, but over the past year or two, the system to provide drivers, young or old, who are taking their first-time test has become totally unacceptable in the province.

The government members might not think this is a very important issue, and they're not going to be defeated in the next campaign on this issue, but so what? What about your son, your daughter? What about your neighbour's son or daughter? What about your neighbour himself or herself, who is really in need of getting a licence for the first time, perhaps in order to attend a course at school, perhaps to take up a new job, perhaps as a result of a move which has the person living in a place that is inaccessible to public transportation. Lo and behold, they go to the licence office and they find out they can make an appointment for six months down the road.

This is unacceptable. We can't tolerate this. If we can't afford to operate an efficient licensing system so people can get their driver's licence, it's foolish in the extreme to think that at this point we should pass a bill in this Parliament setting up a whole new system to license the operation of boats.

On the same theme, I'd like to point out that the bill my friend the member for Simcoe East proposes provides authority for the Ontario Provincial Police, the OPP, to stop boaters, to ask for their licence and to arrest them if they don't have their boater's licence, and it provides for a fine as well.

One of the other areas where public administration is falling apart is with respect to the Ontario Provincial Police, whose budget has been cut and cut and cut so the basic services they are to provide, not only in Simcoe East but in every corner of the province, are now at an unacceptably low level. That means, in short, that we don't have enough money to provide to the Ontario Provincial Police to carry out the duties they're supposed to carry out now, which is safety and security in our communities, and this bill would have them take on the added burden of responsibility to enforce new laws on the waterways.

I think we need to enforce laws on the waterways, and I wish the government would do something about the crisis with the Ontario Provincial Police and the cutbacks in staff. We have situations, for example, particularly in our rural areas, where one OPP detachment has two officers stationed there, perhaps on night duty, for a radius of 60 or 80 or 100 kilometres. If you have an emergency, if your house is being robbed or if you're in trouble or you need the assistance of police, you make that call and maybe an officer can get there within an hour or two and maybe he or she can't get there at all. That's unacceptable, and I'm not prepared to support a bill that would add a new burden of responsibility on the OPP at a time when the government will not provide it with enough resources to carry out its current responsibilities.

The third point I want to make is simply this: My friend Mr McLean has not yet considered the implication of his bill on the tourism industry in the province, which is suffering in a very significant and severe way. Many of the people who come to Ontario during the summer come to use our waterways; either they rent or they bring boats. But even those of us who have the good fortune to live here might take a brief holiday if the Legislature ever recesses -- and if it doesn't that's okay with me -- we might take a brief holiday and go down to the Thousand Islands and rent a houseboat with our family for two or three days, and that's our holiday. My friend the member for Yorkview nods in agreement. Maybe he's done that with his own family. If before I took that holiday I had to go to some location, obviously a waterway, and prove I could operate that houseboat and perhaps have to make a reservation two months in advance in order to do that, I question whether I would actually take that trip.

I'll tell you something, sir: Our tourist operators are suffering in a way they have rarely suffered over the past 25 or 30 years. Attendance at resorts all across Ontario is down. Those who operate facilities that have boat rental facilities attached to them will tell you that the business just isn't there. If we take this step in this Legislature now and make it virtually impossible for the average citizen who might use a boat for two or three days a summer to use that boat, go to that facility, rent the boat or spend a day or two or a week on a houseboat, it won't happen. Frankly, I regret to tell my friend the member for Simcoe East, the economy can't tolerate it.

If you had a system where you could go to that facility and they could quickly issue you a licence, then I might think otherwise. But if you do that, then you're not going to get the benefit you would want of making sure they are competent operators.

1130

Interjection.

Mr Sorbara: My friend says you have to have one to drive. That's right, but there are very few people in the province who have a driver's licence so that they can drive one, two or three days a year. You don't get a licence so that you can use a motor vehicle, a car, for a week out of every 52 weeks in a year, but there is a huge part of the boating population or the people who operate motor boats in the province of Ontario who do so for one week.

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): That's why they are a hazard.

Mr Sorbara: My friend says that's why they are a hazard, and I agree and I confess to him that I don't have a solution to the problem at this point.

I simply want to say in concluding my remarks that I don't think this is the right solution at this time for the reasons that I've given. Already our public administration, particularly with the Ontario Provincial Police and the issuance of drivers' licences, is dramatically underfunded and doesn't have the resources to carry it out. We would have a very negative impact on tourism in Ontario just at the time when we can't tolerate a further downturn in the tourist business.

Finally, requiring everyone to get a licence to operate a motor boat which has a motor over 25 horsepower is not going to get at the real culprits, those few people who, with disregard for the safety of others on the waterways and indeed their own safety, operate motor boats recklessly and carelessly. I am glad he has a provision for careless driving in this measure, and once again, Mr Speaker, I want to congratulate him on his enthusiasm for this measure.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): Mr Speaker, I am very pleased this morning to rise and speak in support of Mr McLean, the member for Simcoe East, and his bill. Bill 17, An Act to provide for the Licensing of Motor Boat Operators, addresses the serious issue of safety on our waterways. The focus of the bill is on boater education, safety and licensing.

Bill 17 makes it mandatory for an operator of a boat of at least 25 horsepower to have a motor boat operator's licence. This licence would be issued to anyone who is 12 years of age and over who has completed a motor boat operator's course.

The traffic on Ontario's waterways has grown significantly in recent years. I know this at first hand because I live in Wasaga Beach. Today there are approximately 1.4 million boats in this province and 15% of all households in Ontario own one or more boats. Ontario has more boats per capita than any other jurisdiction in North America.

The member for Simcoe East, Mr McLean, would like Bill 17 to receive second reading and be sent out to committee for public hearings. This bill, members may recall, was numbered Bill 37 in the first session of this Parliament. It received second reading last year but unfortunately died on the order paper.

At that time, Mr Speaker, several NDP members, members of the government, spoke against the bill. The member for Cochrane North, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Natural Resources, opposed the bill because he felt that boater behaviour and not horsepower was the primary cause of accidents; and, second, that tourism would suffer because no other jurisdictions in North America require motor boat operators to have licences. The latter concern was just echoed by the Liberal member for York Centre.

The member for Cochrane North's concerns and the member for York Centre's concerns have been addressed by my colleague Mr McLean, who has suggested that deleting the section covered by federal law would be a good idea, and so would amending clause 2(b) to enable non-residents of Ontario to operate a motor boat in this province for a stipulated length of time. That suggestion, which could be studied in committee, will help offset, I believe very strongly, the concerns of tourists and of the members who seem to oppose this legislation.

I think what the member for Cochrane North and the Liberal member for York Centre failed to consider is the rising number of fatal accidents on our waterways and the tremendous need to instil boater safety skills among a rapidly expanding boater population.

In the town of Collingwood, Police Chief George Sheffer supports the principle behind Bill 17. Because he is the chief of Collingwood, he knows a great deal about Ontario's waterways. Chief Sheffer finds it curious that other vehicles must be licensed, yet we allow anyone to operate a motor boat at his leisure. Chief Sheffer feels that police forces have the resources to enforce motor boat regulations if these regulations and the principles contained in Mr McLean's bills are adopted.

My good friend Mr Cliff Martin of Wasaga Beach, a long-time member of the Blue Mountain Power and Sail Squadron, feels the legislation proposed by Mr McLean is long overdue. Mr Martin says that many people today are going out and purchasing boats without knowing how to operate them and without proper training. Operating these large boats without experience and without good judgement creates a potentially dangerous situation.

But the problem, and I agree with the member for Cochrane North, is not with the boats themselves; it is with the people who operate them. Mr Martin says that many parents just give the keys of their boats to their children and never really give it a second thought.

One of the reasons our waters are becoming more crowded is the recent surge in the number of Jet Skis or Sea-Doos. Last summer, a Sea-Doo crashed into a canoe, which caused the deaths of Danielle Burns, aged 17, who drowned, and Denise Williams, also aged 17, who died as a result of head injuries sustained in the accident. This incident prompted the Hamilton Spectator newspaper to comment in an editorial:

"No one can say that mandatory licensing could have prevented this tragedy. But it is deeply concerning to realize unknowledgeable and unskilled persons can climb behind the controls of a motorized watercraft without restriction in this province at any time.

"It seems hard to imagine that a licence is required to go fishing in Ontario, but no authorization is needed to operate motorized pleasure boats."

It's also worth noting that the 25,000-member Canadian Power and Sail Squadron has done a remarkable job of educating and training boaters. Particularly noteworthy is the work of the Blue Mountain Power and Sail Squadron. The Blue Mountain squadron, which includes Mr Martin, Jim Russell and Jim Kilgour, to name just a few, has one of the highest passing rates of any squadron in Canada.

The reason for this is that the Blue Mountain Power and Sail Squadron is peopled by teachers with a sailing background who have instructed for the squadron. It is often said that sailors know their boats, and that's particularly true with the members of the power and sail squadrons in Ontario. I want to commend them and I believe all members would join me in commending the power and sail squadrons for doing such an excellent job.

Last month a jury in Barrie made 22 recommendations in the wake of a 1990 boating accident which claimed the lives of Grant Perry of King City and Louise Carroll of Waterloo. The recommendations included one which said all boat operators should be licensed and anyone between the ages of 12 and 15 cannot operate boats which exceed 25 horsepower unless accompanied by an adult. All of the jury's recommendations support the need for the Legislature to support Mr McLean's bill.

I want to say briefly in closing that I think it's best summed up by an editorial that appeared two weeks ago in the Orillia Packet and Times newspaper, "It would appear all one has to do is to look at the statistics to see the grim reaper has supplied all the necessary stats required to rationalize implementation of such a bill," referring to Mr McLean's bill. "Let's get unsafe boaters off our waters and keep them on shore or in the classroom where they will be safe from their own destructive powers."

I believe Bill 17 begins the process of making our waterways safer and preserving lives. This bill deserves to be supported and sent out to committee for fine-tuning. Some of the concerns raised by the previous speaker for the Liberal Party can be addressed at that time. I just want to say in closing to the member for York Centre that we're not talking about creating a new bureaucracy. We are talking about applying common sense, which is scarcely found these days in this Legislature, and using the existing structures, like the power and sail squadrons, to help us implement the principles and the work needed to be done to make our waterways safer.

1140

Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I also would like to speak to Bill 17. As the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay, an area where a lot of recreational boating is done, I too have deep concerns regarding boating and the safety of it in Ontario. While I can see the good intentions behind the member for Simcoe East's bill, I cannot fully support it. The bill has a very narrow focus since it looks at needing a licence to operate a boat of 25 horsepower or greater while most of the boating accidents occur in smaller boats. I can give you a personal example where I had two relatives drown in a canoe for the lack of a lifejacket. That boat didn't even have a motor.

Many of these boating accidents occur because the boaters are not wearing lifejackets and the boats are overloaded for the lake conditions. In addition, almost 75% of boating accidents are related to alcohol. In these cases, only boater education and awareness can prevent accidents of that type. Therefore you can see that an emphasis on boater education, not regulation, is the key to improving the safety record of boats on our waterways.

There are a number of education programs put on by the OPP, the RCMP and other government ministries as well as the private sector. The OPP has one, the "Don't Be a Sucker -- Wear Your Lifejacket" program, an educational program to teach young people to wear lifejackets at all times while they're on the boat. The OPP has a joint program with the Royal Life Saving Society of Canada, Water Smart 1992, which informs waterway users of the dangers of careless and thoughtless water usage and promotes and encourages boating safety.

The OPP has another joint program with the Canadian Safe Boating Council to coordinate a Boating Safety Week across Canada to spread the message of safe boating throughout Canada. The list includes organizations like the power squadrons and their many programs for safe boating.

You can see that education programs like these have contributed to the six-year decline in boating accidents and continuing these programs is an important part of improving boating safety.

There could also be problems in tourism. I find it somewhat difficult to understand why the member for Simcoe East feels that the people in Ontario should have to have a licence while people from outside the province should be able to come in with no licensing and no testing at all. I would also find it difficult for organizations like the Perch Festival in Orillia if indeed people from outside the province end up having to have a licence. I don't know how that would work out.

We also already have existing boating regulations, such as speed limits. When you're close to the shoreline, there's an existing speed limit of 10 kilometres an hour within 30 metres of the shoreline. We heard them talk about Sea-Doos running around the shoreline. The law exists but it isn't enforced, and therefore what you're doing again is having more laws that won't be enforced.

We need people to understand that there are laws out there, that if you are found guilty of impaired boating, first, you could lose your boating privileges for two to three years, and second, should you then be found guilty of impaired driving in your vehicle, it becomes a second offence, not a first offence. Those laws and other laws are already there, and at this time, they're not being enforced.

The OPP has 105 boats and 250 uniformed officers and the RCMP has 27 boats to patrol and enforce existing regulations. Each of these boats has safety equipment as well as alert devices to detect impaired boating.

I am confident that with persistent enforcement of existing laws and ongoing boater safety education we will continue to improve safe boating on our waterways.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Wilson Heights, I don't believe there's any more time, sir, on the Liberal side. The member for Cochrane North.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): As the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Natural Resources, I want to speak on behalf of the minister regarding private member's Bill 17, An Act to provide for the Licensing of Motor Boat Operators.

Before I do so, I want to emphasize our government's concern about the safety of anyone who uses Ontario's lakes and waters. One boating fatality, one boating accident, is one mishap too many. While the government shares many of the concerns the member for Simcoe East has about public boating safety, it cannot support Bill 17 for two fundamental reasons: First, the bill deals with areas under federal jurisdiction, not provincial; second, the bill does not address safety concerns of target groups that were clearly identified through an analysis of fatal boating accidents from 1980 to 1987 conducted by the Ministry of Natural Resources.

I want to outline some of the concerns about this proposed private member's bill. Section 1 proposes the licensing of vessels with motors of 25 horsepower or more. This proposal seems to connect accidents and horsepower. It's a tenuous connection. According to ministry studies of fatal boating accidents in Ontario, the profile of accident victims is one of males in their 20s, in small boats under 18 feet, who were likely consuming alcohol and who died as a result of capsizing or falling overboard. Some 80% of boating fatalities are associated with boats under 18 feet. In fact, one quarter of all boating fatalities involve canoes. This proposed bill does not target those boaters who are identified in the ministry's analysis. If there is a connection to be made, it is between accidents and boater behaviour, rather than horsepower.

Section 3 deals with the issuance of licences. It requires no written examination. The amendment to Bill 17 after first reading on May 13, 1992, which deletes clause 3(1)(b), greatly reduces the opportunity to educate people about boating safety. The process of studying to pass a written examination is a great learning experience, as everyone who has studied for his driving licence knows. A test of the candidate's ability to handle a particular boat does not provide the same opportunity. Demonstrating you can handle one boat only means you can handle a boat of that particular design, not any boat. The way a boat responds depends on its design.

Section 6 deals with licence suspension. Again, this matter is already covered by the Criminal Code of Canada, which allows for the removal of the right to operate a vessel in case of negligence or recklessness. I might add that there are other regulations that deal with such things as boating speed limits, safety, passing and lights. They are contained in the Canada Shipping Act, under the boating restriction regulations and small vessel regulations and the collision regulations.

Vessel operator licensing is clearly under federal jurisdiction, as described in section 91 of the Constitution Act, which gives the federal government exclusive authority over navigation and shipping. The inclusion of regulations for pleasure boats under the Canada Shipping Act supports this view.

In closing, while the government shares many concerns of the member for Simcoe East about public boating safety, it cannot support Bill 17.

1150

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I too rise to speak on Bill 17. I want to commend the member for Simcoe East on his presentation, and of course share with him the tremendous concern we all have about the carnage on the waterways and about the unsafe use of boats, when people are intoxicated and when people are not adequately skilled.

But I would also share the concerns of the member for York Centre, the member for Cochrane North and the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay, who have already evidenced that many of these issues are already looked after.

The cost in terms of our tourist industry, the cost of maintaining a system of policing every waterway, every creek, every lake, is enormous. I wonder that we not look for other solutions to this terrible problem.

The solution of regulation of licensing is something that would be very onerous for so many of us who use boats on an irregular basis. It would be a tremendous incursion into the family lives of so many of us. The idea seems simple, it seems to be a solution, yet I would suggest that in our communities we are already regulated well, if not too well. Here we're looking at a solution that overregulates every part of our activities and recreation. For those reasons I oppose this bill.

Mr Turnbull: Mr Speaker, on a point of personal explanation: I would like to withdraw my comment to the Chair when you were in the chair yesterday.

The Deputy Speaker: I want to thank the member for York Mills for being so respectful to the Chair and to the House. I believe strongly that you are setting an excellent example.

The member for Simcoe East has seven minutes plus two more extra minutes.

Mr McLean: As I was saying, the Lapp family who wrote me the letter indicated the concern they have with regard to boating on the waterways. I've also had correspondence from many other families such as the Burns family and many people in the community I represent.

I'm aware of some of the things that people within the boating industry are trying to do. I have a pamphlet here put out by people who manufacture Sea-Doos which gives many of the responsibilities of people who have these machines. I believe the industry itself is starting to become more aware of the traffic on our waterways and the concern out there with regard to that traffic.

Bill 17 deserves to be put in committee where we can fully deal with the concerns many members have raised.

There are many clippings from the paper with regard to boater safety. Many articles are written with regard to disturbance of people at their cottages. We get indications in the clippings with regard to the Solicitor General, who says he won't beef up marine patrol. The problems we're having with OPP underfunding by this ministry leave something to be desired. Safety on our highways and in our boating is so important.

After the discussion on Bill 37, the previous bill I brought in, the Premier was questioned about it: "'We'll look at any reasonable suggestions,' Rae told reporters at Queen's Park yesterday. 'All of us share a concern about safety in the waterway.'" I find that somewhat hard to believe when members of the government today stand up to not support the principle of a bill that would go to committee for a full public debate in order to bring in more education for boaters.

As I've said on many occasions, as I said on the radio yesterday, I'm not a strong believer in licensing people, but there's got to be a commonsense approach to this whole aspect of educating boaters. There is a tremendous increase in the traffic on our waterways; indications are that it may have doubled in the last 10 years. So there is a need. I thought common sense still prevailed in this province on many issues we're dealing with, but I'm not getting the feeling today that a commonsense approach is being developed here.

For the life of me, I cannot think how the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay could not support a bill to go to committee to fine-tune the boating on our waterways when just yesterday on Lake Muskoka, whether he's aware of it or not, a 14-year-old and a 16-year-old were in a boating accident much similar to the one on Lake Joseph last year. One boat was going 35 kilometres an hour; the other one was going 40 kilometres an hour. It was raining at the time, and there was a boating accident on Lake Muskoka with a 115-hp outboard motor. There is a need for some education on our waterways. That is the main emphasis I want to relay to you today. The main emphasis is on boater education, and the place to do that is in committee.

When a jury brings forth 22 recommendations and this Legislature totally ignores that -- which is happening, I gather, because if this boat bill doesn't go to committee, in essence the bill will be dead. There's no more commonsense approach I could ever understand today for boating.

In conclusion, we must give the police the authority to act, to enforce the safe operation of motor boats on our waterways, much as the Highway Traffic Act regulates the safe operation of motor vehicles on our roads. It is my hope and expectation that my colleagues here in the Legislature will put aside their partisan feelings. Step back from your political agenda, give second reading to this important legislation and send it to a standing committee of the Legislature for public hearings and amendments.

I've already indicated some of the amendments I would like to see and some of the recommendations I've got from legal people within the industry, who are telling me how important this bill is and how they deem it could be made better. There must not be any more buck-passing between the provincial and the federal governments. Someone must take responsibility for boat safety and reduce the number of boat accidents on our waterways, and in that way reduce the injuries and deaths that occur.

I understand that with the federal law that was brought out in August 1991 with regard to 30 metres from shore, if you're within that range it's 10 kilometres an hour. The recommendation from the jury at Barrie is that that be doubled, and I agree with that. Thirty metres is less than 100 feet from shore. I see no reason, especially on our lakes -- not on our rivers because that's a different story and there's got to be some give there. But that has to be in that legislation. That's federal, and we realize that, but if it's discussed in committee, those are some of the recommendations we can make.

The member for York Centre talked about the licensing issue and the cost. I'm very concerned about that also. What I think we need is that we'd have books you would look at when you get your licence. The marine owners or the operators -- it's simple enough. There has to be somewhere where a person can write a test to show he knows something about boating. That's really what I'm after: some knowledge you and your boating friends know if you're on the waterway, what the waterway is all about. So I take that concern.

With regard to the issue the member raised of renting a boat just for a week or two, because of the economy, I'm concerned about that too. I'm also concerned about some of these houseboats I have seen on the waterways. I'm telling you, they do need 15 minutes or two hours of basic knowledge on how to operate a boat. I've seen them crossways in the locks, and I've seen boats hit in the locks. If you say they shouldn't have to have something, I disagree totally. There's got to be a test that people know.

In Toronto and Hamilton harbours you have to have a licence to operate a boat, and I've observed what's gone on there and how slow they're going and the care they're taking. I've talked to the police who have jurisdiction over that. The fines are minimal, because the rules are there and they know what they are.

I want to thank the members who have spoken today, Mr Mills on behalf of the PA of Transportation. I'm not sure whether he's voting fer it or agin it. I want to thank Mr Sorbara, who's opposing the bill, but he issued constructive views. I want to thank my colleague Jim Wilson from Wasaga Beach, who made a very good speech supporting the bill, and Mr Waters, the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay, who's indicated that he's not supporting the bill. I find that very hard to believe when yesterday there was a boating accident there.

Further education is needed. I want this bill to go to committee for further input and constructive criticism, if needed.

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

PLANT CLOSURE

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will deal first with ballot item 17, standing in the name of Mr Bradley. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mr Bradley has moved private member's resolution 13. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Motion agreed to.

MOTOR BOAT OPERATORS' LICENSING ACT / LOI DE 1992 SUR LES PERMIS D'UTILISATEURS DE BATEAUX À MOTEUR

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will now deal with ballot item 18, standing in the name of Mr McLean. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mr McLean has moved second reading of Bill 17, An Act to provide for the Licensing of Motor Boat Operators. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

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

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 94(k), this bill is referred to the committee of the whole House.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): Mr Speaker, I would request unanimous consent to have this referred to the justice committee.

The Deputy Speaker: Shall this bill be referred to the standing committee on administration of justice?

All those in favour of this question will please rise and remain standing.

All those opposed will please rise and remain standing.

The majority not being in favour, this bill will be sent to the committee of the whole House.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

Mr McLean: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I want it to be known that the NDP caucus, except one member, totally voted agin this bill.

The Deputy Speaker: I think you are out of order.

All matters relating to private members having been completed, I do now leave the chair, and this House will convene at 1:30 of the clock.

The House recessed at 1204.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

OLYMPIC ATHLETES

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): We have a good number of young people who are in the very final stages of training to represent this province and country in the 1992 summer Olympic Games in Barcelona.

I would like to take this time, on behalf of my constituents as well as the citizens of Ontario, to wish all of those who will be travelling to Barcelona the best in their final weeks of training, and of course all the very best in their Olympic competitions beginning July 25.

Having done that, I must draw the attention of the House to the cover of the phone book of the town of Kenora. Through this, all will see how proud Kenora area citizens are of decathlete Michael Smith, who has certainly become the home town's hero.

Michael is only one of the five individuals who will be representing this province and country. He is a person who has gained notoriety across this country and throughout the world. We could not ask for a finer young man to carry the message of drug-free competition to every corner of the world. We, the citizens of this country have much to be proud of. However, we the citizens of the Kenora riding, have even more to be proud of in Michael Smith.

Again, might I pass on all the very best to the fine young people who will join Michael in representing us in Barcelona.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): The changes to the Labour Relations Act in Bill 40 are of great concern to my constituents of York Mills.

To meet our social obligations and to have a prosperous Ontario, we must first have a strong economy. Instead of getting our stalled economy moving, the NDP government has polarized labour and management in its attempt to introduce labour law changes. This government has created a crisis on the labour front where previously none existed.

The government has stubbornly refused to have an independent research study conducted on the implications that changes to the Labour Relations Act will have on the Ontario economy, while at the same time the government refutes the findings of studies by Ernst and Young which indicate that 295,000 more jobs and $8.8 billion in investment will be lost over the next five years if this bill is passed in its present form.

The NDP government has made changes to the Labour Relations Act its number one priority, yet in a recent survey only 1% of Ontarians wanted union rights at the top of the government agenda. That is a pretty small number when one considers that five times as many people believe Elvis Presley still lives.

Let me express what some of my York Mills constituents are saying:

"The proposals, if adopted, would seriously impair our competitive position. The thrust of the NDP concepts is to make it easier for unions to become certified and to give unions greater power during any dispute. Their proposals are 180 degrees in the wrong direction."

KITCHENER-WATERLOO MULTICULTURAL CENTRE

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): Today I'd like to recognize the Kitchener-Waterloo Multicultural Centre:

"The Kitchener-Waterloo Multicultural Centre exists for the purpose of fostering the unique cultural diversity which exists in this community and of encouraging the full integration and the interaction of its residents."

The goals of the centre are: "(1) to facilitate the development of ethnocultural groups in this community; (2) to provide, promote and support new programs and services where required to meet the needs of our multicultural population; (3) to encourage the improvement of existing policies, programs and services to more adequately reflect the reality of the multicultural community; (4) to inform and educate the community about living in a multicultural society; (5) to promote and develop the arts and cultural heritage representative of our multicultural community."

This past weekend, they hosted the 25th annual Kitchener-Waterloo Multicultural Festival, which consisted of song, dance, storytelling, ethnic cuisine and crafts and, of course, the Bavarian beer garden. Greetings were brought from the president of the multicultural centre's board of directors, Inci Kuzucuoglu. At that time, she presented an award to Nicholas Gehl in appreciation of all the hard work that he's done over the past few years on behalf of the multicultural centre.

I'd like to thank them for inviting me to be there at the opening ceremonies and congratulate them on all the hard work they've done in the community.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): In the speech from the throne on November 20, 1990, the Premier said:

"My government's first challenge is to earn the trust and respect of the people of Ontario. My government's integrity will be measured by the way this government is run and our relations with the people we serve. Our task is to guard against institutional arrogance and the abuse of power wherever they exist."

My remarks are about that and are prompted by yesterday's introduction of a closure motion to stop debate on Bill 40, the NDP trade union bill. I would say to the Premier that this closure motion is a dramatic example of real institutional abuse and arrogance and grand abuse of power.

I completely understand that the NDP wants to make this bill into law, but it must also understand that the opposition parties have legitimate and strong concerns about the bill. Second reading, the stage we're at right now, is the time when duly elected members have an opportunity for a say. We deserve to be heard and we must be heard.

This NDP trade union bill will fundamentally alter the Ontario workplace. No other jurisdiction in North America has anything like it. It truly requires time, thought and debate. We are dealing with the economic future of the province. This attempt to gag the duly elected members of the Legislature by cutting off debate must end. We must have an opportunity to let our legitimate views be known on this bill.

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): This government claims to be the champion of the working people of Ontario. You can't hold that title while you proceed to eliminate jobs in this province. Bill 40 will make it more difficult to do business and that will result in less employment.

I would like to illustrate this problem to the House by reading this statement from a letter received from S.M.D. Enterprises in Smiths Falls. Mr Stuart Douglas writes:

"I strongly oppose any legislation that will give labour more power over management. As you know I have been in business for over 50 years and in that time the rights of a business owner have been steadily eroded. Today it is hardly worth being in business what with all governments breathing down one's back all the time.

"A person running a business has all the responsibility, all the headaches, all the financial risk and the privilege of working himself to death. All the employees have to do is show up for work, with absolutely no investment in money, risk or anything else, with everything provided for them to earn a living, and they can't even do that without a lot of unrest."

The fact remains that this legislation is unwanted, unnecessary and economically impossible. Why then would the government proceed with this bill? I think the answer is quite clear. They want to reward their union boss friends and supporters by giving them more power over business and over the economy.

CANADA DAY

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I rise today to provide some personal reflections on what it means to be Canadian, based on my experiences in Oxford during Canada Day.

The first event I attended was the Springford parade. Participating in the parade, I was left with a great sense of community. Springford, a village of 200, put on a very successful parade with many participants, floats and also many people watching. Local people, in conjunction with the Springford Agricultural Society, organized a full day of activities. It was clearly evident that Springford has a wonderful sense of community.

The second event I attended was the Embro Highland Games, which filled me with a sense of heritage. Highland dancing, mass bands and caber tossing were some of the highlights of the 55th annual games. My Scottish ancestors settled outside of Embro in 1852. The Embro Highland Games are an excellent example of the way immigrants, bringing their customs and traditions to Canada, enrich our community. I congratulate the Zorra Caledonian Society for doing another excellent job in organizing the games.

The third event I attended was the celebrations held at the Woodstock and District Community Complex. Woodstock's celebrations impressed upon me the diversity of our multitalented citizens. While I was unable to attend the citizenship court, I did enjoy gymnastics displays, musical performances, crafts, food and limbo dancing sponsored by the Barbadian community.

Many people believe Canadians are not patriotic. From my experiences in Oxford and in observing celebrations across the country, Canadians displayed a great deal of pride in their country and were more than willing to celebrate their communities, their heritage, their talents and their diversity.

Canadians sent all elected officials a strong message on July 1: We're proud to be Canadian and want a united Canada.

1340

CHEQUE CASHING BILL

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): Bill 154, the Government Cheque Cashing Act, was ordered for third reading last April. The Treasurer of this province advised me that the bill is dead.

Members on both sides of the House supported Bill 154. There was, on the part of many members of this government, a very sincere appreciation of the cheque cashing problem and a strong show of support for the prohibition of fees for cashing of government cheques. Bill 154 was fully supported by the standing committee on finance and economic affairs. This is clearly a non-partisan issue.

The Treasurer and the Ministry of Community and Social Services' advisers have their own ideas about this issue. They have recommended that Bill 154 be rejected.

In the Treasurer's letter to the president of the Cheque Cashers' Association of Canada, he states that I proposed a similar bill in 1989 which was not passed. In reality, I proposed a resolution which was approved unanimously by the House.

Last February, someone from the Ministry of Community and Social Services told me that my bill was dead when it was actually at the second reading stage. What is going on?

Social legislation in this province is being dictated by unelected individuals who can't even get their facts straight. While we, as elected representatives of the population, become involved in issues of critical importance, the Treasurer's advisers reject the initiatives we propose and submit for debate.

These mysterious advisers may have decided that Bill 154 is dead, but they can't make the cheque cashing issue go away. Yes, Minister, Bill 154 was mugged in the corridors of power.

AGRICULTURAL LABOUR POLICY

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): The Minister of Labour has a report from the Task Force on Agricultural Labour Relations which has told him not to include agriculture in Bill 40. The task force had both farm, labour and ministry representatives. They all agreed that agriculture should be covered by a separate act which recognizes the right to organize but prohibits strikes and lockouts.

The minister now claims he wants to study this recommendation, but he has left the option open for agriculture to be included under Bill 40. The minister and his officials have openly admitted they want to keep all their options open. This so-called option is creating a great deal of uncertainty in our farming communities.

We know the NDP shows little concern for rural Ontario. Our farm communities have seen cuts to the agricultural budget and even cuts to last year's announcement of much-needed emergency aid. We've seen the Minister of Natural Resources make an NDP-authorized power grab over agricultural issues in Bill 162. We now wonder if the agricultural labour task force was just another NDP smokescreen to keep the farm community quiet.

The Minister of Labour has had a number of opportunities in this House, upon questioning from yours truly, to clarify his position with respect to agriculture and Bill 40. He has not done so. The minister has to state that agriculture will be excluded from Bill 40 and that a separate announcement will be made at the conclusion of his review.

INTERNATIONAL WEEK

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Well, 1992's very successful Welland Rose Festival is over, but that doesn't mean things have slowed down in Niagara South.

Sunday, July 12, is the beginning of International Week in Port Colborne, from July 12 to July 18. On July 12, it starts with the Folk Arts Council international luncheon; July 13 to 17, the George Badawey Memorial Soccer Tournament -- you might even see the Kormos-Evans soccer team playing, sponsored by that bright young criminal lawyer Mark Evans -- on Wednesday, July 15, "Dance Under The Stars" with the Jimmy Marando Orchestra; Thursday, July 16, Senior Citizens Appreciation Night. The grand day is of course July 18, with the parade at 2 pm.

A special person being commemorated this year is Rose Shymansky. Rose, who died in November 1991, commenced International Week as her Canada centennial project in 1967 and carried on with it year after year. She is a hero in that community and in this province. I know that her sister, Mary Yuskiw from First Avenue in Port Colborne, is going to be especially proud this year, as is Rose Shymansky's niece, Shirley Coppen, the MPP for Niagara South.

Friends, I'm going to be in Port Colborne enjoying some of the hospitality and friendship of people like the Folk Arts Council President, Rose Santarella; Alderman Gary Hoyle; Peter Bolger; Gary Ashenden, and Mayor Bob Saracino. So is Shirley Coppen. I hope you are too.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

HUMAN RIGHTS CODE REVIEW

Hon Elaine Ziemba (Minister of Citizenship and Minister Responsible for Human Rights, Disability Issues, Seniors' Issues and Race Relations): I rise in the House today to inform the members that the Ontario Human Rights Code Review Task Force has completed its report, which is called Achieving Equality.

In the House last December I had the privilege to inform the members that Mary Cornish, a lawyer and a long-standing human rights activist, would lead an independent task force and submit a report to me by June 30. The task force included Rick Miles from Thunder Bay and Ratna Omidvar from Toronto. In addition, there was an advisory committee made up of representatives from across Ontario.

Today, I again have the great privilege to say that Ms Cornish and her task force not only met a very short time line but provided a far-reaching report that we have made public today. Ms Cornish is in the gallery today. I wish to thank her, Rick Miles, Ratna Omidvar and all the members of the advisory committee for their outstanding work.

The task force consulted widely with the people of Ontario. It visited seven regions of Ontario, held public meetings and received over 80 presentations before preparing the report that has been made public today. The next step for us as a government is to analyse and review the report with my colleagues. We will consider the recommendations in the context of our government's other equity initiatives.

We look forward to studying the report by Mary Cornish in detail and to working with all Ontarians to ensure that the Ontario Human Rights Commission and other agencies of our government continue to contribute to our pursuit of social justice and economic renewal. Again I'd like to thank the task force for its timely report.

JURY SELECTION

Hon Howard Hampton (Attorney General): I'd like to take this opportunity to update the Legislature on an initiative I announced on May 7, a review of the jury selection process in Ontario. As I stated at that time, our goal is to ensure that people who are called for jury duty better reflect the diversity of our community.

The issues we asked to be considered in the review were the following: whether the Ministry of Revenue source list from which potential jurors are selected tends to exclude tenants, low-income individuals and people who move frequently; whether the current selection process and procedure limits participation by visible minorities, aboriginal peoples and persons with disabilities; whether current compensation rates cause financial hardship for some jurors, and whether citizenship should continue to be a qualification for jury duty.

I advised the House in May that Ontario cannot act unilaterally. While the provincial Juries Act governs how the list of potential jurors is chosen, the federal government through the Criminal Code has total control over the procedures used to select the jury in a criminal trial.

We contacted the federal Minister of Justice and requested her cooperation in making changes to the Criminal Code which would ensure full representation of all people on criminal juries. This would address both the federal law reform commission's working paper, which sets out recommendations for allowing non-citizens to serve as jurors, and a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada which states that citizenship is not a valid basis for excluding lawyers from appearing in court. We must examine if the same holds true for jurors.

I am also pleased to advise the Legislature that at our request a federal-provincial working group has been established to review the issue of citizenship and the in-court selection process for criminal matters.

1350

While we are committed to working at the federal-provincial level, it is important to recognize that the growing diversity of Ontario's population necessitates that we also consider the issue of citizenship on our own. I am committed to making the changes necessary that will not only ensure that the justice system is as inclusive as possible but will also increase the confidence all Ontario's residents have in our court system.

One of the significant issues which has emerged from the review is the crucial need for public education about the jury process. Our information has shown the disturbing fact that 25% of people who receive notices for jury duty in Toronto fail to respond. This figure drops to 10% outside the greater Toronto area.

While more research must be done to determine why this happens, it is clear that the willingness or ability of people to perform jury service depends in part on their understanding of the jury system and perhaps in part on the lack of child care or other factors. Efforts must be made to dispel misapprehensions and fears about jury service that may result from lack of familiarity and inadequate information.

During the past 60 days we began to consult with members of the community, judges, lawyers and other government ministries. But this was only the beginning. Much more consultation will be required to find out more about the reasons why people are not included in the selection process or are not coming forward to participate. This work will be undertaken in the summer months, with a view to presenting a final report by October 1.

There are a number of ideas we are pursuing: Providing a mechanism to ensure that up-to-date information about tenants is included in jury lists, which might involve working with landlords to have the names of new tenants forwarded to the Ministry of Revenue, and working with the Minister of Revenue to consider other ways to improve the methods used to gather and update information about potential jurors.

With respect to juror compensation, we recognize that the current method of compensating jurors may cause financial hardships for low-income families and small business persons. We will need to find creative ways to ease the financial difficulties for such people, given the stringent economic times that we face. There are a variety of options which my ministry is continuing to examine.

Part of the solution must involve ensuring that the system is as efficient as possible and that the valuable time contributed by members of the public is utilized in the most effective way. This means reducing the amount of waiting time for jury selection and unnecessary trips to court. It is essential to build public confidence in the jury system and the criminal justice system. We know the judiciary, lawyers and other participants in the administration of justice will join in efforts to minimize the inconvenience to people performing their civic duty.

You will recall that the announcement of this review was made on the same day Stephen Lewis was appointed to prepare a report on race relations in this province. In making his report to the Premier, Stephen Lewis said that one of the key areas to look into is the justice system. Our review of the jury selection process is an important step in that process. It is critical that jurors are not only impartial but are perceived to be impartial.

RESPONSES

HUMAN RIGHTS CODE REVIEW

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): My response is in regard to the statement by the Minister of Citizenship on the report of the Ontario Human Rights Code Review Task Force.

I too want to thank Mary Cornish, Rick Miles and Ratna Omidvar, the members of the task force and advisory committee and all those who made submissions or otherwise participated in the consultation for their work and commitment to enhancing human rights protection in Ontario.

To ensure that this report doesn't just end up sitting on the shelf like quite a few of the other reports they have there, it is incumbent on the minister to tell us in very clear terms when we can expect the government's response to the recommendations made by the task force, and I hope they don't have to get somebody else to tell them when they can do so. To simply say that the report will be studied I don't feel is quite acceptable at all. We need to know when the government intends to act on the report. The minister can demonstrate her government's commitment, which I hear so often, to actually do something by establishing a deadline by which she will present the government's specific response to each of the recommendations made in the report.

As we know, the task force was established in part as a response to public demands for the government to act to resolve the case backlog at the Human Rights Commission. At about the same time the task force was set up, the minister announced a number of measures intended to reduce the case backlog. I'm somewhat disappointed, Madam Minister, that you still have not reported to the Legislature on the current disposition of the case backlog. If I can refresh your memory a bit, you had promised to give a monthly report.

Finally, there is the outstanding issue of the review of the code that has been promised by the minister. That is still yet to come.

There were of course very fine words on all these issues. Now we're waiting for the government to do something, not just to talk about studying, and to get some deadlines so we can work on them.

JURY SELECTION

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): I think I can follow right along on the theme of my friend the member for Scarborough North. Did anyone hear the statement read by the Attorney General? He stood up in his place and said: "We have now formed a working group with the federal government. I called the minister and we formed a working group. There are certain things we're looking at like figuring out how to gather names and keep better records about where tenants are, and ultimately we're going to have a more impartial jury system."

Does the Attorney General not realize what's happened in this province over the past few months? I'll tell him. The black kids in my community that I talk to, particularly those who are experiencing difficulty, when they come to my office and when I go to the community, the first thing they say is, "Mr Sorbara, can you fix up that jury system?" When you talk to the kids on the street they say, "Boy, if we could only get the jury system fixed up, then we would have jobs, then we would have opportunity and then maybe we could feel a part."

The kids who were breaking glass down on Yonge Street weren't worried about the jury system; they were worried about a whole bunch of other problems that are endemic in this province, and the Attorney General standing up today and telling all the world that he has a working group with his colleague the federal Minister of Justice is nothing short of laughable.

What about the Human Rights Commission? The Human Rights Commission is in a terrible mess and we haven't seen any working group there. What about the legal aid system, which is threatened and which now tells women they can't take advantage of it? What about support and custody orders enforcement, the minister's great new plan to ensure family support? The delays for those support payments are as bad as ever, if not worse. When you phone up the office you get busy signals and recordings. That system is in a terrible mess.

He tells us today that he's got a working group all figured out now with Kim Campbell, the federal Minister of Justice, and he's going to work together with the woman a couple of rows behind him, the Minister of Revenue, to collect better data on tenants so they can have a better opportunity to sit on juries.

This is a non-announcement of the first class, and I simply plead with the Attorney General to realize that there are real problems in Ontario, there are real things to be done, and if this is all he has to say to the people of Ontario about what the Attorney General is going to do about justice in this province, he had better just forget it.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): This is really a non-statement. In May the Attorney General came in and said he was going to study the jury system. He came along and said he was going to set up a working group with the feds and it was going to study the system. This announcement today is nothing more than to say, "We've now set up the committee with the federal government and we're going to study the jury system just like we said we were going to do." It took him six pages of verbiage to do that.

What he was really telling the people of Ontario is reinforcing his personal opinion that not a jury trial that goes on in this province is fair. That's the sum total of what this statement says.

Let me tell the Attorney General that when people elect to have a jury, they do it of their own volition and they continue to do it because it's effective. The jury system is working. You don't give the people of Ontario the impression that the justice system is breaking down because of the jury system. The justice system is breaking down because there are not enough courts, there are not enough judges, there are not enough masters.

Mr Harnick: That's right. The Treasurer says, "Spend, spend, spend." When people who use the justice system have to line up and wait for two and three years to get a trial heard, that's not just spend, spend, spend; that's the reason they have no faith in the justice system.

When the Attorney General says, "Boy, 25% of the people don't show up to sit on juries," is it any wonder? Jury cases are long and they're difficult. I remind the Attorney General that people in this province go to jobs every day, they have to work, and the idea of being away from his job is not something the average person can do if he has to be away for two or three months.

So don't tell me, Mr Attorney General, that people have a bad impression of the justice system because of the way juries operate. They continue to elect to choose juries and juries continue to do an effective job.

1400

HUMAN RIGHTS CODE REVIEW

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I too would like to thank the authors of the Ontario Human Rights Code Review Task Force report, Ms Cornish, Mr Miles and Ms Omidvar.

It is interesting to respond to the minister's statement today. I was listening very carefully and I know she made some changes to her statement from the copy I received. I'm going to respond to the copy I received and outline the fact that in the statement I received the minister said, "Over the next few months, I will be reviewing the report with my colleagues."

My concern is that the people of Ontario do not need any more delay in the enforcement of human rights. Quite frankly, the situation with the Ontario Human Rights Commission in this province continues to be deplorable. The Liberals threw $4 million at it. This government threw $6.5 million at it. That's over $10.5 million since 1988, and we still do not see a resolution to the enforcement of human rights.

The issue in this province for human rights isn't that we need more legislation. In fact, it isn't that we need more reports. What we need is something more effective. We have examples in some of the offices where they are not even open on Tuesdays and Thursdays and there's an answering machine. They're open three days a week in some of those offices in this province. Is that showing a commitment to the enforcement of human rights?

This report does not resolve the problems at the Ontario Human Rights Commission. What we really have is words upon words with no action. We have to stop talking and start working. Frankly, we have enough legislation. The people who have lost their human rights do not want to know that there's another report or there's another statement by any government. They simply want to eliminate the five-year backlog at the Ontario Human Rights Commission. We don't want more numbers without solutions.

We all believe in and fight for human rights in this province. Our party established the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Now it's becoming ineffective.

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

PARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Mr Speaker, I'm rising on a point of privilege; I'm hopeful that the member for Middlesex will be coming in very shortly. This is my first opportunity to raise what I consider to be a very serious point of privilege. Yesterday evening, the member for Middlesex clearly violated my rights as a member of this House. Under standing order 23(k) it states that a member shall be called to order if "abusive or insulting language of a nature likely to create disorder" is used.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Yorkview is asked to come to order.

Mr Stockwell: As the member for Eglinton rose and made the point -- and I've checked with others -- the member for Middlesex called me, with respect to the debate on labour legislation and the rule changes to bring in a motion for closure, in fact she clearly called me "a bigot." I heard it, the member for Eglinton heard it, and in fact she rose on the same point of privilege, after which the House was adjourned.

Mr Speaker, this is the first opportunity I've had to bring forward this point of privilege. This is the third separate and distinct instance that the member opposite has accused one member of this party or another, three separate members, of being bigots or racists. I don't like those words. I don't think they're appropriate words to use in this House. I'm very upset about this and I give this member the opportunity today to withdraw the comment.

The Speaker: To the member for Etobicoke West, I must first say that with respect to his latter remarks I concur. I have expressed on many occasions my deep regret at the vocabulary that is often used in this chamber from both sides of the House. On occasion what happens is that language reflects badly upon our institution.

However, I must also say to the member that any point of order must be brought to the attention of the Chair immediately, which I understand the member did. I must also observe that it is very difficult for the Chair to deal with any point of order when there is general disorder in the chamber; that the Deputy Speaker at the time attempted to deal with the point of order but at the same time, coincidentally, was attempting to restore order in a general sense to the chamber. It was indeed a very difficult situation.

The moment has passed and therefore it is very difficult to deal with. However, as has been my practice when members have brought to my attention language which is abusive or insulting, I then allow the member who has been identified the opportunity, if he or she wishes, to withdraw the remark because it is an insult to the member who raised it and, in a large sense, to the chamber itself. At this moment I would allow the member for Middlesex, if she wishes the opportunity, to gain the floor.

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I withdraw.

QUEBEC PREMIER'S ANNOUNCEMENT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It was our understanding from the Premier's schedule that he would be present in the House for question period today. I understand that he is watching Mr Bourassa's statement, and I would like to suggest, recognizing the importance of the statement which is being made by the Premier of Quebec today and the fact that all of us recognize how significant this statement could be, that you might recess the House so we could all watch the balance of the statement and resume question period, with the Premier present, on its conclusion.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Without a motion from the House to adjourn or to recess, it's not within my power to recess for the purpose that has been described by the Leader of the Opposition, although I recognize of course the importance of the event to which she refers.

It is time for oral questions.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I move that we recess to hear the balance of Mr Bourassa's statement, and ask unanimous consent for that to be dealt with at this time.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent that we recess?

Interjections: No.

The Speaker: No?

Oral questions, and the Leader of the Opposition.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Speaker, I will move to oral questions. But may I just make the comment that this issue of the national unity has been one of the issues on which this House has risen above any kind of partisan politics. It's been an issue on which the Premier himself has invited the full participation of members of the both opposition parties. The suggestion to recess the House so that we can all hear the important statement Mr Bourassa is making, and hopefully have the opportunity for a statement from our own Premier on its conclusion, was one which was made in sincerity. I can only regret that the House leader felt the need to lead his caucus in opposition to unanimous consent for a few moments' recess.

The Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition, I fully appreciate that this is an extremely important event. Indeed, the whole topic is one that has been dealt with, I must say, in this House in a very non-partisan way, but your Speaker is in no position to help you. It requires a motion of the government.

It is time for oral questions.

1410

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 40

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): On a point of personal privilege, Mr Speaker: I believe my privileges as a member of this House have been abrogated. Last night, our House leader was unceremoniously given notice that today, under the government's new draconian rule changes, the NDP plans to bring in closure to kill debate on the trade union bill and deny me the opportunity to speak for my constituents. I was elected to serve the constituents of Eglinton and to speak on their behalf. If I have no voice in this Legislature, then why am I here? Several months ago, I raised the issue in the Office of the Ombudsman --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member take her seat for a moment. I understand the member's point of order. I did indeed check with the table to determine if in fact the notice had been properly presented in accordance with the rules. I've been assured that indeed the rules have been satisfied and that the motion was properly placed. So there is no point of privilege, nor is there anything out of order, although I certainly appreciate the member's interest in the time being available for debating this important issue.

It is time for oral questions.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Before placing my question, may I just understand from the government House leader, as it's now 2:15 and I would assume Mr Bourassa's statement will be concluded fairly shortly, whether I can expect the Premier to return to the House when he's finished watching the statement? I ask because I wonder if I should stand down my question, awaiting the Premier's arrival.

The Speaker: Would the government House leader be of assistance?

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): I will check and find out whether the Premier will be coming in as soon as the statement is complete. I'll check now.

Mrs McLeod: Can we stop the clock, Mr Speaker, while that is determined?

The Speaker: I think it would be appropriate for us to begin question period. If the leader wishes to stand down one or both of her questions, that would certainly be in order. We could begin the business and at the appropriate moment return to your opening question.

Mrs McLeod: Thank you, Mr Speaker. As my questions were either to the Premier or to the Premier and the Minister of the Environment, I will have to stand down both questions.

The Speaker: Fine. It is time for oral questions. Start the clock.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PREMIER'S SECURITY

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): In the absence of the Premier, I have a question for the Solicitor General. It concerns the four OPP officers who provide the Premier with personal security and are armed with semiautomatic revolvers.

The Premier and the Solicitor General have established a double standard with regard to the Premier's personal safety compared to the safety provided to the citizens and police officers of Ontario. Despite receiving a recommendation to allow police officers to carry semiautomatic weapons, the government has taken no action whatsoever. It has not implemented the recommendation, and has indeed indicated that it is not going to do anything in this regard.

Will the Solicitor General please tell the House why the Premier of this province has a higher level of safety than what is provided to the citizens and police officers of this province?

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General): I'd like to respond to the question by suggesting that I don't think it's appropriate, in this particular forum or any other, to discuss or divulge security arrangments around the Premier of this province.

Mr Runciman: That response is nothing less than a joke, an insult not only to the policemen and policewomen of this province but to the public at large.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): From the top cop.

Mr Runciman: Yes, from the top cop of this province.

We're talking about men and women who represent us on the streets of this province who have to deal with drug dealers, who have to deal with escaped felons, who have to deal with a range of very difficult situations, and they're being told by this government and by this Solicitor General that they cannot have semiautomatic pistols but the NDP Premier of this province can have that sort of protection provided for him.

The Solicitor General is not prepared to respond to that question. I think it's important. Why is this double standard allowed? The Solicitor General should respond to that. Why indeed are you allowing the protective service around the Premier to have this kind of safeguard that you're not allowing the public at large?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I think it's quite a reasonable response and far from a joke to suggest that the security arrangements around the Premier of this province or any Premier of this province or the Prime Minister of this country are not the kind of detail that would be given in a public forum such as this. For those who don't understand that kind of concern, I think they had better stop and redress their thought process.

I would approach the question --

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): He is not asking for the security details; we already know them. Just answer the question.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order, the member for York Mills.

Hon Mr Pilkey: The question of York Mills, well, forget the member for York Mills.

In any respect, in order to give a response to the member, though, because I know he does have a general concern about the use of firearms in this province, I will indicate to him, although I'm sure he is quite well aware of it, that there is a section under the act that does allow chiefs of police to allow for the issue of special armament in special circumstances. In that respect, I refer the member to that section and I'm sure he can anticipate a situation from there.

I think it might be appropriate if the member wishes to speak to me on an individual basis, but beyond that, I don't believe this is the proper forum.

Mr Runciman: I still have difficulty with that response. There's no question, when you look at the police officers in Metropolitan Toronto, for example, who have to deal with extremely difficult situations on a daily basis and they're being told by this Solicitor General and this NDP government that they cannot have this kind of weapon available to them, but the NDP Premier of this province can have that sort of protection provided for him -- the public at large, the police officers who have to face these stressful, extremely dangerous situations on a daily basis cannot have it provided -- that it's an unbelievable double standard.

I don't think what the Solicitor General is saying in respect of security or special circumstances really holds water. I don't think the people of this province will consider it valid as well. If the OPP and the ministry and the government feel they want to provide the ultimate protection to the Premier, I think that same sort of protection should be provided to the policemen and policewomen who are out there on the streets representing all of us. We want to see a better response from this Solicitor General.

Hon Mr Pilkey: I attempted to give a very sincere and reasoned explanation to the member. I recall just two days ago in the House the member for Halton Centre opposite, who certainly is not a supporter of this government, rose in her place to raise concerns over certain security of members of this House. I think all members took to heart the very meaningful words she spoke on that occasion.

As we all perhaps know, there are varying degrees of security with respect to this Legislature and its members which, vary all the way from security guards with no armament to those with standard issue and to those with special dispensation. The notion that we would compare this to a situation outside this building may not be appropriate, but even if it were to, as I indicated, under the act the chief of police in each detachment has the authority, whether it be for special tactical teams or other special circumstances, to match the appropriate situation with the appropriate armament. I think beyond that this kind of security discussion is inappropriate.

1420

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): My question is for the Minister of Labour. Since November 1991, I have been suggesting that workers be given the right to a secret ballot vote, held under the supervision of the Ontario Labour Relations Board for certification of unions, for ratification and for strikes.

I believe this is a measure which is long overdue regardless of the failure of previous administrations to introduce it. You, as the minister now, as you have been for almost two years, are still denying this basic right to workers on the grounds that previous governments failed to act in this area.

It is unacceptable for you to argue that you have not been asked for such a provision to be included in your bill. This matter was raised many times throughout your consultation process last winter. Your comment to me on June 23 that you have not been asked for such a provision has only added to the public suspicion that your consultation process was merely a public relations exercise.

Minister, during the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 40, I intend to introduce an amendment similar to my private member's bill which would give workers the right to a secret ballot vote. Will you accept this amendment or do you intend to use your majority on the committee to deny workers this basic democratic right?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): Just to possibly clear the record a bit, the member has raised a number of times the fact that I said I hadn't had any request for this. Her last statement ties into that. I've had no request whatsoever from workers for this secret ballot vote. I can tell you that it's been in place for 50-some years. Her government put it in place -- I know she doesn't like to be reminded of that -- but it is far from one of the important issues facing workers and at the moment it's not one of those things we're seriously discussing.

Mrs Witmer: I have received many letters from individual workers. In fact, I read one of the letters this week in the House in my presentation on Bill 40, from a worker in Guelph asking for that basic democratic right. Obviously you're not listening or you don't want to listen.

I want to tell you that I'm concerned about the five weeks of public hearings that are planned on Bill 40 and many other people are concerned as well. I suggest there may be a waste of time and taxpayers' money if you refuse to accept any significant amendments to your bill. Many people feel you didn't listen to them during the consultation process. You haven't listened to them when they've written to you and they're asking, "Why should we spend the time and the effort on preparing presentations to the committee if the government's going to disregard our concerns once again?"

Minister, in order to restore some confidence in the province that the committee deliberations this summer are not just another public relations exercise intended to stifle opposition, will you at least give us your comment to seriously consider accepting an amendment to Bill 40 which would give workers the right to a secret ballot vote?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I'm sure that if there are a number of workers who want that right, we'll hear from them in the course of the hearings. I'm a little bit disappointed to hear that five weeks of hearings that are being set out are somehow or other an entire waste. I would ask the member --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I would simply --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Minister.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: It's unfortunate, but if ever there was a setup for a hard-line position, we're hearing it from across the way. The point I am trying to make is simply that we went through a process over a number of weeks and through a number of communities and that more than 20 changes were made, including 10 major ones, to what was in that original discussion paper.

Mrs Witmer: Unfortunately, Minister, you did go through a process of so-called public consultation but I can assure you that although there were many excellent suggestions put forward by others in opposition to some of your points of view, not one of the suggestions from the other side was incorporated. There is nothing there. The original union agenda is still there.

You have continually said the business community is unwilling to work cooperatively with you on this issue and that it's not willing to accept any amendments to the act. Yet, earlier this year, members of the All Business Coalition, Project Economic Growth and More Jobs Coalition jointly provided you with a list of 10 alternatives to the provisions in your discussion paper.

Minister, people in this province are concerned about the five weeks of hearings. They're concerned that you're not going to really listen and incorporate changes they suggest. Can you give us an assurance that you are going to be willing to accept substantive amendments to Bill 40 and not just housekeeping or cosmetic changes, or are we wasting time and taxpayers' money to hold hearings on Bill 40?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I find part of that question, once again, rather offensive. Let me tell you clearly that we listened. We made more than 20 changes, at least 10 of which were substantive. I will raise one alone. It was one of the three major ones from the employers, that is, the matter of supervisors, and we are told that not a single change of substance was made. How many changes have they made over there, or how many positions are they willing to look at? Not a single one.

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 40

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Since Mr Bourassa's statement has been finished for some time, I'm not sure when to expect the Premier's return, so I will proceed with our lead question. I'll direct the question to the government House leader.

Yesterday, as I rose to debate the most controversial legislation this government is likely to introduce, the government House leader dropped a motion that effectively shut off all further debate on the bill. This draconian move so dismayed and so frustrated those of us on this side of the House that the anger reached a level I have never seen before in this place. I, for one, am even angrier today than I was yesterday. It was only after seeing the intensity of the reaction he provoked that the government House leader withdrew his closure motion for the moment. Clearly it takes drastic measures to make this government listen.

I would ask the House leader for his assurance this afternoon that this is not merely a temporary reprieve due to the unexpected level of heat in this House. Will he permanently withdraw this draconian motion that shuts off debate on the labour relations bill this session and the next?

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): I'm not going to go into all the things I'd like to say at this point. Suffice it to say that I met with the House leaders of the opposition parties today. We're trying to work this matter through. It's going to take all three political parties to try to work through the problems in this House right now, and I mean it's going to take all three political parties. Right now I'm finding it difficult to know who to negotiate with in the Liberal Party. If we want to try to find some solutions to arrange for proper debate on legislation in the House, then I'm willing to do that.

1430

Mrs McLeod: Will the House leader please explain what kind of allegations he's making about the behaviour of any member of this caucus?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the leader of the official opposition, I understand her concern, but it is not really a point of order or privilege, rather a difference of opinion and one which was expressed by the government House leader. She may, however, wish to include that in her supplementary, which she now has the floor to place if she so wishes.

Mrs McLeod: You can see why I was particularly concerned to hold this question until the Premier arrived, because I wanted to place this question to the Premier to know whether he in fact condones the behaviour of this House leader.

It seems to us that the very sad message we received from this government yesterday is the message that the only way the people who live in this province can get this government to listen, whether it is people on Yonge Street or in York region or in Durham region, whether they're members of the public or members of the opposition of this House, is to resort to unprecedented levels of anger.

It is a very sad comment on this government, which is so anxious to ram this particular bill through that it's prepared to shut off its debate even when it comes back to the Legislature this fall and before the public hearings have started.

Regarding his response to my first question, the government House leader knows well that there was indeed an agreement, after we had to work with those draconian rule changes which he brought in, on how many days of discussion on that labour relations bill there would be this session. It was totally unprecedented and uncalled for that he tabled a closure motion which would shut off the debate in the next session on third reading of this bill.

I would ask the government House leader, if his government believes this legislation is good legislation, if it's needed legislation, if it's defensible legislation, why are he and his government so determined to cut off the debate on this legislation? Why will you not allow the voices of the opposition to be heard?

Hon Mr Cooke: The discussions we've had among the three House leaders have included things like five weeks of public hearings with three evenings a week included. The time allocation motion that was tabled also called for eight sessional days for clause-by-clause, two more days in committee of the whole for clause-by-clause and two more days on third reading. We would have had a total of four days on second reading, which was not entirely out of line with the types of time lines that we were talking about in the House leaders' meetings. That is many --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: That is not right and is patently corrupting the truth. I will not stand for that man saying things like that, because we were talking --

The Speaker: I understand the member's concern.

Mr Elston: I'm sorry, but --

The Speaker: I'm sure the member will recognize that in the heat of debate sometimes unfortunate phrases are used.

Interjection: Which one?

The Speaker: The one that the member just uttered. I would ask the member to withdraw.

Mr Elston: I withdraw the phrase "corrupting the truth." But what is a suitable substitute?

The Speaker: The minister completed his response, and there is a final supplementary allotted.

Mrs McLeod: I appreciate the rules and the privileges of this House, but I simply don't understand what defence we have against misstatements of what actually occurred, and that is our frustration.

Perhaps the best way I can attempt to put my final supplementary is to try to put the House leader's allegations into the context of what observably happened. The day that the labour legislation was introduced into this House, the government House leader, without notice, without consultation with either of the opposition parties, tabled a motion to change the rules of this House in a way that none of us had ever seen before. That provoked a significant debate and a significant reaction from the members of this House.

Following that and following the passages we knew would ultimately happen if those rules change, there was an agreement worked out amongst the House leaders for the days of debate that would take place at this particular stage of second reading of the labour relations bill. Yesterday again, in the middle of the debate, the government House leader tabled another resolution without consultation, which would effectively cut off debate not only on this session but on the fall session.

This is unheard of in the history of this assembly. There is just no question. All the observable facts say this government is so determined to ram through its labour legislation that it is going to use its majority to cut off debate in any way it can. The government House leader assured us and assured the third party that he would have nothing to gain by closing off debate on this bill, so we had nothing to worry about. "Trust me," he said. Yet yesterday he brought in a motion doing precisely what he said he would not do.

The Speaker: Would the leader place her supplementary, please.

Mrs McLeod: My question is a very simple one. I would ask the government leader why indeed we should trust him, how we can trust him, how we can trust this government not to shut off debate not only on this piece of legislation but on any other piece of legislation. This is the party that ran on a campaign of commitment to openness and honesty and accessibility and integrity. They've betrayed those trusts. How can we trust this government on anything it says?

Hon Mr Cooke: The three House leaders are trying to work out an arrangement to deal with the OLRA. I would simply say to the Leader of the Opposition I've been at the meetings where the three House leaders have met all along. I've dealt with the opposition parties. I've mentioned to the opposition House leaders -- in fact, I talked to your House leader yesterday and said I was going to be tabling a time allocation motion. It did not come as any great surprise. But the difficulty I have is that the Leader of the Opposition hasn't been at the House leaders' meetings, and the kinds of statements she makes today do not reflect what's been happening at the House leaders' meetings at all.

The Speaker: Second question.

Mrs McLeod: I'm at least here sitting with my House leader who keeps me fully informed of those meetings. I'm prepared to defend the actions of our House leader on behalf of this caucus. As I move to my second question, it's with regret that I suggest that this government seems to find democracy rather inconvenient.

LANDFILL

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My second question is to the Minister of the Environment. I would say to her that the people of York region are another of those groups of people who feel that their right to voice their opposition has been cut off. This is a government which acts unilaterally and arbitrarily. It is not a government that listens to reasonableness, and one of its most unilateral acts is the one that forces York region to take Toronto's garbage.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Durham West, come to order.

Mrs McLeod: Last Tuesday the Minister of Environment said in response to a protest from a group of people who feel that their ability to voice their concerns has been denied, "I regret the presumption that large rallies of people -- and I know people feel very strongly about this issue -- are the way to change public policy." But as we have seen with this government, unless you create a disturbance, you don't get any attention. I would ask this minister, how far is her government now prepared to go to defend her unilateral actions under the Waste Management Act?

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment): I take offence at the continual description of the legislative process as being a unilateral action. The way parliamentary democracy works and the way Bill 143 became the law of this province was that the government made a policy decision. The government enshrined that decision in legislation. That legislation was brought before this House. The legislation, at the request of the opposition parties, was sent out for consultation and hearings right across this province. It came back to this House, it was debated, and the majority of the members of the House voted in favour of it. That's how things work in a parliamentary democracy.

1440

Mrs McLeod: If this Minister of the Environment is not prepared to listen to people who will be affected by her actions, perhaps she will listen to the courts. As the minister is well aware I'm sure, today court action was launched over the minister's garbage bill, and the statement of claim under that action alleges that the garbage bill is contrary to section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms because it violates the rights of the residents of York.

York region is asking the Interim Waste Authority to consider alternatives to landfill under the Environmental Assessment Act. This legal action could have been avoided if this Minister of the Environment had been prepared to listen in the first place, and now the Interim Waste Authority will spend tens if not hundreds of thousands of taxpayers' dollars on consultants and lawyers to fight this challenge.

Minister, it is time to push the pause button. Will you not admit that this garbage bill is draconian and probably unconstitutional, and will you now repeal the garbage bill, if not in the interest of listening to people and considering the alternatives, at least in the interest of saving the court costs ahead?

Hon Mrs Grier: Mr Speaker, I don't quite know what position I'm in. I've been informed by the Leader of the Opposition that a court challenge has been launched; I was certainly aware that one was being considered. If in fact it has been launched and if the Leader of the Opposition is asking me to determine in response to her question whether this bill is constitutional, that is not my prerogative and that's not something I'm going to even hazard a guess at at this point if her facts are correct and a court challenge has been launched.

Mr Charles Beer (York North): I think it is quite incredible that this week we have learned from the minister, first of all in response to my colleague the member for York Centre, as has already been said, that demonstrations and manifestations of different kinds will have no impact on the minister. She as much as said to me yesterday that the environmental bill of rights will do nothing to protect the rights of the residents of York region with respect to Bill 143. She says that Bill 143 went through a democratic process and that it was voted on and the majority carried.

This we listen to from the party that claims it speaks for the minorities. This from the party that claims it fights for the rights of people to come forward, when what is clearly there in Bill 143 is that the dump site is going to go into York region and there is no protection against that.

My question to the minister is very simply this: Minister, it is true that a bill went through the House, but you have put in your legislation very clearly that the dump site must be in York region. There was no ability to go against your fiat. Where in the environmental bill of rights can we find any protection, and will you not accept that in the suit that has been launched today under the charter you ought to do everything in your power to make sure that the case is heard and heard soon and that you'll now direct your legal advisers to ensure that there are no blocks put in the way of York region in moving forward with that case and that it be heard as quickly as possible? Will you make that commitment so that the minority, if you will, in York region can have their day in court?

Hon Mrs Grier: Mr Speaker, the member is incorrect. Bill 143 does not say that a disposal site must be in York region; and as to the rest of the member's question, that's something I'm not able to comment on.

INCOME TAX

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Treasurer and I guess it's really a request for some help.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): Consider it done.

Mr Phillips: Thank you.

The businesses out in the province appear to be deliberately disobeying the Premier's instructions and ripping off the workers of the province. The Treasurer will be aware that on June 8 in the Legislature, the Premier said:

"The net impact of the measures that have been put forward by the Treasurer is that for lower- and middle-income taxpayers -- that is to say, individuals who are earning less than $53,000 -- there will be no increase in the combined federal-Ontario income tax as a result of the federal and Ontario 1992 budgets."

Unfortunately, we're now actually getting phone calls from people who were happy with the Premier's announcement that they would be paying no more taxes but whose employers are telling them that they will be paying more taxes. We've had one person who earns $25,000 and was told by his employer that the federal government has reduced his taxes by $15 but the province actually increased his taxes by $45 in the next six months.

Another married person with two children earning $48,000 was told by her employer -- obviously incorrectly, Treasurer, because of what the Premier said -- that her federal taxes were going down by $40 but her provincial taxes were going up by $120 in the next six months.

Obviously something is wrong. The Premier assured these people earning less than $53,000 --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member place a question, please.

Mr Phillips: These companies obviously are ripping off their employees. I want to know what the Treasurer is going to do to ensure that they carry out the instructions of the Premier and that nobody pay more taxes if they're earning less than $53,000.

Hon Mr Laughren: I appreciate the question from the member for Scarborough-Agincourt. He started off his question by saying he wanted some help and I'll try to provide that to him in my response. Whether or not I can give him all the help he needs in my initial response -- I may need a supplementary to accomplish that, but I will attempt.

I wasn't in the assembly when the Premier made that response but I think the confusion arises from the fact that the 1992 budget implemented some tax increases that for the taxation year 1992 will cost some people more money, commencing on July 1, 1992. They'll be paying more taxes for --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Laughren: Let me finish. Because it takes until 1993 before the full impact of federal and provincial tax changes fall into place, what he said was 100% true for 1993.

Let me put it in perspective for 1992, if I might. For a one-earner, married couple with two children for 1992, for someone earning $20,000 there's a reduction in taxes paid; for someone earning $25,000 there's a reduction in taxes paid; for someone earning $30,000 a year there's a net amount of about 60 cents a week increase in taxes paid; for $40,000 a year there's about $1 a week increase in taxes paid. It goes up on a progressive scale because that's the way the progressive income tax system does work and should work in the province of Ontario.

Mr Phillips: The point I'm trying to make is that you've got to come clean with the people of the province. If you've got to increase taxes, they understand.

Mr Speaker, you will recall that we had the member for Dovercourt in on this very same matter. You are misleading the people. The Premier was wrong and he should have come back to the Legislature and said he was wrong. He told me he would come back to the Legislature; he never did. He was wrong.

I will remind you, Treasurer, that in the Agenda for People you said, "We are proposing that individuals living at or below the poverty line should not pay Ontario income tax," and you were going to move on that right away. I understand that in tough times you may not be able to eliminate it, but it came as an enormous shock to people living at or below the poverty line that their taxes actually were going to be going up.

Treasurer, will you assure the House that we will not again see -- I thought we'd gotten rid of this because the member for Dovercourt had been told to send out a correction on this matter, but then two weeks later the Premier misstated himself. He said that in 1992 people earning less that $53,000 will pay no more taxes. That is wrong and he didn't come back and correct it. Treasurer, will you assure the House that we will not see again the NDP members, particularly the cabinet members but any of the members, distorting the facts and that we will see the truth in terms of income tax to the people in this province?

Hon Mr Laughren: I certainly hope so, but I would reinforce what I said before, that if there were members of the government who inadvertently said 1992 instead of 1993, I regret that. We've tried very hard to correct that. I just gave the numbers to the member for Scarborough-Agincourt for 1992, but for 1993 --

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Simcoe West, order.

1450

Hon Mr Laughren: I know the Conservative Party of this province is opposed to progressive taxes, period. That's why they try to shout me down when I try to respond to an intelligent question from the member for Scarborough-Agincourt.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. With the cooperation of the member for Leeds-Grenville, we can get on with question period.

Hon Mr Laughren: Mr Speaker, I will try very hard to refrain from teasing the bears any more.

For 1993, what the Premier said is absolutely correct. When the full impact --

Mr Phillips: He said '92.

Hon Mr Laughren: I agree he said 1992. I understand that. For 1993, the same income earner -- a married person, one income and two children -- for $20,000 will pay $25 less tax; for $25,000, $95 less tax; and between $30,000 up to about $60,000, no increase in taxes at all. It's only when you get above approximately $60,000 that there are increased taxes dropped into place. People across the province are telling me that they're willing to pay those levels of tax increases in order to preserve essential services in this province.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): My question is for the Minister of Labour. Minister, probably the most contentious aspect of your package of changes to the Labour Relations Act is the provision banning the use of replacement workers. Unfortunately this provision, more than any other, is contributing to the loss of jobs and investment.

According to your own documents, more than 95% of all contracts are settled without a work stoppage, and of the 94 work stoppages which did occur in Ontario in 1991 only 19 involved the use of replacement workers. Further, as few as five work stoppages in the manufacturing sector would have been affected.

Minister, given the fact that the use of replacement workers is so limited in this province, given the fact that we did not experience the same bloody picket line violence they did in Quebec and given the fact that there's no demonstrated need for a ban on their use, will you agree to remove this provision from the bill and help restore the shattered investor confidence and jobs which your bill has created?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): There are few issues that cause more long-term problems in labour relations than the use, in a legal strike situation, of replacement workers. I think the evidence in the province of Quebec is very clear. Much of business in Quebec says it has been a better situation than before and that this is why it dropped its charter challenge.

Mrs Witmer: Minister, we know that's not true. We know the reality is that the anti-replacement-worker law in Quebec has failed to create the labour-management harmony that you claim. Since 1978, Quebec has lost one million more days to strikes than Ontario despite the fact that it has a significantly smaller workforce. Since 1978, Quebec has had 20% more strikes than Ontario despite the fact that it has a smaller workforce. It's also important to note that in 1991, Ontario received 75% more investment dollars than Quebec.

Minister, there's no demonstrated need for the use of replacement workers. Will you tell us why you are so intent on pursuing this provision at the expense of the jobs of the workers you claim to be helping?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: One of the issues that can do more to change the labour relations climate in the province of Ontario and make it clearly a more cooperative one is the confidence of the workers themselves. Few issues have caused more problems in a legal strike situation than the use of replacement workers. I can also tell the member that I don't think there's any accuracy at all to her charge that it will hurt investment capital in Ontario.

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Klopp: I repeat: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Many people in my area have worked hard with the developmentally handicapped. Donna Greb, who has been a member of the board of ARC Industries in Dashwood for many years, informed me the other day that the Ministry of Community and Social Services has informed their board that the sheltered workshops for the developmentally handicapped will be phased out over the next three to five years. Is this true? If it is true, where will the clients who are there now go when this place is closed down?

Hon Marion Boyd (Minister of Community and Social Services): I'd like to thank the member for the question because it gives me an opportunity to clear up a misunderstanding that has prevailed across the province; other members have asked me about this problem.

Over the next three to five years, the Ministry of Community and Social Services will be consulting and working with members of the community that serves the developmentally handicapped to explore with them ways to find more appropriate ways to work with people who have developmental handicaps in both vocational and non-vocational ways.

We believe that progress for people with developmental handicaps is important to really make an opportunity for them to move out of the sheltered workshop program as the only alternative. We have been successful in this province in building supportive employment opportunities for people. It's a continuation of this kind of action that we see as important and that we want to consult with the community on. Obviously, in three to five years, there is no possibility that sheltered workshops could be phased out entirely. I really regret that that misunderstanding occurred.

ENVIRONMENTAL BILL OF RIGHTS

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): My question is to the Minister of the Environment. It concerns yesterday's announcement of the draft piece of legislation -- I remind you that it was not a bill but rather a draft and will still be up for consultation -- the draft environmental bill of rights.

There's a misconception, Minister, that appeared in the article that I can only presume maybe your office helped draft for yesterday's Globe and Mail, that people in Ontario will be given new rights to launch prosecutions for pollution offenders. Minister, neither you nor your spin doctors have done anything to correct this blatant misconception. It simply isn't so.

I'm going to ask you today, Minister, to stand in your place and acknowledge now that the people of Ontario have always had the right to launch private prosecutions under provincial environmental law; that your continuing to allow this misconception is cloaking your new environmental bill of rights to give the impression that it's providing something that is not in fact the case, and that it is not a new remedy available to the people of Ontario. Will you confirm that here and now, please, Minister?

1500

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment): No, I won't, because the member I think is incorrect in his reading of the task force report. People have had the right to launch an action, but the question of whether or not they had standing before the courts has always been the issue. They had to prove they were somehow either uniquely or personally affected or their property was affected.

There are two elements of the draft bill of rights that increase access to the courts. One is with respect to the law of nuisance and the broadening of the ability under that to take court action by an individual, and the other is the creation of a new statutory cause of action, which is damage to the public resources of the province.

Mr McClelland: As to what you said in your answer, Minister, the question is this: The article I come back to, and it has certainly been held up by your ministry and your people as factual, says this: "The bill of rights released by Ruth Grier gives the public the right to sue for the first time." I'm not talking about any additional things. I'm talking about that misconception out there that you're doing something that in fact you are not doing. You are not providing the right to sue for the first time.

I hasten to remind you and refresh your memory. You'll recall that your Cabinet Office environmental honcho, Mr Shrybman -- you know him; he's the one who tells you what you can and can't do, along with the other minions who run around and give you advice. Years ago he privately prosecuted Toronto Refiners and Smelters with the full cooperation of the Ministry of the Environment.

Minister, I'm asking you to confirm that your proposed so-called environmental bill of rights gives no new powers in that respect in terms of private prosecution, as put out by your spin doctors to your friends in the Globe and Mail article.

Hon Mrs Grier: The way in which these questions are constructed is really quite unbelievable. The member appears to be asking me to answer and be held accountable for the way in which a reporter in a newspaper interprets factual information that is presented to him in the form of a task force report. All I can do, if the member doesn't understand what is in the task force report, is to refer him to that report, particularly pages 84 and 85, which talk about the issue of the right of standing and increased right of access to the courts.

LOTTERY TICKETS

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): My question is for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. On June 10 I asked a question regarding the introduction of lottery ticket vending machines. The minister responded by saying that as far as he knew, no decision had been made on the installation of these machines. Furthermore, a report the following day in the Toronto Sun quoted a lottery corporation spokesman as saying, "A decision will be made in the next few weeks as to whether to proceed with a pilot project." Minister, exactly what decisions have been made regarding the introduction of lottery ticket vending machines?

Hon Peter North (Minister of Tourism and Recreation): My understanding is that there's been a decision made that we will proceed on a basis that would test, much as a pilot project would test, these machines in a number of different areas in the province.

Mr Arnott: I must come to the conclusion that the Minister of Tourism and Recreation knows absolutely nothing about what's going on at the Ontario Lottery Corp. One month ago the minister informed the House that this was an option that was under consideration, but if the decision was made in the last month, the Ontario Lottery Corp has done a phenomenally quick job of preparing promotional material. It defies belief that a decision had not been made when I asked my last question. I have here a brochure from the corporation which outlines the machines in some detail. It includes a detailed commission structure and toll-free numbers for more information on the program.

Minister, it is obvious that the Ontario Lottery Corp is running its own show and that you are completely removed from the operation. The corporation is accountable to you. However, no one seems to have your telephone number there. My question is, Minister, how does this obvious breakdown exist between your office and the Ontario Lottery Corp?

Hon Mr North: There is no obvious breakdown between my office and the lottery corporation whatsoever. We have an opportunity to work with the lottery corporation on a daily, weekly, monthly basis. They make decisions that are operational decisions. We help in decisions that involve policy. We have a very good relationship and there's no breakdown in communications whatsoever, sir.

ONTARIO HYDRO RATES

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): I've just come this afternoon from a meeting with my colleagues Ron Hansen and Peter Kormos and the local and regional abrasives companies, their managers and their union representatives. These companies are concerned about proposed hydro rate increases for 1993. They believe that because electricity is such a large part of their production costs, further increases next year will affect their ability to compete, and there is a possibility they may be forced to close. These extraordinarily difficult economic times call for all options to be investigated for the sake of jobs. We did discuss many options. Mr Minister, are you pursuing options to keep the 1993 hydro rates lower or keep them down?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Acting Minister of Energy): It's an extremely important question about an issue that has caused some concern in a number of sectors across the province. I've said a number of times in the House that the largest part of the problem around hydro rate increases is unfortunately unavoidable because it's associated with Darlington, with the nuclear program and decisions that were made many years ago.

However, that doesn't specifically address the member's concern. The new energy directions the government set out in its first throne speech will significantly reverse the rate trend in this province in the long term. As a matter of fact, the initiatives taken to date will knock about $9 billion of Hydro borrowing out of its original plans tabled in 1989.

In addition to that, Ontario Hydro has been working very hard to reduce its operating costs by renegotiating western coal contracts, the changes and cancellations in the uranium contracts at Elliot Lake, the collective agreements it negotiated, $32 million in operating and maintenance cost reductions and about $250 million in capital cost reductions. In addition to that they need to do much more and we'll continue to push them to do that.

Ms Harrington: First of all, I would like to thank the minister for meeting with us over the last two months, and also the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. I would also like to say that over the short term there is going to be some hardship. I really hope we can continue to sit down and work with the people who know what the industry is all about and the difficulties it faces so that we can look at this together.

Yes, Mr Minister, I do know that the major rate increases we are looking at right now are the result of absolutely ill-conceived, inefficient, reprehensible decisions made by Tory and Liberal governments that led to outrageous cost overruns at Darlington. Other governments would not act in the past. Mr Minister, what is this government going to do to bring Ontario Hydro under control, to make it more efficient and more responsive to this province?

Hon Mr Charlton: I've set out for the member a number of initiatives that Hydro has already undertaken on its own initiative to substantially reduce its operating costs. Hydro will continue to seek out new ways to take that further.

But in terms of this question of making Hydro more efficient, we also have to address the issue of making industry more efficient and therefore more capable of being competitive. For example, with some of the companies she's meeting and having discussions with, the Ministry of Energy and Hydro have identified about $2.8 million worth of energy efficiency gains that could be made in those companies, which average about 8% of their electricity consumption. I think it's not just a question of continuing to pressure Hydro to become more efficient, but of sitting down with those industries and working out some reasonable, competitive packages for them as well.

RED HILL CREEK EXPRESSWAY

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): My question is for the Minister of Transportation. While his colleague the Minister of the Environment is wreaking havoc and inciting near riot in York region, I want to put it to the Minister of Transportation that his policies in respect of York region are doing an equal amount of garbage.

Let me just review the history. For 25 years the region of Hamilton-Wentworth has been planning to build an expressway called the Red Hill Creek Expressway. Three months after that government took power, it said that as a moral matter it was going to cancel the expressway, but it at least did Hamilton region the credit of saying, "But we'll do a study to look at alternatives, including alternatives that would include the Red Hill Creek original alignment." The study was done.

The study is here; at least notes on the study are here. There are three recommendations, three alternatives: One, the most reasonable, includes part of the expressway going through the valley; another has an alignment along Highway 20; another, remarkably, has an alignment along Fruitland Road.

After all this study, the Minister of Transportation went to the region of Hamilton-Wentworth and told them they might as well forget about the first alternative, that no expressway was going to go anywhere near the valley. Can the Minister of Transportation simply confirm that this was his decision and that he's advised Hamilton region of his decision in that regard?

1510

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): I welcome the question from the distinguished critic and member opposite, although it has a sense of a déjà vu, a perennial and residual attachment to it. You will recall, Mr Speaker, that when the Liberals were in opposition in the 1980s at the beginning of the decade for the first five years, they were opposed to encroachment, to any proposal on the Red Hill Creek Expressway: No encroachment on the valley. They have flip-flopped. This administration does not flip-flop. We have been consistent throughout. It's been a tough decision from the word go, but we're here to make those tough decisions: No encroachment on the valley.

We would welcome alternatives. First and foremost, generations in the future will thank this administration for being consistent and for being a friend to the environment. I invite the member to share with us some alternatives that we can develop together.

Mr Sorbara: I honestly cannot believe it. Is this a minister in a government talking about flip-flops on Sunday shopping, on auto insurance, on dumps, on casinos, on gambling, on taxes against the poor? Did I hear correctly? Did I hear this minister talk about flip-flops? I have a supplementary.

The only good news in what the minister has done in Hamilton-Wentworth is that after the next election there will be a new member in Hamilton-Wentworth, in Hamilton Centre, in Hamilton West, in Hamilton East, in Hamilton Mountain and in Wentworth East, because the people of Hamilton-Wentworth are so outraged by what you have done that they have decided, or are considering, that their only alternative is to pay for the expressway themselves and ensure that those six New Democratic members are eliminated and that hopefully a new government will make a post-construction contribution.

Why in the world did the minister commission the study and allow the study to be done and then summarily say, "I don't care what the study said; you're not going near the valley"? How in the world do you expect that your government can have any credibility at all when you deal so flippantly with elected local officials who have worked for 25 years to solve their transportation problem?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member conclude his question, please. Minister.

Hon Mr Pouliot: The criticisms are harsh indeed, very harsh. You will recall that the reason for turning down the original proposal to encroach on the valley was made by this government because it was not friendly, was not what we wished to happen to the environment. Then we saw some alternatives. We said, "If proposition A is not acceptable, we recognize that we might have to build something," and we were looking forward to it. But when you come back with a facsimile, with a proposal that is a semblant of the proposal --

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): That's not what you told them. Admit that he misled them.

The Speaker: The member for Oriole.

Hon Mr Pouliot: -- in the first place, you have to look at the other two and possibly three or four --

The Speaker: Would the minister take his seat, please. The honourable member for Oriole knows not to accuse a member of the House of misleading anyone. Would the member please withdraw the remark.

Mrs Caplan: I don't know how the people of Hamilton-Wentworth can come to any other conclusion. The minister made one statement in the House. He has then made another. They are feeling betrayed. But if it offensive to the Speaker, I will.

The Speaker: Could the minister conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Simply put, in conclusion, any encroachment on the valley is not acceptable to this government. There is no point wasting any more money on any further study, but yes, spending Ontario's money on an acceptable alternative, no more, no less.

PETITIONS

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas the report of Mr John Brant, arbitrator for the greater London area, has recommended a massive, unwarranted, unprecedented annexation by the city of London; and

"Whereas the arbitration process was a patently undemocratic process resulting in recommendations which blatantly disregard the public input expressed during the public hearings; and

"Whereas the implementation of the arbitrator's report will lead to a destruction of the way of life enjoyed by the current residents of the county of Middlesex and will result in the relevant portions of Middlesex potentially not being economically viable;

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

"That the Legislature of Ontario reject the arbitrator's report for the greater London area in its entirely, condemn the arbitration process to resolve municipal boundary issues as being patently an undemocratic process and reject the recommendation of a massive annexation of land by the city of London."

It is signed by 189 residents of the county of Middlesex, and I've attached my signature.

GAMBLING

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition signed by about 100 people from places like Dundas, Toronto, Guelph, Kenilworth, Arthur and Woodstock and it reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

I have affixed my signature to this petition.

LANDFILL

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly:

"Whereas the town of Georgina has traditionally been a mixture of agricultural and residential land, both areas which would be drastically affected by a megadump; and

"Whereas the town has a significant tourist area from which much of the town's economy is generated, the tourism industry is now being threatened by plans of the Interim Waste Authority to create a megadump in the heartland of this tourist playground; and

"Whereas the people of Georgina depend on groundwater for their drinking water; and

"Whereas the effects of a megadump on the water supply of this area and Lake Simcoe would be catastrophic; and

"Whereas the land currently labelled 'potential landfill site' is prime agricultural land;

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

"We oppose the Interim Waste Authority's proposal to take prime farm land in the heart in this tourist town of Georgina and turn it into Toronto and York's megadump.

"We further petition the Legislative Assembly to renew their efforts to seek and entertain alternatives to landfill and implement aggressive reduction, reuse and recycling programs."

I have affixed my name.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, signed by a number of concerned individuals:

"Whereas Premier Rae of the province of Ontario has forced upon the Ontario Legislature a change in the rules governing the procedures to be followed in the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has removed from members of the opposition the ability to properly debate and discuss legislation and policy in the Legislature by limiting the length of time a member may speak to only 30 minutes; and

"Whereas Premier Rae, who once defended the democratic rights of the opposition and utilized the former rules to full advantage in his former capacity as leader of the official opposition, has now empowered his ministers to determine unilaterally the amount of time to be allocated to debate bills they initiate; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has reduced the number of days that the Legislative Assembly will be in session, thereby ensuring fewer question periods and less access for the news media to provincial cabinet ministers; and

1520

"Whereas Premier Rae has diminished the role of the neutral, elected Speaker by removing from that person the power to determine the question of whether a debate has been sufficient on any matter before the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has concentrated power in the Office of the Premier and severely diminished the role of elected members of the Legislative Assembly, who are accountable to the people who elect them,

"We, the undersigned, call upon Premier Rae to withdraw the rule changes imposed upon the Legislature by his huge majority government and restore the rules of procedure in effect previous to June 22, 1992."

This is signed by a number of interested people, and I have affixed my signature thereto.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition signed by 50 Middlesex constituents who urge the members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to reject the report for the greater London area by arbitrator Mr John Brant.

This petition was sponsored and circulated by the county of Middlesex and its constituent townships. I can only assume that they, as well as the citizens of Middlesex, would like to see a reduction in the size of the annexation and the protection of farm land.

I too have signed my name to this petition.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas Premier Rae of the province of Ontario has forced upon the Ontario Legislature a change in the rules governing the procedures to be followed in the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has removed from members of the opposition the ability to properly debate and discuss legislation and policy in the Legislature by limiting the length of time a member may speak to only 30 minutes; and

"Whereas Premier Rae, who once defended the democratic rights of the opposition and utilized the former rules to full advantage in his former capacity as leader of the official opposition, has now empowered his ministers to determine unilaterally the amount of time to be allocated to debate bills they initiate; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has reduced the number of days that the Legislative Assembly will be in session, thereby ensuring fewer question periods and less access for the news media to provincial cabinet ministers; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has diminished the role of the neutral, elected Speaker by removing from that person the power to determine the question of whether a debate has been sufficient on any matter before the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has concentrated power in the Office of the Premier and severely diminished the role of elected members of the Legislative Assembly, who are accountable to the people who elect them,

"We, the undersigned, call upon Premier Rae to withdraw the rule changes imposed upon the Legislature by his huge majority government and restore the rules of procedure in effect previous to June 22, 1992."

This petition is signed by a number of interested citizens. I add my name to the petition and submit it to the Legislative Assembly.

LANDFILL

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): "To the Legislative Assembly:

"Whereas the town of Whitchurch-Stouffville has traditionally been a mixture of agricultural and residential land, both areas which would be drastically affected by a megadump; and

"Whereas the Interim Waste Authority has identified sites in the town that would consume large tracts of class 1 and 2 farm land, the areas identified by the Interim Waste Authority would severely disrupt the vibrant agricultural community, the farm families in these areas which have always and continue to invest large sums of money into their farms, these communities would be destroyed by the Interim Waste Authority putting in a megadump; and

"Whereas most of the people of Whitchurch-Stouffville depend on groundwater for their drinking water, the dump would threaten their supply of clean water; and

"Whereas the megadump would destroy the local economy of these communities,

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly as follows:

"We oppose the Interim Waste Authority's proposal to take prime farm land in the heartland of this town to turn it into Toronto and York's megadump;

"We further petition the Legislative Assembly to renew their efforts to seek and entertain alternatives to landfill and to implement aggressive reduction, reuse and recycling programs."

I sign my name.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I regret that the Premier is not here to hear this. He was in for a cameo appearance, but he's not here now to hear this.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Premier Rae of the province of Ontario has forced upon the Ontario Legislature a change in the rules governing the procedures to be followed in the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has removed from members of the opposition the ability to properly debate and discuss legislation and policy in the Legislature by limiting the length of time a member may speak to only 30 minutes; and

"Whereas Premier Rae, who once defended the democratic rights of the opposition and utilized the former rules to full advantage in his former capacity as the leader of the official opposition, has now empowered his ministers to determine unilaterally the amount of time to be allocated to debate bills they initiate; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has reduced the number of days that the Legislative Assembly will be in session, thereby ensuring fewer question periods and less access for the news media to provincial cabinet ministers; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has diminished the role of the neutral, elected Speaker by removing from that person the power to determine the question of whether a debate has been sufficient on any matter before the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has concentrated power in the Office of the Premier and severely diminished the role of elected members of the Legislative Assembly who are accountable to the people who elect them,

"We, the undersigned, call upon Premier Rae to withdraw the rule changes imposed upon the Legislature by his majority government and restore the rules of procedure in effect previous to June 22, 1992."

This is signed by a number of interested citizens in Ontario. I have affixed my signature to it in agreement with the petition.

LANDFILL

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): "To the Legislative Assembly:

"Whereas the town of East Gwillimbury has traditionally been a mixture of agricultural and residential land, both areas which would be drastically affected by a megadump, the town possesses a significant amount of land which has historically been and remains devoted to primarily agriculture; and

"Whereas the historical significance of our area typified by the Sharon Temple and its many patrons and the pastoral quality has considerable significance to this area; and

"Whereas the effect of a megadump on the water supply of this area would be catastrophic for the town of East Gwillimbury, the water supplies of Newmarket and the Aurora area,

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

"We oppose the Interim Waste Authority's turning prime farm land with the historical significance of East Gwillimbury into Metro and York's megadump;

"We further petition the Legislative Assembly to renew their efforts to seek and entertain alternatives to landfill and to aggressive reduction, reuse and recycling programs."

I signed my name.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I have a petition signed by constituents in Eglinton and I am pleased to read it, since I can still read petitions, even though I've been forced out of debate in the Legislature.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas it is arbitrary and demonstrably unfair to use market value as a basis for property tax assessment in a volatile market such as Metro Toronto; and

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

"Whereas the implementation of such a measure would work undue hardship on the residents of North Toronto, on our long-term home owners, our senior citizens and our tenants;

"Whereas Toronto businesses are already paying the highest property taxes in North America and will be devastated by increases of up to 50% more,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario not to impose market value reassessment on the city of Toronto against the wishes of the people of Toronto and to consider another method of property tax reform for Metro Toronto."

I have affixed my signature.

STUDENT SAFETY

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I have a petition signed by some 200 residents around the province. It is addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas Matthew Morten died tragically at his residence at York University as a result of a severed brachial artery caused by a shard of glass;

"Whereas the glass which caused Matthew's death broke free from the door of his residence and was not safety glass;

"Whereas the regional coroner from Metropolitan Toronto has refused the family's request for an inquest and has indicated that it was economically unsound to make universities replace non-safety glass, although a 'recommendation' has been sent to universities by the coroner asking only that they consider replacing such glass;

"Whereas there are other issues which should also be addressed, including the late response of the ambulance because it became lost on campus, and the inability of the attendants to carry Matthew out on a stretcher due to the narrowness of the stairs;

"Whereas ignoring the abovementioned circumstances may lead to another death or serious injury,

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

"That an inquest into the death of Matthew Morten be ordered immediately to ensure the safety of other Ontario students is safeguarded."

It is signed by 200 constituents around the province and I have signed it myself.

1530

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Premier Rae of the province of Ontario has forced upon the Ontario Legislature a change in the rules governing the procedures to be followed in the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has removed from members of the opposition the ability to properly debate and discuss legislation and policy in the Legislature by limiting the length of time a member may speak to only 30 minutes; and

"Whereas Premier Rae, who once defended the democratic rights of the opposition and utilized the former rules to full advantage in his former capacity as leader of the official opposition, has now empowered his ministers to determine unilaterally the amount of time to be allocated to debate bills they initiate; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has reduced the number of days that the Legislative Assembly will be in session, thereby ensuring fewer question periods and less access for the news media to provincial cabinet ministers; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has diminished the role of the neutral, elected Speaker by removing from that person the power to determine the question of whether a debate has been sufficient on any matter before the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has concentrated power in the Office of the Premier and severely diminished the role of elected members of the Legislative Assembly, who are accountable to the people who elect them,

"We, the undersigned, call upon Premier Rae to withdraw the rules changes imposed upon the Legislature by his majority government and restore the rules of procedure in effect previous to June 22, 1992."

It's signed by a number of residents of the province, and I've added my signature.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The time allotted for the presentation of petitions has expired.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT (EDUCATION AUTHORITIES AND MINISTER'S POWERS), 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR L'ÉDUCATION (COMMISSIONS INDIENNES DE L'ÉDUCATION ET POUVOIRS DU MINISTRE)

Mr Silipo moved third reading of Bill 21, An Act to amend the Education Act in respect of Education Authorities and Minister's Powers / Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'éducation en ce qui concerne les commissions indiennes de l'éducation et les pouvoirs du ministre.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Does the minister have any comments? Debate?

Mr Charles Beer (York North): I don't intend to speak at great length, but as you will recall, when we were dealing with this bill in second reading the other day, it was shortly before 6 of the clock, and there are a few additional remarks I'd like to make. As I indicated at that time, we would be supporting this bill. The brief remarks I want to make concern the part of it that will have boards develop anti-racism policies and ethnocultural equity.

Last week I was particularly reminded of this and of its importance for teachers by a course my wife is taking for English-as-a-second-language accreditation and a number of the very interesting documents she has brought back from the course about experiences in other jurisdictions in developing these programs. In talking with her and others who are following this course, clearly a lot of the literature is trying to indicate to people that we are looking as well at structures and how we develop, not only within our school boards but within society in general, a way of dealing with anti-racism strategies.

A lot of the material that is now being made available to teachers, particularly, as I mentioned before, experiences in other jurisdictions, I think is useful and important. I think it can show us places where, without meaning to, we can create ways of doing things that may be very difficult for people coming from different cultures to understand or to handle. If we go back to the development of the heritage languages program -- and the minister knows that very well, having been on the Toronto school board -- as he knows, the Toronto school board was really one of the pioneers in developing heritage language programs.

A number of the principles behind that program were in part to assist young people to develop a better self image, a better sense of themselves within their own culture, within their own language, and that by doing that they would then be better equipped to deal with this new society they had come into. When we look at the success at the heritage language program over the years in helping young people from different countries maintain a sense of who they are while sharing with the greater Canadian context, I think that is important. We're going to continue to have problems around racism if young people do not have a good sense of themselves, their own ethnic, racial, linguistic and cultural background.

I think we want to underline that while this particular legislation does not set out how the boards will go about doing this, clearly we want people to use common sense, we want them to be inclusive, to develop structures and strategies that are going to work. It is very important because if we can have an impact on young people -- particularly at the elementary level, I think the literature and experience would show -- that is going to assist us in dealing with problems of racism that are in our society and in any modern society. They exist. To admit that is not to say that our society is fundamentally bad or any of those kinds of comments, but simply to recognize that it's there. As legislators we have a responsibility to begin to deal with it.

I want to reiterate that expanding through this bill the request of school boards to develop an anti-racism policy and an ethnocultural equity policy -- in many cases, as our colleague the member for London North noted last week or the week before, a number of boards have already done very innovative things. Hopefully one of the things the ministry might do is to make that information available to various boards. Again, that's what was done in terms of heritage languages. It was also done at the time when there were questions around the use of prayers in the schools and a number of school boards had worked on some very interesting approaches making use of our multicultural heritage and multireligious heritage in providing a variety of activities for students.

I think we want to underline that a lot has happened, there's a lot of good work that has been done, a lot of good experience that I think can help all boards. If we are able to implement this particular bill in a creative and positive way, it will have a very good and salutary impact on the development of anti-racism policies in this province.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Questions and/or comments?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I certainly agree with the remarks made by the member, but my question relates to the new rules in the Legislative Assembly that Premier Rae has brought in to limit the opposition and how they might relate to a bill of this kind, and specifically this bill. I know the member would like, if he had the opportunity, to deal with the rules and how, were there a more controversial bill in the education field, they might prevent him from doing so.

The House used to sit at least two more weeks a year. The member for Windsor-Riverside, the government House leader, wanted the House to sit three weeks fewer, and that means less in the way of question periods, it means fewer days where the cabinet ministers are subject to scrutiny on a close basis by members of the media in the hallway of this Legislature, and it allows for fewer days to debate the kind of legislation that is coming before the House, the kind of legislation the member brought forward. I'm wondering what the viewpoint would be of the member for York North on this and how it would relate to a bill of this kind.

Now, this has proceeded rather quickly. There is a consensus in this House. I suppose if the opposition wanted to be obstinate about this, we could on every bill debate the full time until the government brought in its closure. However, the member has been reasonable in the way he has brought in the bill. He has had consultation with both of the opposition critics and I think there is a general consensus that this bill should pass rather expeditiously.

This is the kind of legislation, by the way, that the government House leader could have brought in several weeks ago when he didn't have anything to speak of on the order paper. It would have gone through the Legislature, I'm sure, in just a few minutes.

I want to associate myself with the remarks of the member for York North in agreement with the bill and express the concern that the minister, if he'd wanted to, could have come into the House and allocated the specific amount of time we would have to debate this. But he had the consensus of the House, so he didn't have to do it. That's the way the House has always worked well in the past.

1540

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments? Seeing none, the honourable member for York North has two minutes in response.

Mr Beer: I think the points raised by my colleague the member for St Catharines are ones to reflect on. It has always been my experience, both as somebody on staff here when Dr Stuart Smith was the leader of the official opposition and then when I was a member on the government side, that the way in which critics and ministers work together goes a long way to expediting legislation. When I reflect on my own time as minister and the importance of that relationship -- I'll use one example in the education field: the deaf education bill that was proposed by the former member for Scarborough West, Richard Johnston, who worked with the then Minister of Education, Chris Ward, talking about the kinds of things he would like to see in that bill. I believe there was some very useful discussion and various things were agreed to simply through that process.

I think this House works best when critics and the minister can cooperate, can have discussions. As my colleague the member for St Catharines has said, we have had that kind of cooperation and discussion around this as well as other pieces of education legislation. I think that is the way to go. Clearly any kinds of rule changes that block debate or make it more difficult to have good solid debate on any number of issues in the education field -- certainly there are areas where there will be disagreement and where there will be conflict, and that needs to be expressed. I think that's the critical thing. We need to ensure that those of us who are in this House are going to have the opportunity to debate the issues whatever they may be. I would associate with the comments of the member for St Catharines.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate on the third reading of Bill 21? Seeing none, would the honourable minister want to wrap up?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): I will resist the temptation to comment about the rules and their impact on this particular piece of legislation. I will just say that I am pleased, obviously, about the cooperation that's been shown by the opposition parties with respect to this bill, both in the process and, even more so, in the content. I think the fact that we are able to pass this legislation is significant. We know that, as I think has been noted, this will go a long way towards ensuring that there is a greater appreciation for the multitude of races and cultures that exist in our school system and taking some very active steps within our school system to promote a very strong anti-racism approach.

I just want to indicate, as I've indicated before and as the member for York North has talked about this afternoon, the need for us to look at these issues by being very conscious of the many good things that already are happening on this front. I want to reiterate that point because it's certainly my view on this and on other issues that we don't need to completely reinvent the wheel. A number of good things are happening, from which we can learn, that school boards are doing. I think part of our job in implementing this policy and assisting school boards to implement this policy will be to take those things that are happening and try to encourage the sharing of that information throughout the province.

I can assure the House that, through the new assistant deputy minister position and through the division we are pulling together to assist with the implementation of this policy, we will be doing exactly that and will be providing, I expect, a great deal of assistance directly to school boards in preparing and implementing these policies, which will obviously be for the betterment of the school system and for the education of our young people.

Motion agreed to.

SCHOOL BOARD FINANCE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LE FINANCEMENT DES CONSEILS SCOLAIRES

Mr Silipo moved second reading of Bill 27, An Act to amend the Education Act and certain other Acts in respect of School Board Finance / Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'éducation et certaines autres lois en ce qui concerne le financement des conseils scolaires.

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): There are four measures contained in this bill, essentially. They're all of a financial nature. The first amendment will allow corporations without share capital and corporations sole, such as the archdiocese of Toronto, to allocate their property taxes to public or separate school boards as they determine. That's a choice they presently don't have.

Similarly, the second amendment will direct that the property taxes paid by the crown, federal and provincial agencies, boards and commissions, municipal corporations, local boards of municipalities and conservation authorities will be divided between public and separate school boards in the same manner as property taxes paid by corporations whose shares are publicly traded. This continues the process begun in 1989 with Bill 64.

The third amendment in this bill will permit a school board to borrow more than it expects to receive in current revenue if the administration of the board is under the control of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. This additional borrowing authority will be subject to the approval of the Minister of Education.

Finally, this bill contains an amendment regarding the levies against telephone and telegraph companies. Those levies are moneys paid in place of property taxes on their lines and poles. The amendment will adjust the allocation of those levies between public and separate school boards in areas where education is provided entirely by the public school board.

These, then, are the four amendments contained in this bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Questions and/or comments? Further debate?

Mr Charles Beer (York North): Just one point; I may have missed this: Did the minister mention that there was also an amendment to the Ottawa-Carleton French-Language School Board Act contained in this? I'll make some comments on that but I didn't hear him refer to that amendment.

Hon Mr Silipo: I did.

Mr Beer: Did you? I'm sorry. I must have been asleep at the wheel.

This is one of those acts that I think all of us enjoy debating in the Legislature. I'm taking it, at the opening of my comments, to page 4 of the bill, which in a very traumatic way takes me back to school. If I can share this with members in the House, there are a whole series of mathematical calculations that appear in this bill.

I don't know quite how many of us would have done on the various international math tests that have been held over the course of the last year, but I think we legislators are always frightened when we come to section 5 of the bill. It has things like A times B over C and then goes on to define just what A, B and C are. We're afraid we're going to get asked a question as to just what that will amount to.

That being said, this bill does contain a number of important provisions, some of which in effect flow from the discussions around what was known as Bill 30, which extended public funding to separate schools. So a number of these changes are important in making sure that we have greater equity between the funding of the public and the separate systems, both of which of course are publicly funded.

We will support this bill but there are a number of points that I think need to be mentioned. The first one, and one that I think arose all during the discussions over the extension of funding to the separate school system, was to ensure that as we were moving to bring the separate schools into greater balance, the public school system would not at the same time be losing money and that what we had to try to develop was, if you like, a win-win situation whereby the separate schools would be brought up to the same level as the public schools.

We're told by a number of the organizations that there is a concern among the public boards that they would stand to lose something in the order of $80 million when this legislation comes into effect. I would simply say to the minister I think it is terribly important that as we go forward this does not happen, because again, what we're trying to do is to really ensure that the separate system, in terms of its funding, will come and be equal to that which the public system receives. The figure of $80 million may or may not be correct, but I think it is an issue that needs to be addressed. While we support this bill, we want to make it clear that we feel the matter needs to be addressed.

1550

There are some technical problems that I understand have been raised with the ministry, some of which concern changes the Ministry of Revenue would have to make to bring about these changes. There seems to be some difference of opinion as to exactly how easy or how difficult that might be.

I gather, with respect to identifying ratepayers and making changes to assessment roles in terms of the non-share capital corporations, that is not in every instance going to be an easy thing to do. Again, I just think sometimes one ministry will move forward in one area without the appropriate consultations with another ministry which is key in ensuring that these reforms are brought about, Revenue obviously in this case being a very important one. It makes little sense if non-share capital corporations are able to direct their taxes in a certain way if there are problems in identifying them and making sure that happens.

Specifically, as to the date at which this would come into effect, we're told the Ministry of Revenue feels it would need until 1993 to carry out all these changes. I think some direction from the minister as to just when this would begin, and what kinds of discussions and consultations have been going on with the Ministry of Revenue, would be helpful to hear and to know exactly at what date these changes would occur.

In a more fundamental sense, while clearly this bill is in the form of a housekeeping bill, it speaks to two basic issues we need to put on the table today. The first is the major problem facing school boards today in terms of the resources they have. The minister has spoken -- and we're now involved in estimates -- about the Fair Tax Commission, about his own advisory council and work being done within the ministry looking at everything from property taxes to where the moneys come from to fund our system and how they ought to be expended.

Again, I think we have to underline that if school boards are only going to be receiving 1% and then 2% in terms of the moneys they have from the province in increase, it is very important that there not be any offloading, that costs the ministry is causing school boards to take on are in fact borne by the ministry.

This has been one of the fundamental problems I think we in opposition have had with the government throughout its period in office in terms of the variety of programs being placed on school boards without appropriate financial resources especially when, as is happening with this bill, you are making some changes in the way corporation tax is going to be allocated to the two boards. Any sense of inequity, any sense school boards would have that a heavier load was being placed on them is going to cause a great deal of difficulty.

One can only say to the minister that we hope his timetable for educational financial reform will be realized. He has said he hopes by earlier in 1993 he will be able to take some proposals before cabinet and that at the beginning of the next budget year, in April, 1993, at least some specific major important changes will come about.

I want to make those comments. While they are not specifically in the amendments, I think it's terribly important whenever we're talking about educational financing to go back and remember that we are working on basic reform of the system and it is important that continue.

The other comment I think needs to be made here in terms of opening remarks is with respect to the Ottawa-Carleton French-Language School Board Act. There have been, since the inception of that board, problems around funding and financing. As the minister knows and as we were discussing in estimates the other day, those problems have led to the ministry taking over the operation of the French-language public board, and whatever the reasons were that led the ministry to do that, there is a situation there now where we have had for over a year a special trustee who in effect is running the affairs of the board.

It simply is not healthy in terms of the longer perspective, because parents and the elected trustees themselves find that whole process very frustrating. I would hope and would say to the minister through this debate that as changes are made to that act, it is important that we deal with the more fundamental problem so that in effect the democratically elected school board can again take over the running of that board and the financial difficulties can be resolved.

We know there are a number of school boards in the province, including the French-language public board in Ottawa-Carleton, that are in deficit situations for a whole series of reasons. Clearly the government has a responsibility to work with those boards to find ways to bring them into balance, and obviously the boards themselves have responsibilities as well. But I think, in looking at this particular bill, and being supportive of the changes that are proposed, none the less we have to recognize that there are broader funding problems and those need to be addressed.

I have a few questions and queries when we get into the specific clauses of the bill, but in general, as I said at the beginning, a number of these changes flow from the changes we launched in the mid-1980s to improve the funding of both the separate and the public systems and we will be supporting this bill.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments on the member's participation? The honourable member for Brampton North.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): South.

The Acting Speaker: Brampton South.

Mr Callahan: I'm going to move to the north, because everybody says Brampton North.

I understand what my friend has said, that this is housekeeping and that it's really a reshuffling, I guess, of money, but at this time I'd like to inquire of the minister, in light of what's taking place here, why under proposed Bill 37 he is going to be eliminating the possibility of hard-to-serve children being treated in the way they're presently treated. As I understand it, the elimination of the hard to serve from the Education Act by Bill 37 will place them in a situation where they cannot receive the benefits they now receive.

I urge you, Mr Minister -- even though it's just shuffling of money, it's going to give perhaps greater amounts of money to school boards -- that you would consider very seriously the section in Bill 37 that eliminates these opportunities for those young people who are found to be hard to serve.

As you know, that deals in the main with young people who have learning disabilities, who after a rather extensive hearing by those who can best determine that, find that a school board cannot possibly deal with that young person and therefore he or she is allowed and is financed to be sent to a milieu or an educational system where the number of students in a classroom is perhaps less than it would be in an ordinary classroom.

By eliminating those sections by your proposed Bill 37, I suggest to you what you're doing is leaving these people as the flotsam and jetsam of the future generations. I would certainly encourage you and urge you -- and I'm sure you've been urged by many parents who are concerned about this -- that you not allow that to happen and that when we get to Bill 37 you will rethink that and leave those provisions in the Education Act, as they are an opportunity for these young people to be retrieved and to be helped and not to become the statistics of the correctional facilities in the future.

The Acting Speaker: I wish to thank the honourable member for Brampton South. Further questions and/or comments?

1600

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I rise to speak very briefly about the issues of funding and financing the system that were addressed by my colleague the member for York North and ask if he has read the newspaper report wherein the Minister of Education was purported to have said that he is telling the teachers of the province that they must pull back on their request for salary increases and benefits as well to assist his ministry in gaining control over finances.

It's no secret that the members of the third party, our party and the New Democratic Party, as people who have been in government from time to time, have wrestled very strongly with trying to get the best value for the dollars put into our system. Very few can argue that there isn't a lot of dollars going into the system. That is of course causing all kinds of interesting concerns out in the taxpaying world we all represent, from which we've heard a fair bit of objection over the last several years.

When I hear the Minister of Education saying -- at least when I read what is purported to have been said by him in the paper -- that negotiations must come in at a lower level of reimbursement for teachers, both with respect to salary and benefits, I wonder if he is not intervening in the collective bargaining situation. But it's an interesting step forward by a person who used to chair a very important public school board in a very important city in this province.

I want to raise only one other item for the attention of the public, and that is that the new call word for the current government is "restructure." What I wish to assert in the last couple of seconds is that this really is a euphemistic description of "cutback," and that's what I'm afraid is about to occur not only to education but a whole series of other administrations.

The Acting Speaker: Further participation, questions and/or comments? Seeing none, the honourable member for York North has two minutes in response.

Mr Beer: My colleague the member for Brampton South has raised quite appropriately the question around special education and some of the concerns. Quite frankly, I say to the minister, that bill is very much long overdue and one that I think should have been brought before this House in the current session. A number of issues and problems have been discussed for some time around those with learning disabilities and those with other special needs, but I think it is important that we make some changes. I hope we will be able to see that fairly soon. The concerns raised by my colleague certainly have been brought to my attention and I'm sure to the minister's, but we are not going to be able to deal with those until we have changes before us.

The matters raised by the member for Bruce clearly are issues of direct concern not only to school boards but to all taxpayers. We on this side of the House have been saying to the minister that as long as you're providing 1% and 2% you have to provide real leadership around the question of salaries and benefits and work with school boards in really making sure we're not looking at 5%, 6% and 7% increases, because what happens then is simply that meaningful programs get cut, particularly programs around special education and certain kinds of special busing programs that exist for students with special needs.

It is very critical that the minister make sure he is saying the same thing to all boards, working with them and indeed laying out in a much clearer fashion what the government is prepared to accept in terms of wage and benefit settlements.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate on the second reading of Bill 27? Seeing none, would the honourable Minister of Education have some comments in summation?

Hon Mr Silipo: I was hesitating because I thought there was going to be some further debate, but if not, I'll be happy to sum up.

I would just say briefly by way of sum-up that the concerns the member for York North has expressed are ones I certainly understand and ones I think can be addressed.

First of all, with respect to the concerns around implementation, the Ministry of Revenue and the discussions that have been going on, I think he is aware, as he has indicated, that we expect the implementation of this to occur in 1993; we are working to see if any improvements to that can happen, but I think that is at this point the sense we have.

I certainly share the concern from the public school boards around the potential loss of further revenue or the shift of revenue as a result of some of the provisions in this bill. We will be making some adjustments to the provisions around the phasing in of pooling that are already in place, making adjustments to take into account the changes in this legislation; so we'll be making some further adjustments and additions to that.

The last point I want to make is with respect to the provisions in this bill that would in effect affect the Ottawa-Carleton situation and to recognize there, again as I've indicated in the standing committee on estimates, that I believe we need to come to a resolution of that situation but we need to do that in a planned and coherent fashion. This piece of legislation will assist us in that because, in allowing the board to borrow beyond the present limit it can borrow, it will facilitate the planning of the elimination over a reasonable period of time of the deficit that presently exists and which, through the supervisor, plans are under way to eliminate.

We're conscious of the concerns in the Ottawa-Carleton situation. I know the member opposite and I have spoken and will undoubtedly continue to talk about this. As I say, this piece of legislation will assist us with that.

I think that, along with the other piece in the bill, will allow us to do both some housekeeping things but also some useful tidying up of other pieces of legislation that needs to be done. I thank again the opposition parties and the critics for their cooperation in this bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

CO-OPERATIVE CORPORATIONS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES SOCIÉTÉS COOPÉRATIVES

Mr Charlton moved third reading of Bill 166, An Act to amend the Co-operative Corporations Act and the Landlord and Tenant Act with respect to Co-operatives / Loi modifiant la Loi sur les sociétés coopératives et la Loi sur la location immobilière en ce qui concerne les coopératives.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Would the minister have some opening remarks?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Minister of Financial Institutions): It gives me a great deal of pleasure to deal with and speak on third reading of the Co-operative Corporations Act amendments that we have here before us today.

This bill will encourage the development of more cooperatives in the province of Ontario, especially housing and workers' cooperatives. The cooperative movement is one of our best -- perhaps even, because there are so few of them, the best -- self-help tools we have in this society. Cooperatives provide valuable services to millions of members across Ontario already, and we're determined to ensure that access to the kinds of valuable self-help services that can be provided through the cooperative model is available to many more Ontarians in the future.

Our changes remove roadblocks that have prevented cooperatives from achieving their full potential. This bill enhances the role these community-based democratic institutions can play in rebuilding our economy here in the province, creating jobs and in positioning Ontario for a significantly different future that has a much more focused community base.

The amendments in this bill recognize that cooperative housing is a unique form of housing. Residents of co-operatives were not adequately served by the Landlord and Tenant Act. This bill recognizes the special relationship among occupants of a housing cooperative. These changes provide improved protection to the occupants of non-profit housing co-ops while maintaining the distinctive and democratic characteristics of this type of housing and of the member control it represents. These changes will also preserve the non-profit nature of housing cooperatives which receive government assistance. I think that's an extremely important aspect, and it's one we've neglected for far too long.

1610

The changes to the Co-operative Corporations Act will also simplify the incorporation and business operations of cooperatives owned and operated by workers. The bill will allow all co-ops to operate with powers similar to other businesses, and that's going to substantially level the playing field in terms of individuals, groups, communities and others in community organizations to become part of the mainstream economic fabric of this province. They will now have greater flexibility in setting the rates of return on the capital they raise. We are also easing the financial burden imposed by annual audits for smaller cooperatives.

Right now Ontario needs to harness the power of the cooperative movement because it's such a vital and important movement in terms of refocusing some of our thinking and our endeavours into the communities across Ontario. Government alone cannot achieve economic renewal; business can't achieve it by itself either, and neither can labour. Collectively we believe that those three components can work together to start us down a road of economic renewal, but there's another component, another group that can help with economic renewal in this province. The cooperative movement has demonstrated a commitment to strong local community economies, reflecting a wide opportunity for community involvement and support for individual initiative and participation by communities and community groups.

I'd like to take a moment to thank my parliamentary assistant, the member for Scarborough Centre, for his assistance with this bill. I'd also like to thank particularly two members of the staff of the Ministry of Financial Institutions, George Alkalay and Imants Abols, for their very hard work on this legislation. This bill is the result of extensive consultations and collaborations with groups representing the cooperative movement all across the province. As well, my thanks to the opposition for their kind and useful assistance as we moved through a number of amendments to the bill in committee of the whole.

In closing, these changes enhance the role of community-based democratic institutions and the role they can play in the rebuilding of our economy, creating jobs and positioning Ontario for a useful future in a way that will also start to move some of the decision-making back into communities, where it rightfully belongs.

Bill 166 is our first shot at what we hope will be in the very near future an extensive additional package of initiatives around promoting cooperatives and other community-based initiatives. Thank you for your support on Bill 166.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments on the minister's opening statement? Seeing none, further debate on the third reading of Bill 166.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I've assisted in this legislation before, as we took it through not second reading but committee of the whole, and I know a little bit about it from my days at Financial Institutions.

Let me give a little bit of history, first, on some of the things that have happened with this bill, because it is one of the first bills which began under what are to be described now as this Parliament's old rules and will have reached some conclusion under what are now described as the new rules; or at least the rules as we know them now, because as you realize, Mr Speaker, there are plans by this government to again add to the standing orders after a legislative committee reports back on the other series of suggestions that were made by way of resolution by the member for Windsor-Riverside.

I want to give a little history because I want to tell the people a little bit about something that maybe they don't know, that is, with respect to the amount of time it's taken for us to deal with this particular piece of legislation.

This legislation, which most of us know about, has some very worthwhile objectives. It's designed to encourage people to move into cooperative fields. You yourself, Mr Speaker, are a noble, outspoken advocate on behalf of the cooperatives in your area with respect to farming activities. I, like you, have a whole series of cooperatives that work very well in relation to the job that they seek to do for their members and for the public in general, because there is a broader interest associated with cooperatives than just the very specific personal interest of each of the members.

I happen to have the Pine River Cheese and Butter Co-op in my area. Mind you, it now makes cheese and it wished it could make more, but that's a matter for the Minister of Agriculture and Food to deal with, more particularly than me.

But the essential piece of information for all of us who live in rural Ontario is that we have a long-standing association with the cooperative movement. In fact, many of us are beneficiaries of participation by our families in the cooperative movement, because we found it an essential part of our long-term success in the farming business and other places over the years when it became much more difficult to deal with the economies.

While there seem to be a whole series of discussions in the background about my history lesson or something, I do want to say that because the objectives of this bill were such that there were a number of us who wished to see it go forward, the amount of time that was spent on this bill was very limited. We wanted to see it move forward. Five minutes for first reading, which is of course not too abnormal; every once in a while we find a bill which takes some extra length of time. But then on second reading there was very little discussion which delayed the passage of this bill.

I might add that it was not only because of the objectives of this bill, but also because there had been some discussion between the minister and his critics -- and, I might add, the member for Scarborough Centre, who was parliamentary assistant -- dealing with the issues surrounding this particular bill. It came as a bit of a surprise after second reading was done that we had to go to committee of the whole and deal with what we thought was one amendment and which later turned out to be a whole raft of amendments.

Anyway, under those rules by which the NDP government said it could not prosecute business of the House, second reading took roughly 40 minutes. Not very much time was spent at all. A lot of our people would have wished to say more so that they could have put on the record their support for the essence of the cooperative movement's notion of helping its members and the public interest. But as a reasonable opposition we said, "We will help you prosecute your business," and we did.

Then we went into committee of the whole House, where some of us were surprised to find, unexpectedly, that there were a series of amendments which were in fact quite thick. I have the package, which I discovered was to be passed by the parliamentary assistant -- who was filling in admirably, I might say, for the member for Hamilton Mountain, who was unable to attend. In any event, we could have done a whole series of funny pieces of procedural movements which would have held up this bill. But we chose not to because we were helping the business of the day under the old rules.

In fact, not only did we not do something funny to hold up this bill, but we in effect helped by asking for unanimous consent of the table. I think even the current sitting Speaker was at the table that day. We said, "With unanimous consent, we would like to have all of the amendments taken as read," as opposed to wasting the time of the House on that day, although the member for Scarborough Centre read very ably. It was, if I might say so, with due regard to the honourable gentleman, a little bit tedious. So we allowed ourselves the opportunity to vote on all the amendments in a very reasonable and quick fashion. In fact we didn't spend very long at all in the end, maybe 45 or 50 minutes more in passing all of these amendments, and there were a huge number of amendments.

We might very well still be listening to the member for Scarborough Centre reading these amendments even to this day had he been given the consecutive days to deal with these amendments. But we let this thing go through and we helped it to go through because we saw the need to promote the cooperative activities in this province, and that's very reasonable. It's a very rational thing to do. The objectives of the bill were such that we felt it should go quickly.

1620

There was in some sense some disagreement with parts of it, I think. It's fair to say there had been discussions between the critics. But we were not prepared to hold the bill, because there had been some reasonable discussion between the minister, his parliamentary assistant and the opposition party people. So we understood and were well prepared, with the exception of number, for the amendments which ultimately came to the committee of the whole House. We assisted, and that with the rules described as the old rules that would not let this government do its business.

While I have just given a brief history lesson on how the old rules helped this particular bill through to third reading, where we are now, I'd just like to read something about how the old rules were used by a New Democratic Party opposition with respect to only two second reading debates on two bills in 1989. Those bills were the following, and most of you will recognize them because they are bills which, I'm sure, even now kindle the imagination of opposition blood still racing in the veins of those people elected for the New Democratic Party in 1989.

I refer to Bill 208, the Occupational Health and Safety Act. Here are the dates: On October 12 the honourable member for Hamilton East, Mr Mackenzie, spoke to the bill, on second reading, for one hour and 30 minutes -- first speaker; on October 16, 1989, the honourable member for Nickel Belt, Mr Laughren, spoke for 30 minutes, and on October 18, on second reading, Mr Laughren continued to speak for another one hour and 40 minutes to the same bill.

Two people from one party spoke for over three hours, but that's not all. On the next day, October 19, 1989, Ms Martel, the member for Sudbury East, spoke for a full two hours. That's under the old rules, by the way. Of course anybody who sits in this House now knows the new rules would prevent this because you would only be allowed to speak for 30 minutes.

To top all this off, on October 23 there was a speech by the member for York South, who is now the Premier. Do you know how long he spoke in wrapping up the debate on second reading of Bill 208 on behalf of the New Democratic Party? He spoke for two hours and 25 minutes. I recall the member for York South, having spoken that long, was given a rousing greeting by the people in the New Democratic Party, who were here then -- that under the old rules, which these people used in a way that would prevent Bill 208 from going out.

I only raise this one example because it lets me deal with one of my own, as we talk about how the business of the House can be processed and how people help business of the House to be processed, as we have just processed Bill 166. I refer to Bill 68 in 1989, which was a bill I know a little bit about. Bill 68 was the so-called auto insurance bill. I only bring your attention to the speakers on behalf of the New Democratic Party because the length of the interjections by the members of the third party, the Progressive Conservative Party of the day, were likewise fairly long.

I will read the dates and times attributed to the New Democrats on Bill 68 in 1989: 14 November, two hours and 20 minutes, the member for Welland-Thorold; on the following day, 15 November 1989, the member for Welland-Thorold continued for two hours and 50 minutes on second reading. That is over five hours. On November 28, three speakers: the member for Nickel Belt, who also spoke on Bill 208, by the way, the member for Nipigon and the member for Rainy River spoke for a total of two hours and 50 minutes on second reading.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Are all these New Democrats?

Mr Elston: All New Democrats. On December 4 there were two speakers, for a total of two hours and 50 minutes: the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale and the member for Sudbury East. Finally, on December 5, 1989, on second reading, wrapping up, not only did the member outdo his leader, the member for York South, who spoke on Bill 208; he surpassed just about everybody but Mr Kormos, the member for Welland-Thorold. Mr Farnan, the member for Cambridge, in 1989, December 5, spoke for three hours on second reading debate. The time of that second reading debate on behalf of the New Democratic Party alone was some 13 hours and 50 minutes, eight speakers. On Bill 208 there were eight hours and five minutes expended by five NDP speakers.

I only refer to that in contrast to what has happened with a particular piece of legislation that has been introduced by the member for Hamilton East which is being done fully under the new rules, with the exception of first reading debate. Under the first speaker's time limits on second reading or third reading in this House, one hour 30 minutes is maximum for the leadoff speaker for any of the parties. I can tell you that --

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I wish you would ask the member to segue somehow back to Bill 166.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. I want to remind the honourable member for Bruce that we are on third reading of Bill 166.

Mr Elston: I was comparing the progress of Bill 166 here in this Parliament under the old rules to the third reading debate which we now are in under the new rules, and the whole suggestion by the New Democratic Party that the old rules would not permit them to pass legislation. Mr Speaker, I repeat myself: We have spent probably less than an hour and a half on the whole bill for all of the members, the Liberal members, the Conservative members, and the minister, in fairness, and his parliamentary assistant, that being Bill 166.

I now bring us back to the suggestion that this bill didn't progress quickly enough and that the rules had to be changed as a result. The rules didn't have to be changed at all, and in fact if we had required the member for Scarborough Centre, as parliamentary assistant, in committee of the whole House to prosecute his amendments one by one, reading every word, and then had required the Chair also to repeat those, as is the right of the members of this House, we would still be here doing the first dozen or so of the amendments.

So that the people in the province can understand, there was an agreement in principle with respect to this bill that there was a powerful and needy public policy needing to be passed and it was agreed among the three of us, in terms of parties, that the bill go. This bill could very well have, I think, been given a third reading under the old rules, with one exception. I had requested on behalf of the Liberal Party that, because there were so many amendments, the bill be reprinted in its entirety with the amendments being displayed so that we could read the whole thing in one place at one time.

Otherwise we would have had third reading right away under the old rules and it would have taken us less than three hours' time to do the whole bill with the huge number of amendments that put us into committee of the whole House -- which were brought, by the way, not by the members from the Liberal Party or by the members from the third party but by the government, because there were certain deficiencies which were discovered.

I don't wish to take issue with the fact that there were some deficiencies discovered after first reading was given. It is in fact a necessary part of the legislative process that after first reading there be a sober reflection on the bill that is dropped before the members in this House and that there be a reflection again after second reading so that the members can decide whether or not the public interest is being served by each of the sections which have been provided for us to review.

It is necessary that time pass so the distillate of that discussion can result in exactly what occurred in Bill 166, that instead of passing bad legislation, which all of us would have hurriedly put in process had it not been for the ample and very helpful interventions by the ministry officials, and perhaps even by some of the interest groups -- we would have had legislation which would have been bad. It would not have served the public interest in a way it should serve the public interest, all of us having agreed in principle that this bill should go quickly through the process.

1630

Time alone between first reading and second reading, and the discussions between the minister, his parliamentary assistant and our critic, the honourable member for Essex South, Remo Mancini, and the honourable critic from the Conservative Party resulted in these amendments coming forward in committee of the whole House so that the bill could be improved and so that we as legislators could be saved the embarrassment of coming back here, having been informed by the people who really work in day-to-day life with these legislative pieces and prizes that we put together that it may not have worked at all in its first form.

It is as a result of that passage of time that the preparation of this bill has been aided. Mr Speaker, I bring to your attention that this legislation to help the cooperative movements in Ontario prosper, something the Liberal Party has been in favour of, the Conservative Party is in favour of, and the New Democratic Party is in favour of, is in a better form legislatively only because time passed and people could distil the essence from each of the printed sections in the first-read bills put before us. If this bill had come forward under the new rules, it is quite possible that the government, knowing it could prosecute this with reckless abandon quickly through this House, might very well have ended up with a piece of legislation that would not have been workable in the community.

On second reading and on third reading the leadoff speakers for each of the parties can take 90 minutes in total now. I just bring to your attention that the leadoff speaker for Bill 68 for the New Democrats took two hours and 50 minutes on November 14, 1989, and two hours and 50 minutes on November 15, 1989, for his leadoff remarks, well over five hours. In fact, it sounds desperately close to six hours of debate by one member on one bill for second reading.

One hour and 30 minutes was consumed by Mr Mackenzie on his first reading. That complies with the 90-minute strictures which are put on us now as leadoff speakers, but while the second and following speakers now can speak for but 30 minutes, in the old days of 1989 New Democratic Party opposition on Bill 68, the next speakers took considerably longer. Actually, on Bill 208 -- it's a better example, in my view -- fully two hours and 10 minutes were taken by the member for Nickel Belt on his second reading intervention, almost five times as long as we now can speak on second reading.

It is not necessary for the government to claim that it needs to muzzle the opposition. Oppositions in this place have been heard for over 100 years. I can attest to the fact, because I've read my own Hansard, that a lot of bad speeches have been made in this place. I've made a number of them myself; I fully admit that. But it is not for the government of the day to say it is trying to save any particular elected member from making bad speeches. It is for this House, this chamber, to listen to the speeches made by any member on any subject; sometimes, as under Bill 166, as we deal with third reading and about which I wish to pledge my support of the government's position and of the ministry's position to have it amended so that it will actually work when it gets out into the real world.

But yesterday and on previous days, on a bill about which we know there is tremendous angst in the province, the government decided that it would not only use the rules that were in this House but that it would create rules to be used to buffet the opposition members who would speak about the angst and controversy they have found in the community; not out of a sense of concern that there are some things to be changed in the Ontario labour relations amendment act, which will come again to us next week, but out of a sense that whatever we wished to say, there was not a single pearl of wisdom to be gleaned prior to us even making the statements.

I understand disagreements about important pieces of legislation. The member for Hamilton Mountain who sponsors the legislation we speak on today, Bill 166, was a critic of mine with respect to Bill 68, although he was slightly overshadowed, by a member whose name at the moment escapes me, in terms of length of speaking. Make no mistake, the member for Hamilton Mountain and I disagreed quite fervently about Bill 68. To his credit, he continues his opposition to the principle of that bill, as he has now placed himself in the minister's role of examining that legislative scheme. He has proposed Bill 164, which actually adopts Bill 68 in a sense but is -- as he smiles at me knowingly -- really a bit of a trap so he can dismantle the so-called Ontario motorist protection plan.

I did not stop the second reading debate on Bill 68 after three speakers by the New Democrats. I just read through that. To the New Democrats, Bill 68 had eight speakers. You know something, Mr Speaker? I didn't stop them after seven of those people had spoken for half an hour. Those people spoke for 13 hours and 50 minutes on a bill about which there was considerable disagreement. Let there be no misunderstanding. It was fully known by me, because before we got to our second reading debate, I had the privilege of replying to a whole series of interrogatories from the opposition of the day.

By the way, that 13 hours and 50 minutes was just New Democratic Party interventions. It was not counting the interventions of the member for Leeds-Grenville, whose opposition in some ways was much more heated than that of my friend the member for Hamilton Mountain.

I knew considerable time would be consumed, but we let those rules stand because we knew the public had to be included in a debate that would go through the entire bill to such an extent that we felt all its adequacies in our view, and inadequacies in the view of the opposition, could be discovered.

But that is not the way of the new world, of the rules that have been introduced by the current, sitting New Democratic Party, the government party of today, 1992, less than three years from the time we spoke about in regard to Bill 208 and Bill 68.

In a democracy, there can be agreement and there must be agreement. In fact, there has to be an agreement that when the majority speaks there will be an opportunity for the minority reasonably to join the discussion. Sometimes there are people who would debate whether some of the discussions around Bill 208 and another bill, which my colleague the member for York Centre was the minister for, Bill 162, were very reasonable at all. But at no time did you see the type of clamping of the opposition that you now see.

I bring Bill 166 forward as a very good example of how helpful the opposition can be under the old rules. We can help move forward things that are agreeable. We can help move forward things that don't have the controversy that is attached to other pieces of legislation. That there will be controversy is of course no surprise when major pieces of philosophically charged legislation are brought to this chamber.

It is the will of the government to bring its policies forward. It is in fact their responsibility. We have seen it bring forward its policies on Sunday shopping, which are interestingly contrasted in debate against those that were pledged in the election of 1990. They should bring those forward. Sunday shopping should be brought forward.

By the way, Mr Speaker, I ask you for assistance in this regard: Is the Sunday shopping bill still in front of the House? I've heard nary a word, since there has been some report that perhaps the government caucus is a little bit unsettled about having a second reading debate on that and ultimately a vote. I only ask for your assistance when you have a moment, not to press you to do anything particularly now.

1640

To get back to Bill 166, it is the way of this place to agree from time to time and assist, but when there is disagreement then there must be the forum for public debate. This is nothing more than a giant council chamber. We are nothing more than councillors from our area, if you want to compare us to municipal government.

I represent the riding of Bruce -- a great county -- on the shore of Lake Huron, with people whose interests are very precise, not always the same inside my own constituency. As I'm sure you find, as an elected member from S-D-G & East Grenville -- whatever happened to Stormont, Dundas, Glengarry? -- we know there isn't always agreement in our own areas, and the public knows there isn't always total agreement in our own constituencies, but we are charged to come here and represent their views in front of this chamber.

If I were speaking with respect to Bill 166 and its efforts, I should have been reminded, in second reading and committee of the whole and other places, about the noble history of cooperative activity in the riding of Bruce, and in my home county of Huron where the cooperatives have had a successful history, although a history not without its problems because the economy afflicts cooperatives every bit as much as it does the other types of business organizations.

I can't understand, if the government is prepared to accept our assistance and accept our invitation to suspend the rules so that we could deal with the very large number of amendments the government wishes to put in committee of the whole House, why it would not be more generous with respect to the areas in which we have legitimate disagreements. They are legitimate disagreements.

I don't ask every member of this House to believe the things that I believe. It's not possible. I come from my history. I've been raised in my environment. We grow because of that and we have particular biases because of that and we understand things because of our environment. I don't ask everybody to think the same way as I do, just as I don't expect anybody to agree with me all the time. In fact, as a House leader and as a minister you get to know rather quickly that this is an impossibility.

I do expect that when my disagreements are legitimate and my views are legitimately held that there is some ill which may be associated with public business brought here by the government, I can at least intervene in a way which is, although maybe not helpful to the government, helpful to me and my constituents. My intervention on Bill 166 in committee of the whole House, I think, was not only helpful to me and my constituents but also to the people in the government party because, I'll tell you, it was going to be a long afternoon if we had to insist on all those amendments being read word for word, time and time again by the member for Scarborough Centre, as lyrical as his attempt was to make those amendments sound.

From my point of view, because Bill 166 is an important piece of legislation for the cooperative movement and because we agreed here in this chamber, we moved it quickly under the old rules because of consensus and because there was a working relationship established between the minister, his parliamentary assistant and the people in the opposition. But the suggestion by the government party that where there are disagreements with respect to principle on bills, that where we assert there will be job losses if the existing package of reforms is brought forward by the member for Hamilton East, and because they disagree with that they will not allow us to put the case, seems to me to be a very bad expression of support for the parliamentary assistant being made by the New Democrats.

This bill is but an example of good cooperation. Bill 208 and Bill 68 from 1989 are examples of how long opposition parties could speak in the past on second reading; eight hours and five minutes by the New Democrats on Bill 208, 13 hours and 50 minutes by the New Democrats alone on second reading of Bill 68. But that is not the same affliction, which took me in Hamilton on a February night, which is afflicting me now. The audience is getting bored and somebody says that it's her turn to speak. I would never give a note like that to a friend of mine, which the member for Mississauga South is. I can't believe it.

But I will sit down. My point is made. The old rules allowed this bill to go quickly. It will be passed under the new rules not because of the new rules, but because of a genuine sense of consensus, a genuine understanding that the public policy needs to be implemented and an understanding that the people from the ministry were able to take long enough to distil the sections that they first proposed and then discovered weren't workable. So the amended Bill 166 now takes its place, after our vote on third reading, as a good piece of public policy to aid in the cooperative movement in Ontario.

Bill 166 is an example of a great lesson when it comes to consensus. But when there is disagreement, what good examples Bills 208 and 68 from 1989 are that where there are genuine disagreements as to public policy and whether they are worthy of the public or not, then the lesson is: Let the debate carry. Let the members speak. If the policies are so vile, so bad, the problems will be found. If in fact there is nothing to be afraid of with respect to the policies, if they stand the test, then why can't they be allowed to be debated? What is the government afraid of with respect to the labour bill?

We all know the new rules have nothing to do with Bill 166. That bill could have passed anyway. It is all about jamming, pushing and shoving the Ontario Labour Relations Act amendments through this House so that nobody in the public will have time to distil the essence of the changes that are being proposed to the current bill in front of this House. In fact, we won't have time to do anything with respect to this bill whatsoever.

What we're talking about is an unwillingness of the government to let us disagree with it. They are quite prepared to take advantage of our goodwill and our cooperation under the old rules and pass Bill 166, but they are unprepared to allow us to disagree with them. In fact, they put new rules in place to prevent us from speaking, to prevent us from airing the problems we believe will beset this province if that bill goes through without change.

That's the lesson of Bill 166. It simply will stand the test of time when people review the record, that where there is cooperation and consensus, business can be done here quite quickly, but where the government decides in its wisdom that because there is some disagreement anticipated, it will shut debate away, that this place cannot work, no matter what the rules and no matter what the connivance at speeding our business. This is serious work, and just because one group thinks it is right doesn't mean it should shut us up or prevent us from airing our constituencies' opinions.

1650

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments?

Mr Owens: I'd like to thank the member for Bruce for his comments. While they were long and rambling and sometimes not always on topic, they were listened to closely.

I'd also like to thank the member for Bruce for his Siskel and Ebert analysis of the TV performance that took place, through the committee, of the whole process. I certainly agree it probably wasn't the most stimulating television that people could have been watching that evening. They could have been watching the constitutional debate or something more stimulating at that point.

I'd also like to take this opportunity to thank some groups that were involved in the process, the Cooperative Housing Federation of Toronto, the Co-operative Housing Association of Ontario and the Ontario Worker Co-ops Association. Without their help and their assistance, the process that was begun when the member for Hamilton Mountain was sworn in, we would not be at this point today, which is to give third reading to this bill.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): I caught most of the comments of my colleague the member for Bruce who over the course of the past, I guess it's now almost a month, has had probably the most challenging job in the entire Legislature: the job of serving as opposition House leader. Although I think his comments on Bill 166 were entirely appropriate, I think it's not too much to re-emphasize once again the major themes of his speech, that something very bad happened in this Legislature on June 4. From all accounts, the reason it happened was because the government had certain marching orders from the trade union movement to get the trade union bill passed as expeditiously as possible.

I don't know why that had to be done, but I know one thing for certain: The government's action in redesigning the rules of this place specifically to deal with the expeditious passage of one bill has poisoned this place in a way that I have never seen it poisoned. The great shame of it is that the Legislature had been operating relatively well, at least if you compare it with some of the other more controversial debates.

Second -- again I reiterate this -- in my own view the trade union bill has a number of strong things to commend it. It also has a number of weaknesses that I think will be debated when the government calls it back. But there was such a high degree of -- I can only call it paranoia -- that somehow the agenda of the Minister of Labour and the agenda of the trade union movement would be slightly diverted through the democratic process. That poison still infects us, and I simply want to commend my colleague the opposition House leader, the member for Bruce, for reiterating that fact in his remarks.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments?

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I think what was most interesting about the comments made by the member for Bruce relates to the brouhaha, the dust-up that took place yesterday, the comments he made with respect to some of the members opposite and the length of time they took to comment on bills that came through the House when they sat in opposition. What I discovered was that this is a government that believes in opposition when it's in opposition. When it's in power it has no use for opposition. It has no use for anyone who wants to debate or obstruct, or in some instances oppose legislation it brings forward.

I'm still very upset that yesterday the House leader for the government chose to drop his closure notice on the House because he didn't feel that the debate was proceeding as quickly as he'd like. The real joke of the whole situation was that he had the audacity to come in here and move a closure motion on this Parliament, on this House, when this party had but two speakers to the trade union bill, one of the most controversial, regressive bills they've brought forward to date, because they don't want the public to know. The new rules had been written, the ink wasn't even dry on those new rules and the government is already using them to usurp the opportunity of opposition to offer fair and credible debate to the bill.

I applaud the member for Bruce for putting forward those comments because when this government was in opposition, it wholeheartedly believed in opposition. The hypocrisy is astounding. Once they achieved government they wanted nothing to do with opposition, which is typical of socialists I've crossed paths with.

The Acting Speaker: We can accommodate one final participant, the honourable member for Cambridge.

Mr Mike Farnan (Cambridge): I sat in my place and I listened to the two-minute rant we've just heard from the member for Etobicoke West --

The Acting Speaker: I want to remind the honourable member we're speaking on the presentation of the member for Bruce.

Mr Farnan: That's precisely my point, Mr Speaker, that the comments of the previous speaker bore absolutely no relevance to the issue before the House. It really is disconcerting to hear opposition members claiming they don't have time and when they are given time they in fact refuse to address the issue that is being debated.

The Acting Speaker: This terminates questions and/or comments. The honourable member for Bruce has two minutes in response.

Mr Elston: I think what the honourable member for Cambridge forgot to say in his remarks was that since there are very few times when we're allowed to speak in this place any more, we will try at every turn to remind the people that this is not a place for debate. That is the lesson of Bill 166.

Bill 166 is going through this place and it's going through because we agree. There has been a lot of work done among the parties, and it works well that way. No matter what is done to the rules, unless there can be agreement and a free expression of concern, opposition in some cases and total opposition in other cases by people in this House, you cannot have a good product.

All I was saying was that Bill 166 benefited by the fact that it was allowed to sit for a while and people were allowed to digest what was being proposed. It wasn't me who found there was a need for amendments; it was in fact the ministry, which was doing its job, looking at it and receiving the replies from various people around the province who let it know there were things that wouldn't work practically.

In relation to the Ontario labour relations bill, there are things we want to put on the record that would suggest that the bill will practically be of no help to a current Ontario ravaged by unemployment, to an Ontario ravaged by a frustration with an economy that has turned down, to an Ontario and its economy which is turning people out of their homes and out of their jobs.

That's what we want to say and if we cannot say it in this place under the time for debate on that bill, then we will take every other opportunity to remind the people that we are not allowed to speak. That's what the member for Cambridge didn't understand about interjections by way of a two-minute speech by the member for Etobicoke West. I only hope we can learn the lesson Bill 166 has given us.

1700

The Acting Speaker: Further debate on third reading of Bill 166?

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): In rising today to speak to Bill 166, I must say that I appreciate very much the graciousness of the member for Bruce who actually curtailed his wonderful presentation to this House in order to afford me this opportunity. I am very grateful for that, Mr Elston, because as you so well expressed, it becomes increasingly difficult to rise in this House now and speak on any matter, let alone the matter before us right at this moment.

When we deal with the subject of housing cooperatives, as Bill 166 does, I think it reinforces once more, at least for us Progressive Conservatives, the concern we have about the whole approach this socialist government has on the subject of housing.

The problem with cooperative housing schemes is that the people who are in the greatest need are not looked after. As I've said so many times, we all recognize that Queen's Park isn't a money tree. There are no money trees outside on the front lawn. There's no way the members of any party in this House, I would suggest, let alone the government of the day, whichever that government happens to be from time to time, have extremely deep pockets with no bottoms which they can just keep reaching into and getting more and more money. The fact is that the money any government has to work with is the money earned by the people in this province who, through their income tax, provide the government with revenues.

Of course there are also other forms of revenues the government has, but whether it's through income tax, employer health tax, tire tax or highway traffic licensing requirements -- motor vehicles, driver's licences -- whatever it is we pay to the government of Ontario where the cheque says "the province of Ontario" on it, that's money out of the pockets of the people who work here to the province, namely, the government of the day, to do the business of the province.

When we recognize that this money is earned by the people of this province through blood, sweat and tears in a lot of situations, and in a situation such as we have in the province today with a very high level of unemployment, then the burden for those people who are still working becomes even greater.

What we have to do if we are a responsible government is decide how best to spend the money we have. What is the best approach to deal with the needs of the people of the province with the money we have? I would suggest that the government we have today has a very serious difficulty in recognizing that simple fact. They have a great deal of difficulty in recognizing that the government cannot spend more than it takes in in revenue from all the tax sources out of the pockets of the people of Ontario.

Having said that, we have an even greater problem with this socialist government because it has a particular ideological bent, which means it wants to be in a situation where everything is government-owned and government-run and generally encompasses its very strong ties to the unionized workforce.

When we look at this subject, Bill 166, and look at the subject of cooperative housing we have to decide whether even in the provision of affordable housing this is working. I'd like to tell you why it isn't working. It isn't working because of the number of reports that have identified that if the government is going to provide cooperative projects, housing projects are not the way to go.

In case the government members might suspect that these ideas are my own, I think it's fair for me to relate to other sources of confirmation of this argument I'm presenting.

First of all, when we're dealing with non-profit housing corporations, let's bear in mind that I stand here as someone who would rather see direct shelter subsidy programs than rent controls. I mention that because the government is always in this position where it says, "The government has to build housing because the private sector is not." I simply say that nobody in his right mind in the private sector would build housing while there are rent controls in place.

But I also say, very quickly following up on that, that there are many people who have to be protected as to the cost of their housing. While rent controls are a blanket protection on an entire building, rent controls do not look at the people who live in that building. So we have situations where a rent-controlled building has people in it for whom even the existing rents are too much, but we have in the same building double- and triple- income families living in those rental apartments; maybe the income is $100,000 or $150,000 in some cases, but they're in a rent-controlled building.

What we say is that this simply isn't fair. It isn't fair because while those people are all protected, the people with the six-figure incomes unnecessarily, we are not having any other new construction of rental housing. So what's left? What is left is the government thinks it has to get into the housing business?

Part of the housing business the government gets into is non-profit housing and cooperative housing. Bill 166 before us today deals with cooperative housing. Non-profit housing corporations have a very different ratio of subsidy than does cooperative housing. For the most part, since 1986 both municipal and private non-profit housing corporations have been required to allocate their new units as follows: 40% deep subsidy, another 40% shallow subsidy and only 20% market rents.

I haven't been able to ascertain the rent-geared-to-income ratios for co-ops, but I plan to get this information very soon. I did not know until about the middle of today, perhaps two to three hours ago, that the order for today's business in the House had been changed. As you know, the order that was printed for today's business in the House was that we were to debate the motion of closure.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Draconian.

Mrs Marland: The draconian motion for closure, as my friend the member for Mississauga West so well says, the motion for closure shutting out the debate on the bill that was before the House yesterday, namely Bill 40, the amendments to the labour laws of this province.

Having recognized that the business for the House today was to debate the closure motion, I came into the House expecting to speak on that motion. That's the explanation about why I'm now speaking on Bill 166 -- because the government House leader changed the business of the House -- and I do not have all the facts in front of me.

What I want to say is that although I don't have the rent-geared-to-income ratios for co-ops, none the less I have a very interesting article in a tabloid called Eye magazine. It states: "An internal government study shows that only 20% of poor people in 'deep' need of assisted housing get into government-subsidized co-ops. Instead, more than 60% of co-op residents have salaries ranging from $35,000 to $50,000 per year." In other words, the government's recent allocation of 6,500 non-profit units to the co-op sector only is a subsidy to the middle class rather than to those most in need of assisted housing.

1710

I know we have one member in this House, a government member, who lives in co-op housing and I know, since that member is a parliamentary assistant, that his income is probably in the range of $75,000 a year. Obviously this is proof that we have facts to support the argument this magazine makes that there are people, in fact 60% of co-op residents, with salaries ranging from $35,000 to $50,000 a year. It's simply outrageous that 60% of co-op residents are not in deep need.

It's also important to understand that we have to find an alternative to co-op housing and, as our Progressive Conservative Party has been saying for about 12 months now, we have that alternative. We have the alternative where the public is protected when they need help with their rent. They are protected in a far more realistic way than rent controls and the good part about this is if we phase out rent controls and give direct shelter subsidies to the people who need them, then we open the free market system and the private sector gets back to building rental accommodation.

One of the quotes in this article from Eye magazine dated July 2 is attributable to the Housing minister, Evelyn Gigantes. She actually "acknowledged that the province now spends more than $2.5 billion" -- billion dollars, I emphasize -- "per year on shelter allowances for Ontario's 281,000 recipients of social assistance, but said that public housing was needed because the private sector was not building any rental accommodation."

Every time the Housing minister says the private sector isn't building rental accommodation, it's a slam on the private sector. I don't care whether you have $25,000 or $250 million to invest, I don't think anybody in their right mind would put one penny in private sector rental accommodation as long as the rent controls restrict any growth on that investment. You'd be better to leave it in your bank account, even at today's rates.

This slam about the private sector not building any rental accommodation is very misleading for the public, because the public has to understand that it will never happen. Private sector rental accommodation will never be built again in this province unless there is some return for the investment. It's like anything else, it's a business. Why should somebody put their money in any kind of business if there's no return for that investment?

The point is that with this socialist ideology we're dealing with on the subject of housing, which again is emphasized in this Bill 166 before us this afternoon, it is what the Housing minister, Evelyn Gigantes, doesn't say.

"What she didn't say was that government-subsidized housing is some of the most expensive housing around and that her government's policies would be of little help to the 53,000 families on waiting lists for affordable housing across Ontario."

I've given examples before in this House about exactly what those subsidies are, and I just want to quickly put three of them on the record.

"The new United Achievers project in Brampton will cost $1,151 per month for each of its 152 units. In Etobicoke, construction has started on 336 new units that will have an average subsidy of $1,140 per month.

"But the most expensive recent example is the Woodgreen Community project on Coxwell Avenue that was opened in April by ex-co-op dweller and local cabinet minister Marilyn Churley.

"There are 11 bachelor apartments, each subsidized by neighbouring taxpayers to the tune of $1,924 per month," while the average rent for a bachelor apartment in Toronto right now is $490 a month. While I say that's what the average rent is, I tell you also that the vacancy rate is 4%, so it isn't that this housing doesn't exist. Why is it that we're interested in cooperative housing -- and I've already said that 60% of the people who get into our housing co-ops aren't even in deep need financially -- that we're subsidizing building new bachelor apartments at $1,924 a month when you can go out and rent them for $490 a month? Where does the government get off spending the public money this way? When we're talking about that being the subsidy, if all of the units in a project aren't subsidized, then that isn't even the total rent.

Here is the big crunch, and this really applies to this bill before us today. This article goes on to say:

"Of course, all these subsidized units are being occupied by poor people, right? Wrong.

"According to the Social Assistance Review Committee (SARC), chaired by former judge and now Deputy Attorney General George Thomson, only 18% of social assistance recipients get to live in publicly subsidized housing." Isn't that interesting?

On the one hand, the government says, "Oh, you know, we can't let the private sector build rental accommodation, because we can't help them in their business by giving direct shelter subsidies to people to go and rent their own apartment in a private building." At the same time that the government says, "No, it's wrong, because we just can't spend government money in a private building for rental accommodation," we have confirmed that of all the millions of dollars and thousands of people who are subsidized through the social assistance system, they are subsidized in private sector housing.

The thing I've said before is that I think it's totally wrong that we force people who cannot afford their own housing to live in government housing, "the building down the street that's built by the government," the building that's recognized by everybody as being the government housing project. People have to move out of their own communities to go and access an apartment in a government housing building if there isn't one in their own community.

If we had rent subsidies, direct shelter subsidies, for people who are eligible through a means test, the people who are in the deepest need would get the help. If we had that system, those people could go and find the apartments where they want to live.

Maybe they're elderly. Maybe they're young people with a family and they don't want to move their children out of their school or their church community or they want to be near stores or transportation, or whatever it is. They have a choice of where they live. They have a choice and I don't think we should be controlling poor people who can't afford to buy their own accommodation or can't afford the full rent. I don't think we should be saying to those people: "Well, you can only live in one place. You can only live in a government-owned apartment building."

1720

I think another thing we have to recognize is a very important quote in this Eye magazine of July 2, 1992. It says here:

"A senior Housing ministry official, who asked not to be identified, said 'not many black single mothers get into co-ops.' This official called co-op housing a massive subsidy to the middle class, who can afford to pay market rents.

"On the other hand, non-profit housing sponsored by churches and municipalities, which contain a minimum of 40% of people in 'deep' financial need, will get fewer units because co-ops will get a bigger share."

Isn't that unjust, to think that anyone is placed in a position, because of their own inability to pay at the time, that when they can't afford market rents, we are saying to them, "Well, of course we have housing co-op programs such as referred to in this Bill 166 but really they're for the middle class"?

I want to tell you of something else this article refers to, because I think this is one of the really scary parts of this whole system of cooperative housing projects that this bill refers to. "In the past," according to this article -- and this is not, of course, the first time I have read this; it's not the first time we have heard this -- "all proposed projects went through a rigorous process of review by ministry officials to decide which ones would get approved. Under Gigantes, the minister's office now approves all projects. Her office deletes projects that have gone through normal channels and adds others that have not.

"One official says people who are turned down by the ministry just 'laugh at us and say they will go to the minister's office to get approved.'

"As reported last month in Eye weekly, Minnie DeJong, special assistant to Gigantes, participates in decisions about funding allocations to build government-assisted housing. A major recipient of this funding, in the form of 'sector support fees,' is the Co-operative Housing Association of Ontario...where her husband, Richard Tyssen is the manager of policy and program development."

I simply say to you, Mr Speaker, that when you hear some of the stories that are going around and you read some of the research that has been done by some journalists about what's going on in the Housing ministry and in the housing policies of this socialist government, I would suggest that it's pretty scary, discomfiting stuff.

There are two other quotes that I want to give, and then I want to be very brief and tell you about a concern that Bill 166 has overall in the provision of housing.

As part of the pre-budget consultations, a delegation from the Co-operative Housing Association of Ontario met with Gigantes and other senior officials to make its case for more government-assisted co-ops. Yet despite the cost to taxpayers, poor people on waiting lists for housing will get fewer of these new units than they need because the co-op sector will get more. Once again, poor people who truly need subsidized housing are being pushed aside in favour of co-op dwellers who can afford to live elsewhere. Something is wrong with government-assisted housing programs that subsidize the middle class, while those in real need are ignored.

This article is written by a former senior government official and lobbyist at Queen's Park and the concerns that are referred to in that article that I have to get on the record are not only his. When we talk about co-op housing as a provision of affordable housing in this province, as this Bill 166 addresses, I think it's important for us to look at how this money is being spent.

I cannot emphasize enough that in the Progressive Conservative Party we want to help the most number of people it is feasible to help with the amount of money that's available. What we're simply saying is that isn't what's happening today in Ontario. We spend government money building co-ops and 60% of the people in them don't have to live there; they can afford to live somewhere else.

The Peel Non-Profit Housing Corp is the oldest and largest non-profit housing corporation in Canada. They have a policy whereby the people who most need to be in their units are the people who are in them. They don't have a policy where 60% of the residents could afford to live elsewhere. I have here a press release of June 23 where the Peel Non-Profit Housing Corp is very concerned about the fact that -- I'll just tell you the statement that's made here because the statement is made by the president of the Peel Non-Profit Housing Corp, Councillor Maja Prentice, who is the councillor for ward 3 in the city of Mississauga and on the region of Peel council.

Maja Prentice says: "Ontario Housing Minister Evelyn Gigantes's recent announcement that the province would subsidize the building of 6,500 new non-profit homes in the co-op sector only is a major disappointment for Peel Non-Profit Housing Corp....

"The allocation" -- I'm continuing to quote her statement -- "of a total of 469 units to private non-profit and co-operative housing organizations...in the region of Peel was welcome, but this fell far short of recognizing the growth in needs in Peel."

Peel Non-Profit Housing Corp did not receive any units in this recent round of allocations or in the previous 3,500 units announced last October. "According to Roger Maloney, commissioner of housing and general manager of PNPHC, this decision is hard to accept when PNPHC has a waiting list that has climbed to 8,300 households" -- not 8,300 people, 8,300 households -- "'clearly demonstrating the immense housing needs of the growing region'" of Peel.

1730

What is the answer? Is the answer Bill 166, where we facilitate housing cooperatives? I don't think so. The answer, as I have said before, is direct rent subsidies, direct shelter subsidies for those people who need it most. But if this government isn't willing to do that, then at least it must be foremost and very honest with the public and say, "Look, we're going to give as much money as we can afford to the people who need it the most."

But that is not happening. When the Peel Non-Profit Housing Corp doesn't receive any of 3,500 units announced last October and doesn't receive any of 6,500 announced recently this year, and all of those are going to co-op housing projects, then I suggest it's time this government, particularly the Housing minister, got out into the real world and understood what is going on.

"All housing groups in Peel combined received only 7% of the total provincial allocations...while groups in Metropolitan Toronto received 58%." If you want to know why these figures are so significant, it is that: "In contrast, Peel has a population one third the size of Metro and has grown by 24% in the last five years -- six times Metro's 4%. Peel has also added 140,000 new households, 80% more than the 83,000 new households in Metro." Isn't that interesting? Metro has grown by 4% and the region of Peel has grown by 24%.

Mr Sorbara: Yet they're not getting the trade union dollars.

Mrs Marland: As the member for York Centre has said, maybe it's because Peel isn't getting the trade union dollars. That's quite possible.

"Maloney also questions the ministry's decision to allocate the bulk of this allocation to the cooperative sector, stating that the municipal non-profit corporations such as PNPHC serve the broadest community needs possible and target the highest percentage of households in need."

It's really depressing to have people who are out there trying to provide housing for people who need it most and who understand what's going on -- I mean, the people in Peel who know that their growth has been 24% in the last five years while Metro's has been 4%. How is it then that Metro gets this major allocation and the allocation is only to cooperatives? It's not to non-profit that looks after the larger and deeper needs of people who are poor. We're not talking about people who earn $35,000 to $50,000 a year; we're talking about people who are poor.

I also have a letter from Roger Maloney as president of the Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association. I didn't realize until I received this letter that Roger, who is commissioner of housing for the region of Peel and also general manager of the Peel Non-Profit Housing Corp -- maybe, Mr Mahoney, you knew this, but I didn't know this -- is president of the Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association. Did you know that?

Mr Mahoney: Yes, I did.

Mrs Marland: Since I told you, you knew it, right?

Mr Mahoney: No, no. I knew before. Roger and I are very close.

Mrs Marland: Anyway, this letter is dated April 27, 1992, and he's referring to the Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association's Update on the State of Housing in Ontario from the Perspective of Renter Households. This report "highlights the devastating impact the recession is having on people, thereby creating a greater need for non-profit housing. The report shows that a record number of people have lost their jobs -- 20,000 permanent jobs were lost in 1990, close to double the number of workers laid off in 1982 during the last recession.

"The report further states that Ontario's unemployment rate has increased from 6.3% in 1990 to 9.6% in 1991. Welfare rates have also increased dramatically by close to 72,000 people in 1991. A result of all this is the fact that non-profit housing waiting lists are soaring -- up 17% from last year to an estimated 117,000 households. We estimate that more than 400,000 households in Ontario need non-profit housing.

"At the same time, studies show a need for 17,000 to 25,000 new rental units per year over the next four years. If this need for rental units is to be met, it will have to be done primarily through non-profit housing."

This is where Mr Maloney and I part company. First of all, I don't question the facts he's given here about the number of unemployed and the number of people who need subsidized housing. Those facts are absolutely accurate. But what Mr Maloney is saying is that if the need for rental units is to be met, it has to be done primarily through non-profit housing.

I say to the member for Etobicoke West, who was making a comment while I was speaking a moment ago -- since he's one of my colleagues I think he was concerned about where I might be going with Mr Maloney's letter. But what Mr Maloney's letter points out is that the non-profit housing system is not the answer, because it's simply not affordable. It's not affordable for the overall taxpayers in this province.

However, as I keep emphasizing, we do have an alternative. We're saying, "Give us those dollars and we will find for people accommodation of their choice." In other words, if we need 17,000 to 25,000 new rental units per year for the next four years, the way we can get it is to phase out the rent controls while we protect the people who need protection.

If we do that, then two things happen. The government doesn't have to spend money building rental apartments, and the millions of dollars -- from the minister's own words, $2.5 billion that is spent supporting non-profit housing projects that exist today -- that money -- obviously not all of it. The money that's already with existing buildings has to stay with it, but rather than putting new money into new buildings owned and operated by the government, we take that money and we give it, through a direct shelter subsidy program, to those people who need it.

In other words, if I can afford $200 a month rent and the rent in a private sector building is $600, or whatever the figures are -- the figures don't matter, I'm just giving an example. Maybe my income is $45,000 a year and I have three children to support and I can only afford $200 or $300 a month rent, but the apartment I need to house my wife and my three children is $600 or $700 a month. For $500 a month subsidy, the difference between what I can afford and what I need to rent that apartment, $500 a month, I can rent the apartment, first of all, that I need. I can choose where it is. I can choose where I want to live, and the government doesn't have to invest tax dollars building another apartment building. The private sector will build it.

If we're looking at people on fixed incomes -- our seniors, our elderly, our frail, our disabled, all the categories of people we agree we need to support and protect -- if we look at all these people who need support and protection in terms of the cost of housing, it can all be done through direct shelter subsidies and the government can get out of this business of housing.

1740

For people like the Peel Non-Profit Housing Corp, who have 8,300 households -- Mr Maloney says in his letter. How many does he say? He's got 400,000 households in Ontario that need non-profit housing. What Mr Maloney is saying is that 400,000 families can't afford to pay the rent that is in the market today for their accommodation. They can't afford it.

We acknowledge that but we're saying, don't have the government build and the public pay for that construction and the ongoing subsidy of those units for ever. What we're saying is, of those 400,000 households, let the private sector build the units and we'll give those individual households the difference between what they can afford and what the rent costs in these private sector buildings.

What difference is there between renting accommodation in a private sector building, as I said a few minutes ago -- if you're on social assistance and you can find an apartment building in a private sector building, social assistance will give you the cheque for your rent if you're eligible for social assistance. They don't give you a cheque and say, "You can only rent in a non-profit building." Do you know the reason they don't do that? It's because there aren't enough and there doesn't need to be.

They can rent where they choose to live, in the community where they choose to be, with their family, friends, relatives and churches, whatever. As I've said, they can live in the community of their choice with a government shelter subsidy if they can't afford the rent.

In the meantime, of these 400,000 households that supposedly need non-profit housing because there's no other alternative, 8,300 of those households are on a waiting list today in the region of Peel. Today in the region of Peel they're shut out for any units of allocation from this socialist government that's decided it's more equitable to allocate units for cooperative housing projects in which, as I have already addressed, some 60% of the people do not have to be there. In other words, 60% of the people in cooperative housing units today could afford to be somewhere else.

I simply say that something is wrong with a system where we are subsidizing bachelor apartments at $1,924 when you can rent them in the marketplace for $490 a month. Why would we consider spending taxpayers' money building more of these buildings so we can subsidize fewer people, because we'll never be able to build -- what have we just heard, that the allocation right now is 6,500 units? We've been told there are 400,000 households on the waiting list, so we'll never be able to meet the need in this system we've got going now. We'll never be able to look after the people who need this housing. They need it so desperately because they can't afford any other housing.

We'll never be able to meet the need with the system that's going today. It's not working, so if it's not working, let's find something that will work, and take the same taxpayers' dollars and look after four or five times the number of people.

If you spend $1,924 a month, government subsidy, taxpayers' money, for that bachelor apartment, and I've just said you could rent four apartments for that same price right away, it is criminal that we are not managing -- excuse me; not us, it's that this government is not managing the existing resources it has. It's totally irresponsible for them to play this game where they want the world to think it's the only political party that ever cared about the public and that it's the only political party that ever worried about where we were going in terms of caring for the people who have the greatest need.

It's a sham when you spend $2,000 on housing for one person, when for the same investment you could house four families that could afford to pay maybe $200 or $300 a month themselves. Give them $500 a month to go towards what they can afford, and for $800 or $900 a month they could probably rent a luxury condominium. We had an example where luxury condominiums were being rented for $900 and $1,000 a month.

I simply say, in reference to this bill before us today, that anything before this House that deals with housing co-ops is not something we support, because it's an absolute sham. It isn't working. It's using taxpayers' money to house a percentage of people, and in the case of co-op housing it's not even a percentage of people in deepest need. That's the criminal part. That's the totally irresponsible part. Not my figures; not my argument -- reports support that argument. It's not a politically partisan statement I'm making here. There are enough reports out now that will tell you we are not housing the poor; we are housing people who can afford to house themselves elsewhere. Is that just? I would suggest to you that it is not just.

Do you remember when Jack Layton and --

Mr Sorbara: Dale Martin.

Mrs Marland: Dale Martin was in a co-op? No, pardon me.

Mr Stockwell: Churley was too. She still lives there.

Mrs Marland: Jack Layton lived in a housing cooperative and the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, Marilyn Churley, lived in a housing cooperative. When Ms Churley, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, lived in a co-op, I don't know what her income or what her husband's income was.

Mr Stockwell: She was a cabinet minister.

Mrs Marland: Oh. I've just been told she lived in a housing co-op when she was a minister, and a minister earns $84,000. So if a minister who earns $84,000 a year, or when another one of the great friends of this New Democratic Party, Jack Layton, the former councillor for the city of Toronto, with his income plus that of his wife, Ms Chow, was living in a housing co-op, doesn't it show you something? Doesn't it tell you that the system is a sham? It doesn't work. The people who need that housing are not in there. A minister who earns $84,000 a year is living in a housing co-op.

Interjections.

Mrs Marland: Mr Speaker, I'm getting lots of help and lots of coaching with my speech. I'm glad I'm coming to the end of it, and in fairness to the members in the House who want to respond to my wonderful presentation -- ho, ho, ho, ha, ha -- I think I would like to finish at this point and simply say that the system isn't working, the money isn't being spent properly. Most people are not being looked after who could be for the same money, without adding any more money. I'm simply saying that we could house four or five times the number of people without housing co-ops. We don't need Bill 166.

1750

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments?

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): Normally I would just allow these comments to fly --

Mr Mahoney: Your mike isn't on.

Ms Haeck: I noticed that.

The member who has just spoken has perpetrated a number of comments which I note reflect very negatively on co-op housing. I will state my bias right up front. I was for four and a half years the president of the incorporating board that in fact created St Catharines community co-op, 412 Louth Street in St Catharines, which is a very successful co-op housing 60 families with a range of units, housing seniors, the disabled community and a number of people who are in very serious economic need.

But the overriding premise in creating any co-op housing project is to create a neighbourhood, to in fact create a community of mixed incomes, so that not only do you have, as the member for Mississauga South would like to indicate, those people who have a deep need, as many Ontario housing projects do create, but you have a mixed community which provides a range of supports for people who have problems.

Problems with finances allow people to take responsibility for their housing, and everything that has been said so far would allow the public to believe that somehow these people are getting something they don't deserve. In fact that is far, far from the case. These projects are successful and should be continued.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The member for St Catharines-Brock had a problem with her microphone and was deprived of 30 seconds of time. I for one, and I think many opposition members, believe the right to speak in this place is very precious. Would you reinstate that 30 seconds on the clock for her?

The Acting Speaker: It is not a point of order. I believe the member for St Catharines-Brock --

Ms Haeck: I would concede to give it to the member for Eglinton actually.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Further questions and/or comments?

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I'd like to comment on the question about Peel Non-Profit, because I can tell you, as I think can any member of whatever stripe who serves in Peel that when the call goes out to help families with children where the alternative is some seedy hotel, Roger Maloney comes to our assistance. Peel Non-Profit is probably the classic corporation that deals with serving the region of Peel in terms of non-profit housing.

I had to say to myself, when I looked at the allocations that were being made, as were referred to by my colleague the member for Mississauga South, that there had to be some reason why Peel Non-Profit did not get its share of cooperative housing. I have to think to myself that there can be no other reason than perhaps this was a way of strapping the people of Peel for having not voted for an NDP member.

Could it be that the Premier of this province would allow that to take place, that in fact he would allow allocations to take place throughout Metro because that's where he thought he won a few seats, instead of doing it in Peel, where the need was great? There are 8,300 households in need of housing in Peel. Shame on the Minister of Housing for using pure political reasons to allocate housing when there are people who can't get housing in the region of Peel and can't be serviced through a corporation that has shown in its track record that it can effectively create and monitor along the lines of not allowing people to remain in there if in fact their income goes up. That housing is for people who are in need, not for people who are not in need. When you create cooperative housing, if you don't have that policing, how can you possibly undertake that those people will in fact be those in most need?

I suggest to you, Mr Speaker, along with my friend the member for Mississauga South, that Peel Non-Profit should have got its fair share. The Minister of Housing should not have played rotten politics with the allocations.

Mr Stockwell: I'd like to compliment the member on her short speech about cooperative housing and the problems with it.

I think this is going to be one of those issues that will come to the front in the 1990s. Co-op housing simply doesn't work. In my opinion, it will actually rival in a few short years that of the Workers' Compensation Board. It will become a black hole, a cesspool for taxpayers' money. Its deficits in future years will become legendary. You can just look in the budgets at its growth in previous years. It was a few hundred million 10 years ago and it's literally rivalling the billions. By the time they leave government, it will be $2 billion, $3 billion, $4 billion.

The difficulty is that those people who need the help aren't serviced in cooperative housing. They're not being served. If your subsidy level is 25% to 40%, most people who are in there are predominantly middle and upper-income-earning people who don't need subsidies, who are getting subsidies from the government to the tune of thousands of dollars per month. Any system that supports wealthy and middle-income earners in their lodgings is absurd.

Third, this government won't do away with cooperative housing because the groups are made up predominantly of or inundated with the NDP. The people who facilitate, the consultants, all the people throughout the cooperative housing programs are NDPers. They are socialists and they use this as a springboard to organize and co-op certain areas of ridings.

It will be uncovered in the next couple of years. The money will astound taxpayers, and it will be proved to be what it is, an absolute sham. It's a total waste of money; not total -- there is some assistance -- but it's a colossal waste of money and it will be uncovered in the not-too-distant future.

The Acting Speaker: We can accommodate one final participant. The honourable member for Yorkview.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): I don't know where the previous speaker got his information from, but I'd like to find out. If they're New Democrats, I'd like to know who they are, because I certainly would like to sign them up in my community.

I will tell you, Mr Speaker, as well as the previous speaker, that I've always been an advocate of co-op and non-profit housing. I've been an advocate because I know that 25 or 30 years ago we made a mistake. By segregating people, we made a big mistake. I know that at first hand, because my community has a lot of public housing and I know the repercussions that come out of public housing. There's no question about it.

I can tell you that the walls that have been built over the 25 or 30 years between ratepayers and the people on social assistance, those who need subsidized housing, are immense. Those walls are huge. And I can tell you that previous governments have not done anything to break those walls down. However, we are. Co-op housing takes those walls down. By understanding the culture, by understanding the person, by living with the people, you understand them. Putting them into a corner and saying, "This is your spot, this is the area of the city you have to live in," is wrong. It was a mistake 30 years ago; it's a mistake now. Co-op housing is a way out.

Personally, working for the Ministry of Housing for 14 years, I have been an advocate of perhaps even converting our Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority complexes into co-op, non-profit housing.

The Acting Speaker: This completes questions and/or comments. The honourable member for Mississauga South has two minutes in response.

Mrs Marland: I say to the member for St Catharines-Brock that the people she's concerned about -- she mentioned seniors, disabled, single parents, families -- those are the people, had she had the opportunity to hear what I was saying, that I'm concerned about. But I'm more concerned, I respectfully suggest to her, than she is because what I'm saying is, instead of building a unit that is subsidized at $2,000 for one family, don't build it, let the private sector build it, and give those families the rent subsidy they need between what they can afford and what the private sector rent is. It's not a difficult formula.

The member for Yorkview suggests that I'm in favour of segregation. That's the absolute opposite to what I'm saying, but when you build housing cooperatives and non-profit housing projects -- whatever name you want to give it -- it is equivalent to Ontario Housing. Is it right that those people are segregated and is it right that when you have a cooperative housing building, every single unit in that building is subsidized? If you don't understand that, then you don't understand how it works.

The member in this House, whom I've chosen deliberately today not to identify, told us, when we discussed this two or three weeks ago, what the subsidy was on his co-op. I think he said it was $91 a month. This is a member who earns $75,000 a year. I simply say to you, is it right that all units are subsidized when those people who are living in them can afford accommodation elsewhere?

The Acting Speaker: Is there likely to be further debate on the third reading of Bill 166?

Interjection: Is there any further debate?

The Acting Speaker: Is there likely to be further --

Mr Sorbara: Oh, yes.

The Acting Speaker: There is likely to be further debate. Therefore, I am looking for the chief government whip for next week's schedule.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon Shirley Coppen (Minister without Portfolio): Pursuant to standing order 53, I would like to indicate the business of the House for the coming week. On Monday, July 13, Tuesday, July 14, Wednesday, July 15, and Thursday, July 16, we will deal with the following items:

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 40, An Act to amend certain Acts concerning Collective Bargaining and Employment; resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 23, An Act to amend the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act; third reading on Bill 27, An Act to amend the Education Act and certain other Acts in respect of School Board Finance;

second reading of Bill 26, An Act to provide for the Regulation of Gaming Services; second reading of Bill 162, An Act to amend the Game and Fish Act; third reading of Bill 150, An Act to provide for the Creation and Registration of Labour Sponsored Venture Capital Corporations to Invest in Eligible Ontario Businesses and to make certain other amendments;

second reading of Bill 168, An Act to amend the Pay Equity Act; second reading of Bill 169, An Act to amend the Public Service Act and the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act; second reading of Bill 164, An Act to amend the Insurance Act and certain other Acts in respect of Automobile Insurance and other Insurance Matters;

second reading of Bill 75, An Act respecting Annexation to the city of London and to certain municipalities in the county of Middlesex; second reading of Bill 61, An Act respecting Algonquin and Ward's Islands and respecting the Stewardship of the Residential Community on the Toronto Islands; second reading of Bill 38, An Act to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act in respect of Sunday Shopping.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Thank you. It now being past 6 of the clock, this House will stand adjourned until Monday, July 13, at 1:30 of the clock.

The House adjourned at 1804.