Journal des débats 1993-nov-18 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Given that the government of Ontario has decided to contract out the operations of its legalized casino to a private operator, to be selected by tender; and

Given that this decision has been made solely on the basis of the government's need for increased revenues; and

Given that the taxpayers of Ontario have been given no assurance that they will not be forced to pay for any revenue shortfall experienced by the private casino operator;

This House requests the government of Ontario to introduce an amendment to its casino legislation that will ensure that the financial responsibility for any revenue shortfall and debt will be that of the casino operator; and

That in no circumstances will the taxpayers of Ontario bear any responsibility, financial or otherwise, for any such shortfall and debt.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation, and following that, members of the other parties will have 15 minutes to debate this resolution.

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): I rise on this issue with some regret. The regret that I have is that it would even be necessary for a member to resort to this particular vehicle in order to bring to attention a basic financial principle that is really at the basis of what I think we are here to do, to protect the interests of the taxpayers.

What is the issue basically? The government has decided that it is going to enter into a scheme with private developers and private operators to run a casino in Windsor. I don't want to debate the whole issue as to whether or not they should be in this business. They have made the decision and I accept it. Where I have some concern is that there seems to be a feeling, certainly among government representatives and certainly among some of the bureaucrats, that this is a licence to print money and that the only benefits that will accrue to the people of Ontario are beneficial because it's going to generate a great deal of money. I hope that it does. I wish them well and I hope that it's successful and that all of the things they hoped would happen will happen. But there is no guarantee.

Over the years, we have watched various government endeavours that started out with the best of intentions, with the intentions that all of these things would happen and they would happen to the benefit of the citizens of Ontario. But unfortunately -- and I'm not condemning anyone for it; it's just the vagaries of doing business -- there is an opportunity occasionally for things not to work out. I remember well Mayor Jean Drapeau of Montreal when he proposed the Olympic Stadium. He said, "This project can no more lose money than the prospects of me giving birth to a child." We all know that not only did it lose money; it lost hundreds of millions of dollars.

Again, without trying to be partisan, without trying to point the finger at any particular party, we in Ontario have many examples: Minaki Lodge, Suncor, SkyDome. All of these projects were started out with the best of intentions, with everyone feeling that they would have no reason for these things not to be successful, but because again of the vagaries of business and the vagaries of investment they have not achieved those particular goals.

What we are saying is, not necessarily gambling but gambling if necessary; if you're going to do it, at least build into the legislation provisions that the taxpayers will not be left so-called holding the bag and having to take part in a gamble when I am sure that if a referendum were held, they may or may not like the idea of casino gambling, but I don't think there would be any support if taxpayers were told, "If it loses money, it's your problem." That is what the intent of this particular resolution is: to get enshrined in the legislation the principle that under no circumstances will the taxpayers have to pay, that it will be the sole responsibility of the operators.

When we were in committee we tried to get an amendment to this effect. We had assurances from the Deputy Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations that of course there is no, as she underlined, intent that the taxpayers will ever have to pick up or that they should pick up any shortfall.

When we talked to members of the government side, some of them spoke in favour of our amendment. To our surprise, when we put it to a vote, they voted against it. It was the most bizarre exercise I've ever seen, where five minutes after saying, "Yes, we agree that should be what it is," they voted against it.

I want to read into the record a couple of articles that I think are critical and important to this discussion. One of them appeared in Business Week, a highly respected publication in the United States, dated October 18, 1993, exactly one month ago today. The headline says, "Will Too Many Players Spoil the Game?"

It says: "Few industries are as hot these days as the gaming and casino business. Hungry for the tax revenues from gambling, state and local governments are allowing new casinos in South Dakota mining towns, up and down the Mississippi River, and on Indian lands in Connecticut, California, and points in between. The casino industry took in $10.2 billion in 1992, and the gambling experts think that will double by the year 2000. 'Gambling will be the biggest form of entertainment in the country,' says Fort Worth investor Richard E. Rainwater, who holds options to buy a 14% stake in slot machine operator United Gaming Inc. 'Bigger than movies, sports, even eating out.'"

Then the article goes on to say: "As any all-night blackjack player will tell you, though, there's no such thing as a sure bet. With dozens of companies spending hundreds of millions to jump into gaming -- not to mention veteran investors such as Marvin Davis and even celebrities such as Debbie Reynolds and Kevin Costner -- someone is bound to get hurt. 'There's going to be a shakeout and a consolidation, just like any other boom industry,' predicts Charles Avonsino, president of Hilton Corp, a veteran operator of casinos.

1010

"Nowhere are the risks greater than in Las Vegas. Just two weeks before Treasure Island opens, Circus Circus Enterprises Inc will open its $390-million pyramid-shaped Luxor casino. And in mid-December, Kirk Kerkorian's MGM Grand Inc will open a new 5,000-room hotel and casino. Kerkorian is pouring $1 billion into the project, which includes a 33-acre theme park. His goal is to lure families, preferably with parents who are slot machine enthusiasts. 'Our studies show that only 15% of Americans have ever been to Las Vegas.'" Then he goes on to say, "'We have plenty of room to grow.'"

But I think it's important that you understand this: "Perhaps. When new casinos thrive in Las Vegas, however, it is usually at the expense of existing players. The glittery Mirage and the Excalibur have been luring new tourists since they opened in 1989. But in the same period, five other stalwarts, including the Dunes and the Riviera, have gone bankrupt. Indeed, average pre-tax profits along the Vegas strip last year were only slightly higher than 1987, according to casino analyst Saul F. Leonard. With all the development, Leonard says the town will have a serious excess capacity problem for the next two years.

"Outside the oasis of Las Vegas, gambling is becoming even more dicey. In Atlantic City, for example, bus traffic has dropped 10% in 1993, while overall wagering is up a paltry 2.4%, according to the industry newsletter....The reason? Foxwoods, a new casino operated by native Americans in Ledyard, Connecticut, is siphoning off business....And if Philadelphia legalizes gambling, a move the city government is considering, Atlantic City could be even more grievously hurt, says Atlantic City Action editor Al Glasgow.

"Newly opened territories are vulnerable to overbuilding as well. Since 1991, Colorado has permitted gambling in only three counties. But 75 gambling operations had sprung up by the beginning of this year. Already, 12 have closed their doors. Just two years after riverboat gambling was allowed on the Mississippi, there are nine floating casinos in Mississippi and 15 in Louisiana. Promus Cos recently cancelled plans to launch a boat in Biloxi, Mississippi, because it feared there were too many players in that market.

"The shakeout could speed up as the behemoths move in with their well-heeled marketing operations. Hilton, Circus Circus, and the Mirage are among those competing for riverboat licences. And several companies are clamouring to launch still more boats if Chicago votes to allow waterway gambling.

"But while sheer muscle can overwhelm smaller players, size alone doesn't guarantee success. Bally Manufacturing Corp's Las Vegas casino operation only recently emerged from bankruptcy and is still considered a weak operator. The jury is also out on ITT Sheraton Corp, which spent $160 million in June to buy the fabled, if somewhat dowdy, Desert Inn.

"With development proceeding at such a blistering pace, some players are hedging their bets."

It goes on to say that even Silverman, who is a major player in this issue, "is preparing for a shakeout, which he figures is about three years away." That three years is exactly the timing pretty well when the permanent casino will come on stream in Windsor.

So we have a situation where the experts in the field --

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Mr Kwinter: -- have concerns and I have concerns, and I think it's absolutely critical that we put in this legislation to protect the taxpayers of Ontario.

The Acting Speaker: Further speakers?

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I'm pleased to have this opportunity to comment briefly on this resolution that has been brought to our attention today by the member for Wilson Heights. The resolution:

"That, in the opinion of this House, given that the government has decided to create legalized casino gambling in Ontario; and

"Given that the government of Ontario has decided to contract out the operations of its legalized casino to a private operator, to be selected by tender; and

"Given that this decision has been made solely on the basis of the government's need for increased revenues; and

"Given that the taxpayers of Ontario have been given no assurance that they will not be forced to pay for any revenue shortfall experienced by the private casino operator;

"This House requests the government of Ontario to introduce an amendment to its casino legislation that will ensure that the financial responsibility for any revenue shortfall and debt will be that of the casino operator; and

"That in no circumstances will the taxpayers of Ontario bear any responsibility, financial or otherwise, for any such shortfall and debt."

I support this resolution in principle because I do not believe there should be any casino gambling in the province of Ontario in the first place, and, number two, since the NDP is determined to ram this through, I believe there should be assurances that the financial responsibility for any revenue shortfall and debt will be that of the casino operator. Under no circumstances should the hard-pressed taxpayers of Ontario bear any responsibility, financial or otherwise, for any such shortfall or debt.

You're all no doubt aware of the concerns I raised in the past about gambling casinos, concerns like the lack of any kind of public consultation process before the government went off half-cocked and announced the pilot project in Windsor; concerns like my belief that state-operated gambling casinos are nothing more than a regressive tax on the poor; concerns like the potential for the growth of crime and the economic hardship and loss of jobs they will impose on Ontario's racing industry and some 28,000 employees in that industry.

Bill 8, the Ontario Casino Corporation Act, is another example of this government bringing forward legislation that divides Ontarians against each other. The split has occurred in my own riding of Simcoe East, where some people indicate they are adamantly opposed to casino gambling and others support it in principle. I asked my constituents about their opinions on casino gambling and video slot machines. Approximately 1,000 people took the time to give me their views on this controversial issue. Some 47% indicated they opposed casino gambling, while 30% said they supported casino gambling and 23% were undecided. With respect to video slot machines, 59% were opposed, 6% were in favour and 35% were undecided, so there's quite a variation between the slot machines and with regard to the other.

Supporters of casino gambling claim these facilities will boost tourism in border communities that are feeling the impact of cross-border shopping. They suggest casinos will create employment opportunities and claim the Windsor casino will generate $150 million in revenue annually for the provincial coffers. The opponents of casino gambling say the government has not studied the social and economic consequences of casino gambling. They are concerned that casinos will attract organized crime and result in an increase in the number of gambling addictions.

Many charitable organizations, service clubs and the horse racing industry fear they will suffer from competition with government-run casinos. Supporters of video slot machines suggest they will provide a greater potential for revenue than any other form of gambling. Opponents say video slot machines are the most addictive form of gambling. These are some of the statistics that have come out in the questionnaires I sent out.

Since this government appears willing to gamble with the economic future of Ontario by forcing through a time allocation motion on Bill 8 -- yesterday we dealt with it -- and cutting off public discussion, I want this government to put some protection in place for Ontario's hard-pressed taxpayers. That's why I'll be supporting the member for Wilson Heights in demanding that the government amend Bill 8 to ensure the financial responsibility for any revenue shortfall and debt will be that of the casino operator and that under no circumstances will the taxpayers of Ontario bear any responsibility, financial or otherwise, for any such shortfall or debt.

1020

When we look over the record of some of the issues that government gets into, we look at the debt that we have in the SkyDome. We read about Bob White, who is leading a consortium to sell that facility. It's been some two years and they haven't done it yet. We're paying on that major debt.

We look here in this Legislature at when the member for Victoria-Haliburton had a crusade and petitions opposing casino gambling. Many, many petitions were presented in this Legislature. I often wonder. When the committee was having hearings on this very issue, it was the agenda of the government that brought forth the people, and the majority of the people that they wanted, to look at their agenda, to make sure it was the people that they wanted to have before that committee.

We look at the Agenda for People and what the Premier had to say about casino gambling. Do we remember what the Premier said about casino gambling? Do we remember the Premier speaking about it? Do you know that yesterday the Premier's government brought in a closure motion to introduce the very issue about which he said there could be nothing worse in Ontario than to be having casinos? Do you remember that? We remember that. That was the Agenda for People.

The people from the arts council in Windsor have spoken to me about the facility that they're planning on using in the interim. They've said, and the government has said: "Well, we are going to be fixing up this building. We're going to be putting money in after we're finished with it." But those people have told me that they are not fully committed, nor do they feel that they'll be given fair treatment. That's what they're telling me. They may be telling somebody other stories.

On this whole issue of casino gambling and video slot machines, the government in my estimation is gambling on casinos to pay off our deficit. I don't think it will happen, because when we look at the statistics, it's shown to me that it won't happen.

The very issue that is brought before us today by the member for Wilson Heights with regard to the debt is a good one and I will be supporting it, because the taxpayers are the ones we don't want to have to pick up the burden of what this government has done.

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): It gives me great pleasure to speak to this resolution here this morning, a resolution which I will not be supporting.

It's actually great to listen to the previous two speakers talk about incurring debt. I believe what we're witnessing here in this chamber this morning is a historic day in Ontario political history, because we have two of the greatest conversions since Saul walked the road to Damascus.

The Tory party across from us: Here's the party of Minaki Lodge and Suncor and dozens of other debt-incurring situations they have put the people of this province into. And the Liberal Party, which has given us SkyDome and which during the last election told the people of this province that they had a $23-million surplus, which in fact turned out to be a $3-billion debt. Now they have the nerve to lecture us about the evils of government incurring debt.

Where on earth was the member for Wilson Heights when David Peterson's cabinet inked the SkyDome deal? Where was he? Was he sitting on his hands? He was, as I recall, a very influential member of the cabinet at that time. Why did the SkyDome deal not contain the words from his resolution?

I'd like to repeat the words again: "That in no circumstances will the taxpayers of Ontario bear any responsibility, financial or otherwise, for any such shortfall and debt." Why was that not included in the SkyDome deal? Why not? It's cost the taxpayers of this province some $350 million to this date. Why did the member for Wilson Heights not speak up and suggest an equally clever method for SkyDome to cover its costs? No. He sat on his hands while the taxpayers of this province picked up the tab.

These members opposite would have the people of Ontario believe they are protecting the public purse, the very same purse they drained while they were in government.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. It's impossible to hear the member who has the floor. I hope that each one of you will have the chance to express your opinion. It's the member's time.

Mr Duignan: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations has repeated that the taxpayers of this province will not pick up a cent if there's any debt incurred. The minister has also agreed that 25 new Windsor police officers and their equipment will be financed from casino revenues. The minister has also said that extensive background checks on would-be casino operators are being financed from the $300,000 each submitted with their bid.

The government even wholeheartedly agreed with an opposition amendment to Bill 8 which will establish an independent committee to monitor the effects of the casino. The amendment compels the casino corporation to pay for the expenses associated with that committee.

Where will the Ontario Casino Corp get its operating funds? From casino revenues.

The minister has made a commitment that when the contract is signed with the successful proponent, it will have the provisions which will ensure that the concerns of the member for Wilson Heights will be addressed. I'm confident that she will do a better job than he and his colleagues did with the SkyDome deal.

Never in the history of this province has there been a job creation project, a tourism enhancement project or an economic development initiative of the scale of the Windsor casino, which is completely self-financing. More important than the jobs created in the casino is the effect such a catalyst will have on the economy of the Windsor area and indeed the province.

I remind this House why we are proceeding with the casino initiative. I think this will be useful since the preamble to the resolution misrepresents the rationale for the casino initiative.

The gaming industry is a large and growing form of entertainment in North America. Gaming exists in some form in every province, and virtually every state south of the border has gaming of one kind or another. I want to put into context how large this industry indeed is. In the United States, some $330 billion is waged annually. That is five times more than the box-office receipts from the movie industry. The gaming dollars are so big because the industry has experienced such rapid growth in recent years.

I suspect some members of the opposition would like to ignore this growth; they would like to cling to the notion that casinos exist only in Las Vegas and Atlantic City. That was true about 10 years ago but certainly is not the case today. Casinos are now a feature of gaming landscapes in some 20 American states, and that's growing every year.

We're also seeing similar growth in Canada. There are more than a dozen casinos, for example, in British Columbia. They operate along the lines that our bingo halls do here. These casinos are rented each day by different charities for fund-raising purposes. Similar casinos exist in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Winnipeg. The Manitoba government has opened two more gaming centres, essentially large bingo halls surrounded by hundreds of slot machines. Also, the government of Quebec has recently opened one casino and is in the process of planning another. We're seeing the same issue debated in Atlantic provinces.

Casinos surround our province in every direction: to the west, to the south, to the east, and indeed the Yukon has a casino. As a result of this enormous growth in the casino market, the province of Ontario is forfeiting hundreds of millions of dollars every year to other jurisdictions, and last year that was in the range of some $600 million. We can no longer afford this. Talk to the hotel owners, talk to the people who run restaurants, talk to the operators of other tourist attractions.

We have a beautiful province. Accordingly, millions of tourists come here every year. What we want is new tourists arriving with new dollars and new jobs. If we're going to remain competitive as a tourist destination, we must be able to offer the forms of entertainment that tourists want.

The government estimates that every day some 10,000 out-of-province tourists will visit Windsor. The Windsor hospitality industry wants this to happen and indeed needs it to happen. They know what a shot in the arm this would be for the Windsor economy.

I know, Madam Speaker, that you travelled with the committee to a number of other destinations in this province. We were in Sault Ste Marie, we were in Ottawa, we were in Niagara Falls. They all want casinos, because they all know what jobs they are going to bring to their particular community and they all know what type of dollars they'll bring in.

1030

In conclusion, it's clear that this government has chosen the correct course of action in proceeding with the Windsor casino. It would help keep dollars in Ontario that would otherwise flow to the United States. In addition, we would help attract new dollars from our American neighbours by introducing the casino to Windsor, Ontario's largest border city.

The government is helping our tourist industry keep pace with the competition. I believe that is good news for everyone in the tourism sector, but also it's good news for the people of this province.

I quote from the minister: "I'm glad the Liberals and the Tories in particular, who have incurred billions of dollars of debt on different projects over the years, have finally seen the light. I want to make sure that this doesn't happen to the taxpayers of the future."

We are doing that by making sure in our contractual arrangements with proponents that they will be responsible for any debt incurred in the operation of the Windsor casino. That's a commitment of our government and was never the commitment of the two previous governments in this province.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate? Now it's the turn of the member for Oriole.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I really am pleased to participate in the debate today. As I begin, I'd like to remind members what private members' hour is really all about. It's not a partisan debate; it's supposed to be an opportunity for private members to put forward good ideas. In this case, my colleague the member for Wilson Heights has put forward a proposal that wasn't listened to or accepted by the government at committee and this is his opportunity to make his case openly and publicly here in the Legislature and appeal to all members to understand the rationale for his resolution.

What he is proposing this morning is simple and clear and something I believe the provincial government under Bob Rae, which is introducing casino gambling into Ontario, should do. The reason I think they should do it is that what Mr Kwinter is proposing is protection of the public interest and protection of the taxpayer as we begin this new venture in casino gambling in the province of Ontario. It's that simple: protection of the public interest and protection of the taxpayer.

The previous speaker went on in defence of casino gambling. This debate is not about the pros or cons of casino gambling. Bob Rae and his government, the NDP, are bringing casino gambling into Ontario. That is a reality. The question now is, how do we bring it in in a way which protects the public interest?

Mr Kwinter tried at committee to put forward this amendment, which would say -- I say to the member who spoke before me that I wish the NDP would listen to some of the good ideas that are brought forward from members of the opposition when we're clearly just trying to help and also, as members, understand our obligation to act in the public interest and put that argument before the government -- that's number one. They're always saying to us, "So, what's your good idea?" When we give it to them, in a partisan way they reject it because it wasn't their idea.

The member who spoke before me referred to history. He referred to Suncor and SkyDome and some of those other projects the previous governments had entered into and he went into a harangue about the mistakes. I want to agree with him. I'm not going to say that everything we did in government from 1985 to 1990 was perfect; it wasn't. We made mistakes, but the difference between us and obviously the NDP is that we are prepared to learn from our mistakes, to learn from history and what we could have done better.

I would say to Mr Duignan, the NDP and to Bob Rae: Learn from what previous governments have done that could have been done better; don't repeat the mistakes. Here's an opportunity to do something better. Here is an opportunity to write into the legislation public protection, protection of the taxpayers, and say very clearly that under no circumstances will the taxpayers of Ontario bear any responsibility, financial or otherwise, for any such shortfall or debt incurred from the NDP casino gambling initiative. That's thoughtful; that is reasonable; that is good public policy; that is looking at previous projects and saying, how could we have implemented those better? I don't understand why the NDP, why Mr Duignan, would get into such a harangue over this proposal, because it is a good idea.

I'm concerned that frequently what we see from Bob Rae and the NDP is, if they didn't think of it, it's not going to happen. I commend Mr Kwinter for being persistent in bringing this forward to private members' hour to give the NDP a second chance, because if the private members of the NDP caucus will support this, because it is in the taxpayers' interest and it is in the public interest, there is still time for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, for the cabinet and for Bob Rae himself to say, "We're going to amend the legislation to protect the taxpayers of Ontario." It's that simple.

That's what private members' hour is all about, and I am concerned and genuinely distressed when I see members of the NDP caucus standing up in private members' hour in defence of NDP partisan policy without keeping an open mind to consider the good ideas and suggestions that are put forward by other members.

I repeat: This debate is not about the pros and cons of casino gambling. Mr Kwinter says he accepts and recognizes the fact that the NDP are doing that. That's their right. They are the government and they have a majority government. But they can protect the taxpayers, they can protect the public interest as they go about doing this if they will take Mr Kwinter's good advice and amend the legislation as is suggested by this resolution. I would hope as we hear from other members of the NDP caucus that they will consider doing that today to show that they too share with us the desire to protect the public and the public interest.

Nothing is for sure. As we're talking gambling, there is no sure bet. Nobody should take anything for granted. All the nice words from the minister, from the Premier, from the cabinet and from Mr Duignan about the protection of the public by contract is not as strong and powerful a protection as protection of the public by law.

If the NDP, the Premier and the Minister of Commercial and Consumer Relations, the cabinet and the NDP caucus are sincere about protecting the public interest, here is an opportunity to take a good suggestion, a good idea from a member of the official opposition and incorporate that, first by resolution in this House and secondly into the legislation before it receives third reading and royal assent, and show the public that in fact they are open to good ideas and suggestions, they are willing to listen and they're willing to listen to a member of the opposition who has put forward a thoughtful and reasonable proposal that won't cost them a dime, won't cost them a nickel and potentially could save the taxpayers of this province a lot of money.

I want to thank you for allowing me to participate in this debate and I urge the members of the NDP caucus to support this very reasonable and thoughtful resolution.

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): This Bill 8 and the resolution that has been brought in subject to that by the member for Wilson Heights certainly are giving me cause to say a few words in support of the member's resolution this morning.

Although I hadn't planned to make a presentation this morning, I have been moved to do so by the remarks made recently by the member for Halton North. I don't understand how he can continue on with this silly gobbledegook about what's happened in the past if he's not prepared to learn from the situations that he's referring to in the past and agree with this resolution as put forward by the member for Wilson Heights that will in fact protect the people of Ontario from being caught in a similar financial bind that we have seen our taxpayers have to face from other decisions made on larger projects by other governments.

I recall the member for Grey-Owen Sound heavily debating with the member for Halton North on this one issue: Why would he not concede to put the protection in the bill? This is a bill for the province of Ontario; it's not a bill for the city of Windsor. He's parliamentary assistant to the minister, so I can understand how the minister has had so much difficulty in getting this bill in front of the House and getting it through the House, because there's been considerable --

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): Mismanagement.

Mr Jordan: -- mismanagement, thank you, of the whole bill, from start to now. Now, under this resolution, we are attempting to give the minister and the parliamentary assistant a chance to make that small amendment. It's not a large amendment relative to the paperwork of the bill, but it is a very large amendment relative to the taxpayers of the province of Ontario.

1040

When the member for Halton North rants and raves about the mistakes of the past and how the taxpayer had to carry the load, we still can't get him to understand that Bill 8 is a bill for the province of Ontario, not a bill for the Windsor casino. He's saying, "Oh well, we don't have to worry about that because we can write it in as a clause in the contract."

What are you going to do then? We've made it legal to have casinos in the province of Ontario, and every time someone applies to have a casino, whether it be in Ottawa or elsewhere, we are going to be faced with that same possibility of the taxpayer facing a financial loss that could be created by that casino.

The member has put forward this resolution which very clearly demonstrates the need for this protection in the bill, not in individual contracts. I find it difficult that the member for Halton North can't understand that he's leaving the province and its people wide open for every contract that comes up. We don't know what government will be in power, but it leaves it open for a government to go ahead and allow a casino to be opened without having that protective clause in the contract.

I urge the parliamentary assistant, the member for Halton North, to go back to his minister and plead with her to review this legislation for that point alone. I'm not going to get into the fact that we're shocked that the New Democratic Party has brought forward such a bill in the first place. It's disgraceful. You can put out an Agenda for People, like you did, and get elected on it, and then, in your three years to date, you've broken every promise. The only reason that the Agenda for People is there, it seems to me, is to give you a list of things you can do that you said you wouldn't do. That's been the whole program of your government, breaking the assurances that you gave the people in that Agenda for People. We've seen that over the three years, so we're not alarmed any more.

The government has had a spending spree since it came into power, never thinking about where the revenue would come from. Now they find themselves in this financial squeeze and they're desperately trying to bring in some money in the form of new taxes -- they call them user fees -- in the form of photo-radar, which I find is almost like spying on a driver on the highway, and they're spending $80 million to install it.

Mr McLean: Putting the racing industry out of business.

Mr Jordan: Yes, putting the racing industry out of business, a sport that has been enjoyed in Ontario for years.

Madam Speaker, take it that the bill is passed now, has received third reading under closure, certainly not with any adherence to the many points that were made by the opposition. They were just so bent on getting this into law so that the casino could be opened in Windsor, so that the revenue could come here to try to help them get through their financial crisis. But I'm afraid that it's going to take more than Bill 8 to save this government, because what it may gain financially from Bill 8, it's going to lose in confidence with the people.

Mr George Dadamo (Windsor-Sandwich): As the member for Windsor-Sandwich and the member representing the area where the interim casino will be located in Windsor, I appreciate the opportunity to partake in this debate this morning.

It is certainly a pleasure to speak to the concerns of my honourable friends in the opposition, and the question placed before this House certainly is fundamental. It gets to the very heart of the relationship between this government and the people of Ontario. It becomes a question of trust and integrity.

The government brings the following promise forward: The taxpayers of this province will not bear any responsibility, financial or otherwise, for any shortfall or debt that could be incurred by the Windsor casino. That is the government's promise, and naturally it comes with a guarantee.

We were very careful in structuring the casino initiative to ensure that the guarantee is a contract between the government and the successful proponent. This contract will ensure that in the unlikely event of an operating loss, the loss will be the responsibility of the operator, not the taxpayers of Ontario.

This promise is illustrative of the relationship between this government and the people of this province. Throughout the course of this initiative, I've been struck by the integrity, the sensitivity this government has demonstrated in its work to introduce the casino to the city of Windsor.

I want to tell you now about one of the most interesting, yet little-known aspects of the casino initiative. I'm speaking about the relationship that has developed between the people of Windsor and the government of Ontario, a relationship comprised, as we said, of trust and cooperation. I know of few other examples where the government and a municipality have worked so closely and so productively on one project. This partnership is the reason the initiative to bring a casino to Windsor has been so successful.

This casino is being introduced properly and carefully, and both the municipality and the province continue to believe it will be a tremendous boost to Windsor's economy. There are over 160 businesses in the immediate downtown area in Windsor which are closed, an area which has been ravaged by cross-border shopping and the recession.

The government chose Windsor for the province's first casino because it is the largest of Ontario's hard-hit border communities. These communities, of course, require special attention. They have suffered because of their closeness to the American marketplace and the insensitivity of the federal government. The GST and free trade have hammered these cities and towns. Because of the casino, Windsor will now benefit from its border location instead of suffering.

The city is very well positioned to attract American tourists to a year-round casino. The infusion of new dollars into the Windsor economy will help create new jobs and stimulate economic growth, especially in the tourism and hospitality industries. It will be a great pleasure to see many of these dollars coming into our city.

The government announced on October 6, 1992, that Windsor would be the site of the province's first casino and naturally this announcement triggered many questions. The city wondered where the casino might go, how big it should be, who should own it, who should run it. Most of all, the city wondered if the government would listen to the wishes and the concerns. After all, it is the province that has the ultimate responsibility for the casino.

The province was asking many of the same questions. The province's goal, however, was very clear. It wanted to ensure the casino fit comfortably into the community. That obviously meant that many of the answers to these questions would need to come from Windsor and the residents. The project could not succeed without the help of the city and the community. By working together, both Windsor and the province knew they could get the job done better and smarter.

As the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations promised on the day Windsor was selected, "starting immediately, our casino project team will begin detailed discussions with municipalities in the Windsor area to finalize the best approach and structure." A little over a month later, the provincial government and municipal officials held workshops in Windsor with more than 60 representatives of organizations right across Windsor. These included representatives of industry, business and labour, and charity, religious, arts and social service groups. The diversity of views and perspectives brought forward in those meetings helped form the core objectives of the casino initiative: that the project reflect and respect community values while providing maximum benefits for all those concerned.

1050

One of the concerns raised in those workshops was the casino's impact on charitable fund-raising. A month later, members of the casino project team met with the members of two dozen local groups involved in charitable gaming in Windsor. Many were of the view that more people visiting the city would ultimately benefit their fund-raising efforts. These people also asked that bingo not be played in the new casino. I'm pleased to note that it will not.

In closing, this House should applaud the bold and innovative approach taken by the civic leaders in Windsor and the bureaucrats of the casino project team. I can't tell you how pleasantly shocked I was when I read stories in the Windsor Star about bureaucrats operating at breakneck speed and making lickety-split progress. As the project continues, so will the team. The team will work between the province and the municipality.

From the day Windsor was chosen for the casino, the people of Windsor relied on the government to listen to their concerns. They trusted the government to act upon those wishes, and that is what we did, time and time again. We, here at Queen's Park, want to build on the enthusiasm in Windsor for this initiative. That's understandable when one starts to add up the number of new jobs created, when one considers the potential for renewal in the downtown core of Windsor.

I'd like to congratulate the mayor of Windsor, the city councillors, the Downtown Business Association of Windsor, those from the minister's office, the project team and all those people in Windsor who want this initiative, somewhere in the area of 80%. The sooner this important piece of legislation is in place, the sooner the Windsor casino initiative can become a reality.

Mr McClelland: I appreciate the opportunity to speak for a few minutes on this very thoughtful resolution put forward by the member for Wilson Heights. As you will know, Madam Speaker, and as members opposite will know, the resolution before us today is really an extension of an amendment brought to this place, in committee of the whole and prior to that at the finance and economic affairs committee, basically a product of Mr Phillips, the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, and the member for Wilson Heights.

Through deliberations in committee, they began to have some concerns with respect to the economic modelling that was being put forward in response to questions about the economic viability and potential for not only the Windsor casino but subsequent casinos across the province of Ontario. It became abundantly clear that at best the economic modelling was questionable and that at worst they may fall off the table, so to speak, and put the taxpayers of the province, not necessarily only with Windsor but with subsequent casinos, in some jeopardy with respect to the financial obligations incurred as a result of the construction and/or operation of those casinos.

The member for Windsor-Sandwich gave a very thoughtful speech, I thought. Initially, he talked briefly about relationships between governments and the people of the province. He subsequently went on and talked about the merits of the casino project in Windsor. A good speech, not necessarily on the resolution per se, but I understand where he's coming from. If I was living where he is living, I would use this opportunity to do the very same thing and speak to the cooperative spirit and the element of cooperation that I think has been evidenced in many respects.

I think there have been -- and the member for Windsor-Sandwich would admit this, I think, being a reasonably thoughtful and objective person -- some deficiencies, as there would be in any undertaking where people are involved, because after all, at the end of the day, we're all fallible and we make mistakes. I think there has been some considerable cooperation. At the same time, I think it fair to say that there have been some grave concerns raised by this party and my friends in opposition that, privately, other members acknowledge, in terms of the management and the time lines that have been set and some of the difficulties relating thereto.

In the result, of course, the government found itself in sort of a happy position that we had brought forward this amendment, because it gave it an opportunity to dig in its heels and say, "On the one hand, we support the concept and we're very much in favour of it, but we're not going to support the amendment," thereby providing them with an opportunity to set the table to say, "The opposition is delaying this bill; they're holding it up, so we can bring in a time allocation motion," as it did yesterday, to curtail debate, using this particular resolution, or the amendment that was the genesis of this resolution, to provide some rationale.

It's interesting that the member for Halton North, my friend Mr Duignan, stands in his place and sort of puts on his contrived outrage and indignation. I want to say to him that I think it takes a great deal of character for somebody to stand anywhere, and particularly in this place, and say, "Hey, mistakes were made." The member for Wilson Heights has done that.

Let me quote from a great philosopher to the south, Will Rogers. He said: "There's nothing as easy as denouncing. It don't take much to see that something is wrong, but it takes some good eyesight to see what will put it right again." It's a sort of folksy way of saying what the member for Wilson Heights has done. He said, "You know, there were some mistakes made in the past." The government member, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, the member for Halton North, rants and raves about mistakes in the past. So be it. Who of us in this place has not made mistakes or been party to mistakes made by organizations? People, being what we are, have participated in mistakes. "Placing the blame" said Dr Battista "is a bad habit, but taking the blame is a sure builder of character."

I think implicitly the member for Wilson Heights has said: "Look, we've made mistakes. I'm prepared to take some of the blame. I'm willing to say I was part of a less than perfect process, and having done that, I want to learn from that and contribute to this bill specifically, and perhaps bring to focus a principle of the way government should operate from here on in, that we should be more careful, more precise in terms of the demands that we put upon ourselves to protect the interests of the taxpayers of this province."

I think it is a very thoughtful resolution, not only with reference to this specific bill but perhaps a model for other enterprises that the government of this particular stripe and future governments will enter into. I think it's abundantly clear that, as governments begin to operate into this decade and into the decades ahead, there will be more of an interchange of relationship with the private sector, with joint venture type operations and a coupling of the resources in the community.

Indeed, the Premier has said, even with respect to my own community, that maybe the courthouse will be built after all, with the private sector. I want to use that by way of an example about relationships that the member is talking about.

There is nobody in the New Democratic Party who is honest -- and I suppose and presume that all members are honest and have that degree of personal integrity -- who would not stand before the mirror or stand before themselves and say, "There were promises made by my government and for whatever reasons, without casting blame, they were not fulfilled." You know them all. There is a litany of them. Every government has from time to time done that.

I think it is important for us to say, "Okay, that can happen." I don't think it's something that we need necessarily be defensive about. I think we should be accountable for it in this place and be prepared to acknowledge that those things have happened and say, "How can we prevent that from happening in the future?"

There is no doubt that the member for Windsor-Sandwich stands in his place with absolute confidence and says, "There have been assurances made by this government," and he's willing to go to the bank on them, so to speak.

But there were assurances made by other governments and mistakes were made. There were assurances made by the opposition party, as it then was -- it now sits in the place of government -- and I say this with the greatest respect, assurances made by the Premier and others that have not been able to be fulfilled. The Premier and others in the government will say: "There are extraneous factors or things that have changed. Circumstances have changed."

Is it not fair to say with respect to Bill 8, the legislation that will govern operation of casinos, that notwithstanding the promises, the assurances, the relational aspect that the member for Windsor-Sandwich rightly speaks about, things might change, things perhaps beyond the control of this government, perhaps not intended but certainly putting it, if you will, without casting a great pall upon it, as a government being a victim of changing circumstances? Any reasonable woman or man would say, "Yes, that could happen."

That is not to say that the government is being dishonest or disingenuous in terms of its commitments being made. I think perhaps the member for Halton North protests a little bit too much.

What this resolution says is: "Put it in writing. Make it a part of the law that adds substance to your declaration." It is not a great deal to ask for; in fact, something that I think my friends opposite would be proud to support. I can only urge them to get away from this rather partisan narrow-mindedness that has apparently emerged today and think about it in those terms. I think it's a thoughtful, good resolution, and I'm proud to be associated in support of the resolution brought forward by the member for Wilson Heights.

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired. The mover of the motion, Mr Kwinter, has two minutes to reply.

1100

Mr Kwinter: I want to thank the members for Simcoe East, Oriole, Lanark-Renfrew and Brampton North for speaking in support of my resolution. I also want to make a very brief comment to the other members of the government side.

The member for Windsor-Sandwich started out, and in fact paraphrased my resolution, saying that he was absolutely in support of it, it was going to be included in the regulations. It begs the question that if you're in support of it, why are you opposed to including it in the bill?

The member for Halton North, and I say this with some respect, ranted on about all these horrible things that other governments had done and as much as implied: "How dare you not let us make the same kind of mistakes that you made? You made them and we want to make our mistakes." I'm saying that we acknowledge that mistakes have been made in the past and that we want to make sure they don't happen again.

The other concern I have is that we are not debating Bill 8. That has been done. It was passed yesterday and is a fait accompli.

The government members today spent most of their time defending casino gambling. I'm not debating that; I'm debating the fact that it's going to be but that surely there isn't anybody who would object to the fact that the citizens of Ontario should not be put at any financial risk as a result of the potential problems that could develop. I hope this is a roaring success and, as I said earlier in my opening statement, that it generates an incredible amount of money for the citizens of Ontario.

All I'm saying is that there should be some safeguards, and it begs the question, if the government is not prepared to include it, why not? Why, if they support it, and why, if they say there's no problem with it, would they not include it in the legislation? The only answer could be that there has to be a problem with having it. If it's a problem for the government, potentially it's going to be a very serious problem for the taxpayers of Ontario.

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

HERITAGE DAY ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LE JOUR DU PATRIMOINE

Mr McLean moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 2, An Act respecting Heritage Day / Projet de loi 2, Loi concernant le jour du Patrimoine.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Mr McLean, you have 10 minutes.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I welcome this opportunity to provide some comments on private member's Bill 2, An Act respecting Heritage Day. You are no doubt aware that the purpose of this bill is to establish a new holiday on the third Monday of the month of February to celebrate Heritage Day.

Ontario's heritage is about our past, our present and our future. It is about the kind of province and the quality of life we can expect to have in the future.

We are a community in the province of Ontario. It is a community of people from many generations, many countries and many cultures. It is a community of people we have grown to appreciate and should celebrate on the third Monday of February each year. It is a legacy we must improve and enhance for the future.

When I speak of the community of people who make up this great province, I am referring to people whose roots lie in virtually every country on the face of the globe. For all of our diverse origins, we have learned to act as a unified community, as a multicultural society where different people from different cultures live, work and play together.

You are no doubt aware that Canadians have celebrated Heritage Day unofficially on the third Monday of February across the country since 1974. To give these celebrations a higher profile and a greater visibility, Ontario Heritage Week was introduced in Ontario in 1986, and this event has grown steadily in popularity over the past seven years.

Designating the third Monday in February as a heritage holiday would increase awareness and appreciation of the social and economic importance of Ontario's multifaceted heritage resources.

This day could be used to encourage a broad public participation in heritage preservation, protection and promotion. It could also be a day to support and recognize the efforts of groups, individuals and the many organizations involved in heritage activities in Ontario.

The current Heritage Week is largely a community-based celebration with the majority of events and activities organized by local groups like historical societies, architectural conservation advisory committees, community museums, archives, heritage organizations, schools and libraries, to name but a few. These groups deserve our appreciation, support and recognition for their efforts to keep our heritage in the public eye, for giving our heritage a higher profile and for making us all aware of our roots.

As I said earlier, we are a community of many people in Ontario, and that means some areas of the province will celebrate their Mennonite heritage, some would recognize their Scottish past, others would celebrate their French heritage, some would recognize their English past and others would celebrate their aboriginal heritage. Immigrants from around the world could celebrate and tell us about their heritage. All of us could get directly involved because we all have a role to play in celebrating our diverse heritage in Ontario.

The fair and equitable climate we now know in Ontario is a direct result of the sincerity and common decency of the citizens of this province. But it would certainly be naïve of me to suggest that a multicultural society has progressed in constant harmony or to ignore the blemishes that exist today.

Heritage Day would provide our citizens with an ideal opportunity to learn about their brothers and sisters who live next door, in a nearby municipality or an adjoining township, who may have a different culture or heritage than themselves.

I cannot think of a better way or a better method of improving the multicultural composition of our society, of ending discrimination in employment practices or in renting affordable housing. Heritage Day would make each and every one of us more sensitive to the different traditions and values of our immigrant, ethnic and native neighbours.

The Toronto Star recently asked the question, "Should Canada have a public holiday in February?" There were 862 callers, of whom 93% said yes and only 7% said no. Here are some of the responses to this Star poll: "Yes. Please. Tomorrow." "The whole month should be a holiday." "Call it Heritage Day." "I think the benefits would outweigh any economic losses; companies would see less sick time and absenteeism."

Opponents argued that the country's economy doesn't need another day where employees are paid for not coming to work. But I would suggest the recreational, tourism, cultural and hospitality sectors would stand to benefit from the extra spending the Heritage Day would likely encourage.

As a point of interest, Canadians currently have nine statutory holidays a year while Americans have 12, the British have 11 and the Spanish and Australians have 10. We have a fewer number of holidays than any other major western country.

The people of Simcoe county have a unique heritage to celebrate. This marks the 150th anniversary of the incorporation of the county of Simcoe. The county is named after Upper Canada's first Lieutenant Governor, John Graves Simcoe, who first explored the region 200 years ago.

There are more than 100 historical sites in the county that are located in the riding of Simcoe East and are marked with distinctive blue and bronze plaques. In September 1814, the Royal Navy captured the United States ships of war Tigress and Scorpion, and they were later sunk in Penetanguishene Bay.

Taking advantage of the rapids at what is now the village of Coldwater, members of the Ojibwa band constructed a grist mill in 1833 to serve the residents of the Coldwater reserve. By 1831, native black veterans of the war of 1812 accepted lands granted in Oro township to form the only government-sponsored black settlement in Upper Canada. The community grew to 100 settlers and flourished briefly until it was abandoned due to poor soil and harsh climate. That was in 1831. My ancestors came to Oro township in 1832.

So we talk here about our heritage. Pressure by land-hungry settlers in the vicinity of present-day Orillia forced the relocation, in 1838-39, of a band of Ojibwa led by Chief William Yellowhead to a new reserve in Rama township, which saw residents transformed from a nomadic to a settled lifestyle.

1110

George Cowan, known to his French Canadian employees as Jean Baptiste Constant, established an independent trading post on Matchedash Bay near the village of Coldwater in the late 1770s. His fur-dealing territory probably included most of present-day Muskoka, Simcoe and Haliburton.

The site of an Ojibwa reserve from 1830 to 1838, Orillia subsequently prospered as an agricultural and lumbering community. The transportation links with Toronto and Georgian Bay stimulated Orillia's development as a commercial centre and a summer resort.

The village plot of Penetanguishene had been surveyed as early as 1811, but there were no civilian settlers on the site until the troops and fur traders from Drummond Island began to relocate there in the 1820s. The nearby naval and military establishments helped to sustain the community during its early years.

These are only a few of the many historical figures or cultural groups that we could honour and celebrate on Heritage Day. That's the third Monday in February.

The story of Simcoe County, and all of Ontario for that matter, is one of growth and change. It is a story of the coming together of peoples of diverse backgrounds, beliefs and customs, of the effects of this encounter on them and on the land where they chose to anchor their dream for a better life.

Because the land was here long before the people who came to settle it, it's with the land that the province's story begins, but it is with the people of Ontario that this province's story continues.

Having said that, I believe an annual Heritage Day on the third Monday in February would increase awareness of the scope and value of our heritage, of our culture, resources, and encourage participants to preserve, promote, protect and develop their diverse heritage and cultures. It is a legacy we must enhance for our benefit and for the future of our children.

Over the last several years, I've had the opportunity to participate in putting plaques up honouring such people as the honourable E.C. Drury, who was Premier of this Province from 1919 to 1923, a man who established the highway system and the reforestation. We have many things to celebrate with regard to our heritage. These people who have honoured us with their forthright, superior outlook on this country should not be forgotten.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): The honourable member for Simcoe East will have two minutes in response. We will now proceed to every recognized party in the Legislature. They will have 15 minutes to participate in the debate.

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I'm delighted to speak in favour of a Heritage Day holiday for several related reasons.

Firstly, as we all know, February is the worst month of the year and we do need something to counteract the February blahs. Heritage Week is already helping to do that.

Secondly, we do need to underline the importance of heritage, and a holiday is an ideal way to do that, because a holiday gives us a chance to experience our heritage.

In fast-changing times, we need to hold on to our accumulated knowledge of the things that make life worthwhile. Old cities and towns, old buildings and old things like furniture, works of art, clothing, jewellery and furniture, photos and documents contribute to our sense of continuity. We need that for our psychological health.

Less tangible things, like national and family traditions, songs and dances and stories, can delight us and make us feel secure in our world. All these things incarnate values and beliefs; they express relationships; they give us a place to belong and tell us who we are; they remind us that we have much to lose if we lose touch with the past.

They're an important key to social justice and a necessity for healthy communities and they remind us of the delight that unspoiled nature gave our forefathers. The literature and poetry of the past are full of the beauties of nature. They remind us of the physical and mental benefits of having to do things the hard way and, on the other hand, of our good fortune in being so much more physically comfortable than our forefathers were. Canada in particular suffers from a lack of continuity and needs to build on its past, meld its traditions and develop new ones which will bring people together.

Then there is a third reason why we need this holiday. As technology races forward and each worker becomes more productive, there is less that needs to be done. We're looking at rates of unemployment that do not come down as the economy improves. Whole categories of workers are becoming redundant, and yet those who have jobs seem to work harder and have longer hours than ever. The unemployed are too poor and insecure to use their time creatively, while those with jobs -- and MPPs are a case in point -- have no time for their own lives. This makes no sense either in economic terms or in human terms.

We all need and want to work, but we all need time in which to be ourselves and enjoy our heritage. We need to read, to write a diary, to play games and dance and sing, to socialize, cultivate hobbies, produce works of art or enjoy the productions of others. We need time to walk and cycle, canoe and swim, to enjoy the beauties of nature, to pick flowers or tend our garden or raise our children and watch them grow, to enjoy being in this wonderful world and find out to the full who we are.

We only have nine holidays out of the 365 days in the year. People in the Middle Ages did better than that with all the saints' days they used to observe. The member opposite has already pointed out that Canada does not do well from the point of view of holidays. We need to shorten our worklife through shorter workweeks, earlier retirement, and more holidays and sabbaticals. That way there will be more jobs to go around, because they will be shared more widely.

All those people enjoying their leisure will create jobs too, in tourism and entertainment and sales of hobby materials. Wonderful things will be handmade and sold because people have the time to express themselves, thus enriching our lives and the economy. Days off when everyone else has a day off and community and family things can happen are especially rewarding and precious.

Heritage Week is a going concern and is the occasion of many imaginative and valuable community events, something my riding of Peterborough is particularly good at. Heritage Day is another step in the right direction. Let's do it.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I thank the member for Oriole for her strong support in this matter. I am very pleased to rise on my own behalf at the very least, since it's private members' hour, and support Mr McLean's private member's bill, which in effect would create a special holiday in February to celebrate our heritage.

This is certainly not a new idea -- thank you; the cavalry has come to the rescue with a glass of water. This is certainly not a new idea. In fact, it was first raised in 1973 by the Heritage Canada Foundation. They were advancing this idea in our federal Parliament. They gave a very good description of why it would be advantageous to have this special Heritage Day in February. They said:

"Because a holiday makes people sit up and take notice. It also provides a chance for celebration; in this case, a celebration of our history. Our country has a rich cultural past. Our homes, buildings and streetscapes are living history lessons, symbols of the past. Their preservation contributes to the feeling of identity and continuity in this diverse nation. It tells us something about our roots. It reminds us of who we are."

That was 1973, some 20 years ago, yet here we are debating, trying to make that holiday a reality in 1993.

1120

Mr McLean has had a very ongoing interest in this issue and did present a private member's bill in the last Parliament, where it was debated. In fact, one of my former colleagues, David Fleet, the member for High Park-Swansea, on the very same day that Mr McLean presented his bill presented a very similar one which not only would establish a day in February as Heritage Day but would also regularize, if you would like to use that word, Simcoe Day and make that a statutory holiday.

I'm very supportive of this direction, and it isn't only because of the heritage. That is a very important component, particularly in a place like Ontario where we are very diverse, where we have many people from very many different nations who have come together and now live as Canadians. It's irrelevant whether you're English or Scottish, if you're Croatian, if you are from Jamaica. No matter where you came from, one of the advantages we have in Canada is that people bring their strengths, they bring parts of their culture, and this enriches our nation. It was once said that the United States was a melting pot but Canada was a vertical mosaic, because instead of melting, we do retain those strengths from our previous heritages and cultures.

One of the things the Heritage Canada Foundation had suggested was that there be a focal point for the first three years of celebration of Heritage Day. The first, they said, could be the celebration of the Canadian flag, for instance, which was proclaimed on February 15, 1965. In the second year, it was suggested that Canada's first Prime Minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, could be celebrated, since his birthday falls in that month. In the third year, we could celebrate the importance and contributions of Canada's native people, the first citizens of our country. One of David Fleet's suggestions was that in the fourth year, we could celebrate a very important historic event to our country, the installation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is a very important element of our heritage.

I would like to just mention a few general reasons why I support a holiday in February.

The pace that we've undergone in the last decade has been astronomical. I remember reading studies in the early 1980s saying that we were going to become a leisure society and that we should start to prepare ourselves for having more recreational time, more time to devote to our hobbies and our aspirations other than work. In reality, the converse happened, and today the pace is far quicker than it was in the early 1980s. We have far less recreational time, less time to spend with our families, less time to renew ourselves.

I am very supportive of adding a few more holidays to our calendar so that we can as a people renew ourselves, as the member for Peterborough has just talked about, so we can smell the flowers and walk in the park -- well, maybe not in February; walk through the snowfields in the park. But I think it's very important. From a purely pragmatic point of view, productivity suffers when we don't take the pause to renew ourselves.

I'd like to bring up one special issue which is somewhat unique in Canada, and that's our Canadian winters. They are very harsh, they are very long, and at times they are very demanding. I think if you look at the number of suicides in January and February in Canada, there's no doubt that the weather and the climate contribute to a great depression. But think of the mindset when you know there's a holiday coming. Doesn't it lift your spirits? Doesn't it make you think, "Oh, there's one day I don't have to go into work, that I can spend time with my family, with my friends, that I can go to a concert, that I can walk in the snowbound park," whatever? So it's for very emotional reasons that I think it's important we have that opportunity to renew ourselves.

I could probably go on at great length to explain why I feel holidays are very important, and it isn't because we don't work hard as Canadians. I think we work too hard in some measure. We have to learn to pace ourselves. We have to learn to appreciate that there are other things to life than our work. If we can combine two things, to create this opportunity to renew plus to celebrate our heritage, this is an excellent opportunity. I very much would urge all members of the House from all parties to combine these two worthy aspects and to support Mr McLean's bill. I thank him very much for bringing this issue to the House's attention.

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I'm pleased this morning to rise and speak in support of Bill 2, An Act respecting Heritage Day. I thank the member for Simcoe East for bringing this legislation forward. I know he is deeply committed to establishing an official holiday that will serve to enhance our understanding and respect for our diverse heritage, especially in the riding that I represent, the riding of Lanark-Renfrew.

I was pleased with the presentation made this morning by the member for Peterborough on the values of our heritage not only in buildings and architecture but in people, and that we should have time to sit back, study it and learn from it.

In this presentation this morning, I would like to illustrate why I believe an official holiday respecting heritage is necessary. In my riding and throughout Ontario, I believe the holiday will instil a deeper understanding of how our past shapes our present and our future. The holiday will serve to educate and to promote the historical values which are the lifeblood of our communities, our municipalities, our counties and our province.

Bill 2 will designate the third Monday in February as Heritage Day. On this day and perhaps during the week, individuals and families across the province will celebrate their heritage background and historical roots in Ontario. In the past, heritage has been seen as a means by which we could preserve and recognize structures and buildings. However, since the Heritage Act was passed in 1974, our understanding of heritage has been transformed into a mode that considers the individual, the family and the community.

While the recognition and protection of great historical buildings is certainly important, this is only one of the aspects of heritage. Heritage is about people. Heritage is about people and the total environment in which they live. It can be more precisely defined as the living context that we have inherited from the past which enriches the present and shapes the future. These are the values which will be expressed by this Legislative Assembly when we create Heritage Day.

We should really look at Heritage Day as sort of a professional development day. We have that now in our education system for the teachers and the students. If we look at Heritage Day not just as a holiday but as a professional development day and a day of education, a day of understanding the history that surrounds us in our own communities, in our own ridings, we become more aware and more knowledgeable of our past and, from that, then we are more prepared to face the future.

1130

In order to demonstrate the importance, I would like to talk about some of the rich heritage that is found in my riding of Lanark-Renfrew and how it has affected the people and the community.

I could start with the town of Almonte, a very historical community. I just want to touch on a couple of items. At Almonte, what's been known as the Auld Kirk Cemetery is a real historical spot in Ramsay township, just outside the town of Almonte. There's considerable history there.

The history of that site known as the Auld Kirk actually includes the location at which the families of our present Lieutenant Governor, the Honourable Henry N.R. Jackman, settled. I'd just like to tie that location into our present Lieutenant Governor. When he visited our riding to present the medals, he was pleased to go past this site and see the state of repair. It's been very well maintained.

The structure was built in 1836 by the local congregation of the Established Church of Scotland. The church was attended by Presbyterian settlers from several neighbouring townships. The value of the building and the location, and even the cemetery itself, has been seen for a number of years as a historical point. I'm proud to say that it has been well maintained and attracts a number of people each year during the tourist season.

Almonte was founded and established during the 1850s, along with the development of several woollen mills and the construction of a railway line to Brockville. By 1870, the village of Almonte was one of the leading centres in Ontario for the manufacturing of woollen cloth.

I can mention the Rosamond mill. The leading figures in the Almonte woollen trade were James Rosamond and his sons, Bennett and William. This family was instrumental in the development of the woollen industry along the Mississippi River valley. By 1890, Almonte was reputedly the seat of the woollen trade in all of Canada.

Also, just outside of Almonte, in Ramsay township, we have the heritage centre being developed for Dr James Naismith, the founder of basketball. He was a medical doctor but he also saw the need to establish a game that could be played outdoors and could involve the young in summer or winter. When he started that game it was a soccer ball he used. He took a bushel basket and cut it in two and that was the basket, so the name "basketball," as it was affixed at each end of the playing field. James Naismith was born in Ramsay township in 1891. The committee has been set up now to go ahead and establish a recreation youth centre there in honour of Dr James Naismith.

Moving on over to Carleton Place, Carleton Place was originally called Morphy's Falls. This settlement is on the Mississippi River. It took the name of Carleton Place in 1830 when the post office was officially opened.

In the riding of Lanark-Renfrew we have been very fortunate in many small rivers which, although small, have waterfalls on them to the degree that they were capable of running flour mills, saw mills, electrical generating plants and so on. For instance, we have the Mississippi River starting out with the electrical generating plant at High Falls. This is a heritage plant in itself, and I'm hoping Ontario Hydro will see fit to restore that plant because it always has been a good tourist attraction. It would be nice to see it maintained as a heritage site.

It's very efficiently operated at the present time through automation from the control centre that used to be at Smiths Falls and they have now moved that in to Ottawa at Maryville. But the Mississippi had the plant at High Falls and it had the plant at Morphy's Falls at Carleton Place, also generating electricity, following on through to Galetta, where again we had the falls and another generating plant. Galetta has now gone to private enterprise and has been redeveloped and is generating power very efficiently.

Moving over to the town of Perth, the Scottish immigrants and soldiers discharged from the Glengarry Light Infantry and other regiments formed the majority of early settlers in Perth in 1816. Within six months of its formation the settlement contained some 1,500 people. At Perth the last fatal duel took place in 1833. Participants of the last fatal duel fought in Upper Canada were two law students, John Wilson and Robert Lyon. Some disparaging remarks by Lyon about Miss Elizabeth Hughes prompted the duel in which Lyon was mortally wounded. That was the last fatal duel; it was in 1833. There's a park named after that historic event and it's another tourist attraction as you visit the town of Perth.

There are many other historical sites in the town of Perth. I think I could safely say that the town of Perth has been the leader in restoring historic buildings in their community. They've done an excellent job and certainly they're an example for other communities who have buildings such as Perth has. The foresight that they have to go ahead and restore the architecture and the history of those locations speaks well of the community, of the council, of the heritage committee and the leaders generally.

Over at Smiths Falls we have the Rideau waterway. It forms a major part of the town's history. It was constructed between 1826 and 1832 for military purposes. The Rideau waterway, together with the lower Ottawa River, formed the first canalized route from Montreal to the Great Lakes.

I could go on for some time on the different events in my riding because it lent itself very well to the early settlers because of the power of the rivers and the timber that was available at that time for the sawmills.

Just to mention, Arnprior was initially settled in 1824 by some 80 Scottish Highlanders under the patriarchal rule of Archibald McNab. This settlement along the Ottawa River later became McNab township and was further developed with the help of Daniel McLaughlin, who recognized the potential of the Madawaska watershed and built the sawmills on the Ottawa River.

I could go on on the history of the riding of Lanark-Renfrew, but in closing I would just like to say once again that by pointing out the many historical and heritage sites, we can surely see the need for one day a year that we could have to sit down and meditate on and talk about and communicate with our families and our neighbours on all these historical heritage values that we have there to enjoy.

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): I too am very pleased to be able to join in this debate on Bill 2 from the member for Simcoe East. It's a very important subject. While I'm tempted to extol the virtues of the riding I represent -- I think you'll all understand that there is a lot to say about the Kingston and The Islands area -- and if I don't it's not because I don't want to make you people feel badly about not coming from an area so richly blessed that you'd feel second-rate; it's because there are a couple of things I want to mention that I think the member for Simcoe East has brought to bear in this bill.

1140

One thing that won't surprise you to hear is that the Kingston area has considered the idea of a Heritage Day. Back in the late 1970s, the town council named the third Monday in February Sir John A. Macdonald Day and considered that to be at least a city holiday. It was in part in keeping with the discussion in the federal Parliament that there would be a national holiday the third Monday in February. At that time, it was expected, too, that this would be taken up across the country. So union contracts mention this day as a holiday. Where I worked at Queen's University it still is a holiday, called Heritage Day.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Do they all go to work?

Mr Gary Wilson: Well, everybody doesn't honour it. It did have the advantage of freeing parents at a time when their kids were still in school. It was a special day, partly for that reason.

But the other thing I want to mention about the Kingston area -- somewhat like the member for Lanark-Renfrew mentioned; the communities have valued their heritage and have worked at it -- is that the work that went on in Kingston laid the basis for the Ontario Heritage Act of 1974.

I was pleased to chair a committee that was looking at that act in the past couple of years to see how it could be improved for today's circumstances. I think the thing that we found was, as has been clear in the remarks that have been made to this point, that there's no escaping heritage; heritage is what we are, and unless we understand what we are, where we came from, then we won't know where we're going. Or to put it more positively, if we understand where we've come from, then we have a better idea about where we're going and we can make plans for that. Heritage, as has been suggested, is seen to be in all aspects of our life.

Built heritage is one of the areas where it first gained prominence and was what the communities focused on initially, because buildings crumbled, and these buildings were important in the life of those communities. It was important to find ways to preserve the buildings so that the record of our past would be kept in this visible way.

But heritage goes beyond that, into the natural heritage, for instance. I know we all value the natural beauty and makeup of our ridings, as we do the architectural.

A third is what has been called "intangible" but also is referred to now as "living heritage," the languages, the customs, the traditions that we have all grown up in and value and want to see persist. This is why we're coming together, to make sure that this whole aspect of heritage will survive into the future, again because that is the basis, that is what has defined us as people, and we want to make sure that it stays strong.

I think the thing we want to take from the members who have spoken, justifiably of course, in saying what is so important and valuable in their ridings is that it is the strength of heritage throughout Ontario, in all our communities, that will determine the strength of the province, that will give the life to our province and the direction that we want it to go. Again, this is of course a very important aspect of social justice and why our government values heritage so strongly and has spent so much time in looking at the best way of improving the heritage act. With this high priority, I'm pleased to say that we expect the first reading of new heritage legislation in the spring.

Again, it's the community strength that comes from heritage that we want to strengthen in these aspects. Someone mentioned the idea of work as an example of where heritage isn't always recognized. Of course, the holiday recognizes that in one way; we take some time off work. But again it's the work that has built our province that we want to make sure we recognize, not only in taking it off but in how we have built this province to the extent that we have and how we can continue to strengthen it, and I suggest it is through strong heritage legislation. I'm pleased to say that the member for Simcoe East's bill highlights that, and I support it.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I'm pleased to rise today and participate in this debate about whether or not we should have a Heritage Day as a statutory holiday in Ontario. This isn't the first time that we've had this debate or this discussion in this Legislature. In fact, there's been discussion going back and support for this back into the 1980s, and I recollect some of that discussion very well.

One of the pieces of information that I don't think has been shared with the House this morning relates to the Ontario Advisory Council on Women's Issues report. That organization was established in 1973 by the former Conservative government, but it was in April 1989 that it made a report regarding the effect of public holidays, not only on women but on families. Their recommendation 29, which was included in that report of April 1989, stated as follows:

"That the number of statutory public holidays in Ontario be increased to 10, adding the August civic holiday and a family day in February to existing public holidays; and

"That the exemptions in" other sections of the act "and all...exclusions by regulation be deleted, so that all employees in Ontario are entitled to a minimum of 10 public holidays per year."

The rationale they presented for this was that at present, and I refer to this 1989 report: "In Ontario, there are eight statutory public holidays over the year.... In 1984, as many as 55.9% private sector employees, and 76.3% unionized employees, had 11 or more paid holidays per year. There is no justifiable reason why 10 public holidays cannot be the minimum standard for all Ontario workers."

They go on to say, "Public holidays are a basic standard which improve working and living conditions, contribute to improved family life, and may lead to increased productivity."

I refer to this report because I would very much like to support the notion of 10 statutory holidays as being the standard for Ontario, and then within that the concept of a holiday for Heritage Day, or as I would like to propose, that we consider that in celebration of Sir John A. Macdonald's birthday in January. They would very much come together as a day in the winter when we could celebrate our heritage and when we could also celebrate the history of this country.

In the riding of Oriole -- I often describe it as a riding which really reflects the multicultural nature of this province -- the people I have the honour and the privilege to represent frequently remind me of not only the importance of their heritage to the diversity of this province, but also just how much the cultural nature of the province has changed, to the benefit of the people of Ontario.

It seems to me that we could combine the advice from the Ontario women's advisory committee from 1989, the advice from Mr McLean for a Heritage Day, and the advice from others who have been advocating, and we've seen other private members' bills in this Legislature requesting support for a January holiday on the birthday of Sir John A. Macdonald.

It seemed to me that this resolution could be worthy of support, with the caveat that it could go to an all-party committee that would look at all of these recommendations and determine whether or not a Heritage Day/celebration of Sir John A. Macdonald's birthday wouldn't be a wonderful opportunity for us to celebrate not only the history of the development of our country, our first Prime Minister, but also a celebration of our cultural diversity and the benefits that Ontario has received because of the hard work and the dedication of the immigrant population who have come to make Ontario their home.

So it's not only the heritage and the culture and the traditions of those of us who had the privilege to be born here, whose parents and grandparents, such as mine, had the good sense to move to Canada, to make Ontario their home, but also a celebration of the diversity which waves of immigration that followed have brought to this province. In the riding of Oriole, I've often said that in the plazas the cultural diversity is evident, but we really don't have a focus for that celebration.

It seems to me that a statutory holiday in the middle of our bleak winters -- I commend the member for Eglinton for having pointed out that often we do see a despair that is unrelated to the recession we're presently in, but just to the cold climate, to the time of the year, to the dreariness of our winters. By the time we get to January or February, we need a lift.

1150

If that would increase overall productivity, as we know the experience has been from the other statutory holidays, if we could bring greater fairness by having a standard that said 10 is the number of statutory holidays for everyone in the province, not just those in unionized workplaces and those who work for the government, we could couple those desires for that kind of a lift in the middle of the winter with a celebration of our heritage and our history in the celebration, as I cite, of the birthday of Sir John A. Macdonald.

This debate goes back prior to 1981. I have some news clips of advocates for a statutory holiday to celebrate Sir John A. Macdonald's birthday. A lawyer by the name of Harvey Haber, who lives in my neighbourhood and just outside the riding boundary of Oriole, has been an advocate for many years to recognize Sir John A.'s birthday as a statutory holiday in January. Whether it is in January or in February, it certainly seems to me that it would be an appropriate celebration and a chance to celebrate our cultural diversity.

In January 1983, the Toronto Star called for a Macdonald Day celebration. Whether we call it Macdonald Day, Sir John A. Macdonald's birthday, or Heritage Day -- and I would remind you that we celebrate Queen Victoria's birthday in May and it happens to be very close to my own birthday so I'm always aware of the Queen's birthday; we know that's a good excuse for a celebration in this country -- I support the idea but would like to see it go to committee so it could be discussed further and not just be viewed as a Rae day.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): I'm actually very happy to have the chance to stand up today and talk a little bit about Bill 2. Heritage to this member is very important. Heritage to my family is very important. Heritage to my community is very important. Heritage means a lot. To every person in society, it means something different.

I think that people need to respect heritage. This bill, and I am going to support it, clearly tells me that there are some members across the floor who do respect heritage and who believe there should be some sort of celebration in terms of heritage.

I could never understand why heritage has never been a part of other holidays that we celebrate during the year. While we take other days off in government and other days off in the communities, I could never understand why heritage was never a part of it.

Why aren't we celebrating heritage? Why aren't we celebrating our history? That's what it's all about. Why don't we take that time to reflect upon our roots, our ancestors, our families? Why don't we as a government say, "Enough is enough," and as a House say, "Enough is enough; let's talk about our heritage; let's think about our heritage"?

I'm going to support this bill, but I want the member to remember one thing: There will be a cry out there. There will be people who will say, "No more holidays for government employees." They'll say, "Without pay." I want you to remember that. I don't necessarily agree with it. I think everybody should reflect on heritage, but remember that there will be some flak on this. There will be some people, even in your own caucus, who say: "Don't do this. We don't need another day of rest in government."

I understand that I have a colleague who wants to say a few words. I'll be supporting it.

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): I want to bring to your attention very briefly the importance of heritage to tourism. As you know, I represent Niagara Falls, which is a natural resource and natural wonder of the world, but it is also heritage, and very many people don't recognize this. When you think of tourism anywhere, it basically is heritage and natural resource. Those are the two important things.

I think in this House we would all agree that the appreciation of heritage is not just one day but must be appreciated as part of our economy. It must be an economic viability.

I want to point out that Niagara is a very historic area. For instance, the Battle of Lundy's Lane: A new book just came out last week by Don Graves from Ottawa, explaining the battle of Lundy's Lane. I recommend it to you. There is also a historic site called the Chippawa Battlefield which is now being developed by members of our community, by the municipality, by international interests as well as provincial and federal levels of involvement. So it's a very exciting thing.

I want to say that heritage in the future should be more a part of tourism, especially in the Niagara area.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Simcoe East has some time to sum up.

Mr McLean: First of all, I want to thank the members for Peterborough, Eglinton, Lanark-Renfrew, Kingston and The Islands, Oriole, Yorkview and Niagara Falls for their comments and support for Bill 2, the Heritage Day Act.

The issues that have been brought out here this morning of the importance of remembering our heritage should never be forgotten. There are probably few families that have done the family tree and gone back and researched, through history, where they have come from. Our family came from England and Scotland in 1832 and settled in Oro township, probably totally bush at that time. In the early 1900s, my father took wood to the then village of Orillia with a team of horses and a sleigh for a $1.25 a cord. This is some of the heritage I have and that I remember. My grandson will be the seventh generation, I hope, that would have farmed in Oro township.

Many of the people who came to this country worked the land and lived off the land. So I say there are a lot of people who have not gone as far back as some of us have, and my family tree goes back to the 1700s. This is just part of a little history of some heritage that we shouldn't forget.

There have been some private members' bills that have passed in this Legislature. I remember when Mr McClellan sat in this seat here some years ago in opposition and brought in a bill that would extend daylight saving time, a very worthwhile bill that did change society in Ontario to a certain extent, that made daylight saving time about a month longer. Dianne Cunningham initiated a bill with regard to bicycle helmets. The government has taken over the thrust of that bill and has made that into law. I think this bill is just as important as any of the other bills that have passed in private members' hour, because of our heritage.

There is one thing we should not forget. From January 1 to Easter, there has been no time off. The member for Niagara Falls made a very important point when she talked about the tourism aspect. The ski resorts that we have, the outdoor sports that we have now and the way people would like to travel now in the winter would be a great boon, I think, to our tourism industry. But not only that, the main importance is that we do not forget our history and our heritage.

I would hope that the members of the government would see fit that this bill could be recommended to go to committee to have a further in-depth look and some input from people across the province. We look at the poll that the Toronto Star did, which indicated over 90% of the people thought that the third Monday in February would be a good time for a heritage holiday. I agree with them, and I will hope that every member would support this. I thank them for that support.

The Acting Speaker: This completes the time allotted for private members' hour.

CASINO GAMBLING

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): We will now be dealing with ballot item number 35, first introduced this morning at 10 o'clock by Mr Kwinter.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Mr Kwinter's motion carry?

All those in favour please say "aye."

All those opposed please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Call in the members. A five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1202 to 1207.

The Acting Speaker: Would all members please take their seats. We now shall deal with Mr Kwinter's resolution, ballot item number 35, private member's notice of motion number 30. All those in favour of Mr Kwinter's resolution, please rise and remain standing until recognized by the clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Bradley, Brown, Caplan, Cunningham, Johnson (Don Mills), Jordan, Kwinter, McClelland, McLean, Miclash, O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Offer, Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poole, Ruprecht, Sorbara, Sterling, Stockwell, Wilson (Simcoe West).

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed to Mr Kwinter's motion, please rise and remain standing until recognized by the clerk.

Nays

Abel, Akande, Bisson, Carter, Cooper, Dadamo, Duignan, Ferguson, Frankford, Haeck, Hansen, Harrington, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martin, Mathyssen, Murdock (Sudbury), O'Connor, Owens, Sutherland, Waters, Wessenger, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood.

The Acting Speaker: The ayes are 20; the nays 34. I declare the motion lost.

HERITAGE DAY ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LE JOUR DU PATRIMOINE

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): We shall now deal with Mr McLean's ballot item number 26, the second reading of Bill 2. Are there any members opposed to a vote on Mr McLean's private member's motion? Is it the pleasure of the House that Mr McLean's bill carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. I declare the motion carried.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I ask that the bill go to the standing committee on general government for further consideration.

The Acting Speaker: Do we have consensus that the motion go to the general government committee?

All those in favour of going to general government, please rise and remaining standing. We will get a consensus.

We do not have a consensus, therefore the motion will go to committee of the whole.

It now being past 12 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1212 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): I condemn the NDP government of this province for the recent changes to the General Welfare Assistance Act, which have had a serious impact on sponsored immigrants and refugees in my riding and across the province.

People have been placed in dire straits. Their support has been cut without sufficient warning, and in some instances with no warning at all, to only $50. This has left many people with no money to pay rent or buy food.

The devastating impact of this change has been brought to my attention by organizations like Neighbourhood Legal Services and local advocates like Kim Garvin.

The government should withdraw this regulation and redo it properly.

On a better note, I had the pleasure of attending last evening the presentation of the Ontario police medals for bravery and the firefighters medals for bravery. Each of those honoured deserves our commendations.

I wish to applaud in particular one of the recipients, who lives in my riding. Constable Todd Hillhouse received the Ontario Medal for Police Bravery. Mr Hillhouse and other police officers forced their way into a smoke-filled, burning building and rescued the people trapped inside. Constable Hillhouse said he was only doing his job. But he is a hero doing a job in which the police and firefighters put their lives on the line for each of us every day.

The stabbing of Detective Constable Bruce Ward last night is an example of how difficult a job it is. Constable Hillhouse and Constable Ward need the assistance of this government, because as police numbers are reduced in areas like Regent Park in my riding it will only make a dangerous job more so.

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement is for the Minister of Community and Social Services and it concerns the government's most recent funding for children's services.

Foster parents like Isabel Seguin and Margaret Smit of Orillia and Shirley Black of Brechin have written to me to express their outrage over your government's plan to claw back a portion of the federal children's special allowance. This money is given to parents by Ottawa to offset some of the costs of raising children. This money has been traditionally collected by children's aid societies for the children in their care.

You and your government did not consult with your own staff or with the children's aid society when you were developing this plan to cut budgets. You know from your own directives that the CAS budgets have already been cut to the bone, and now you want to claw back money needed for food, clothing and other basic needs of children in their care.

Your government is penalizing foster parents who are faced with the challenge of fostering emotionally hurt, neglected and abused children daily. How can you justify reducing rates for foster care when foster parents in Simcoe county have not received an increase in three years?

I cannot accept measures which directly hurt children. Your government's move to claw back the special allowance is outrageous, insensitive and irresponsible.

LANDFILL

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): I know that many people in this House are anxious to know my view on the IWA's announcement that it has chosen one of its technically preferred sites in my riding in the town of Pickering.

Some history of this is important. Durham region had five sites identified and walked away from this site process when this government determined that the process for P1 was wrong. The province took over a bad situation and did the best possible, including the 3Rs. I believe it was the right thing to do, to pull the exemption on P1, because it was clearly arbitrary and would have seen Metro's garbage come to Pickering once again.

I am not pleased with the fact that Pickering will be host to yet another dump, even though it will not be host to Metro's garbage. The current dump in my riding, Brock West, is a menace and no community should have to put up with a continual barrage of negative impacts so that people living in other jurisdictions can have a more comfortable lifestyle.

I made all these points to the IWA, as many people have. However, they are at arm's length from politicians, and I believe that politicians should not choose the location of dumps, as the previous government's Premier did.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Wiseman: Where do I go? I don't go anywhere. I continue to do what I did before I was elected and since I was elected and will continue to do. I will work closely with the community, especially Pickering Ajax Citizens Together for the Environment, the mayor's task force and the mayor of Pickering. I will help them in any way I can to ensure that this process is followed fairly and adheres to the Environmental Assessment Act.

I was elected by my community, I respect their rights and I will work to ensure that their rights are protected.

JOSEPH LABELLE

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): I join with a number of my colleagues in recognition of individuals who reside in our ridings who have been recognized for their bravery, those firefighters and police officers who have literally stood in harm's way on our behalf.

I note that my friend the member for St George-St David paid tribute to an individual who lives in his riding who, together with Constable Joseph Labelle of the riding of Brampton North, on the night of January 21, 1993, ran into a burning building and in so doing saved the lives of other people.

I think it appropriate that we pay tribute to these individuals and I want to publicly recognize the contribution of Mr Joseph Labelle and the fact that he was a recipient for a medal of bravery, pay tribute to him and in so doing, pay tribute to the many, literally thousands, of women and men who put their lives on the line for us every day. We wish them continued success and God's blessing and care on their lives, and thank them for what they are doing.

I pay tribute and offer my personal respect to M. Labelle and his family and trust that he will know that our thoughts are sincere in extending to him every congratulation and best wish on the receipt of this prestigious and well-deserved award.

TIMISKAMING LAND DISPUTE

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): This statement is for the attention of the Minister of Natural Resources. Since 1973, 10,000 square kilometres of land in Temagami have been frozen while negotiations were held between the government and native people who have claimed that land.

Last weekend the Teme-Augama natives rejected the most recent offer of settlement. This band flatly rejected the province's offer of $15 million and 300 square kilometres of land after four years of negotiation and several extensions.

Hundreds if not thousands of jobs rely on the natural resources which are frozen due to this caution. The province has now spent hundreds of thousands of dollars supporting this process and numerous businesses have already gone bankrupt because of it.

I am pleased to see, according to today's report in the Globe and Mail, that the minister has finally decided to pursue the lifting of the land cautions through the courts. We hope this action on the part of the government provides some optimism for the people who depend upon the resources of the Temagami region, and we look forward to the future creation of resource-based jobs in Temagami right through to Lanark-Renfrew.

PLAINS ROAD CHILD CARE CENTRE

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): Yesterday I had the pleasure of attending the grand opening of the Plains Road Child Care Centre incorporated in my riding of York East. This is the first child care facility in Metro Toronto that has converted from a private to a non-profit agency.

The actual conversion occurred September 1, 1993. The new centre, located at the Canadian Martyrs school, employs nine staff and has a licensed capacity for 54 children ranging in age from 18 months to 10 years old.

The conversion of this child care program allowed the East York community to retain child care spaces. If the conversion had not taken place, the former commercial program was going to close. There would then have been a loss of child care spaces for children and families living in East York.

To date, 32 child care operations have converted to non-profit management, which represents more than 2,100 child care spaces. These conversions are the result of our government's commitment to the delivery and accountability of child care services within the non-profit sector.

1340

BUSINESS AWARDS

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): Over the past month business leaders throughout northwestern Ontario have been honoured for their impressive contributions to the economic prosperity of both their individual communities and the province.

On October 28, business leaders of the Nishnawbe-Aski Nation gathered in Thunder Bay for the third annual Nishnawbe-Aski Nation business awards banquet. Noreen Peters of Pikangikum was named Business Woman of the Year for her successful business selling yard goods and craft supplies in her community, and Thomas Grey of Cat Lake was honoured as Business Man of the Year for his hotel, taxi, outpost camp and aircraft operations.

On the same night in Kenora, the Kenora Chamber of Commerce held its annual business awards ceremony. Award recipients for 1993 were Woody Linton of Crime Stoppers as Executive of the Year; Charlene Hall of Fusion North as Entrepreneur of the Year; Elizabeth Campbell of the Book Store as Young Entrepreneur of the Year; Bowman Electric Ltd as Company of the Year, 1 to 20 employees; and Devlin Timber as Company of the Year, 20-plus employees.

Finally, it was with great pleasure that I joined my leader, Lyn McLeod, and my northern colleague Mike Brown and over 500 northern business leaders at the northern Ontario business awards dinner on November 4 in Thunder Bay.

This year's top northern Ontario business awards honour was for a business of 20-plus employees and it went to Bearskin Airlines of Sioux Lookout in my riding. This is an operation that started as a very small operation in the small community of Bear Lake and has now progressed significantly.

On behalf of all members of the House, and especially the members of the northern caucus, may I offer my sincere congratulations to all the award nominees and winners for the superior work they have done in their communities throughout the north.

WCB PREMIUMS

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): Once again it's necessary to call attention to the ways in which the Ministry of Labour is trying to drive agriculture not only out of the province but out of business. When it isn't minimum wage increases or labour relations, it's massive increases in workers' compensation rates. The 1994 rates are proof that the WCB is certainly out of touch. For the agriculture and food industry, most rate changes run far in excess of inflation.

For farms, there are substantial increases: livestock farms up 8%; fruit and vegetable up 8.5%; mushroom farms up 16.5%; veterinary and agricultural services up 13%; landscaping and related services up 25.5%. On the food processing side: poultry products up 14%; fruit and vegetable products up 7.5%. In retail and wholesale food: retail up 5.5%; specialty food stores up 10%; agricultural product sales up a full whopping 26%. Enough is enough.

Instead of looking at itself and its rulings, the WCB thinks it can keep hiking rates. Just as the Liberals did, the New Democrats think they can keep raising taxes. We all pay: producers, processors, transporters, retailers and of course consumers. We're all consumers. That's not the case with agriculture and the processing of food. The farmer and the producer are not at fault. We have very much bureaucracy and taxes, much to blame for these increases.

MEMBERS' HOCKEY GAME

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): We've heard the public and inside this House make statements like: "Politicians are skating on thin ice." "How is the minister going to stick-handle that issue?" "The government is offside on that issue." Even you, Mr Speaker, have given penalties and even ejected members from this House.

Well, MPPs against the NHL Oldtimers will be taking place in the city of Chatham, at the Chatham Memorial Arena, this Saturday evening, where we will have an opportunity to face off and where the politicians will have the ability to use their stick-handling ability and their skating ability on thin ice, to do it in the arena.

We'll be playing people like Paul Henderson, who, we all remember in 1972 against the Russians, got the winning goal. We'll also be playing against members like Andy Bathgate, Billy Harris, Keith McCreary, Mike Pelyk and others. Normie Ullman will be there to be a part of this process.

This process and the proceeds will be going to the Make A Wish Foundation, which is a program that's put together by the Woodstock Institute and Sertoma Health Centre. It is to help young people in our community in the east end and also to revitalize the community itself.

Mr Speaker, I enjoin you, other members and the public to participate in this event by buying tickets in advance for $7 or at the door for $9 for adults, and for children under 12, $5 in advance and $7 at the door. We hope we will see you and other members there. You will also get the opportunity to see the Premier use his stick-handling ability in scoring goals for us.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ONTARIO LEAD INVESTMENT FUND

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I rise today to tell the House about a unique new partnership between government and the private sector, a new $70-million venture capital initiative called the Ontario lead investment fund, OLIF.

I've just returned from a press conference during which the Premier, the Minister of Finance and I were joined by representatives from our leading financial institutions to officially launch the fund. The fund will be an innovative arrangement between the government and the private sector, working together to promote investment, economic growth and jobs in Ontario.

As the Premier said recently, to renew this province and this country requires a common effort, a clear recognition that no group or institution can do it alone. The development of the fund reflects this recognition.

With the Ontario lead investment fund, our government acted as the catalyst in bringing financial institutions, some of which have had little history of cooperation with one another, together to establish this much-needed source of venture capital and expertise. To quote the chairman and CEO of Bank of Montreal, Matthew Barrett: "This new financial institution will be the first major public-private venture capital initiative in Ontario that includes Canada's major financial institutions. It will be the first 'fund of funds' created in Canada's venture capital market."

I'd like to take a few minutes to give you a history of this initiative, I'd like to explain why we believe its development is crucial to ensuring that Ontario is prepared to meet the demands of the new economy, and I'd like to briefly outline how the fund will operate.

The idea for the fund was first made public when we released our industrial policy framework in 1992. The industrial policy described the need to develop Ontario's innovative growth firms. These firms are typically small or medium-sized companies with a home base in Ontario which have a track record of exceptional growth. They are firms with the potential to provide new jobs and more growth in the years ahead.

These firms realize that to succeed in the 1990s, new ways of doing business are required. They're developing new products, new ways of organizing production processes, innovative management of technology, creative marketing and original design ideas, all of which require capital and expertise.

As a government, we need to encourage the creation and growth of these companies, we need to find ways to meet the challenge of increasing global competition and we need to facilitate the move to a higher value added economy. That is how we are going to create, in the long run, new long-term jobs here in Ontario. We believe that OLIF achieves a very big first step in meeting these objectives by providing expertise and more long-term capital to innovative growth companies.

Last year, a private sector advisory committee was established to help design the fund. Through consultations with business, the financial community and labour, the committee finally agreed on a few key principles.

First, they pinpointed the need to design a vehicle to make long-term equity investments in innovative growth companies, particularly knowledge-based companies. Second, they recognized the need for a structure that would be arm's-length from government and that wouldn't create a big bureaucracy. Third, they highlighted the need for a structure that would maximize strategic partnering in the economy and cooperation among key stakeholders. Fourth, and perhaps most important, a structure was needed that linked specialized expertise with new pools of capital.

This is because many young companies on the threshold of expansion lack the depth and breadth of management to meet all of the challenges involved in growing to meet their full potential. We needed to ensure that specialized expertise and capital went hand in hand. That's where OLIF comes in.

The fundamental objective of the Ontario lead investment fund is to allow capital and expertise to flow to innovative growth firms that have the potential to produce jobs and superior long-term returns. OLIF will pool funds from the Ontario government and major financial investors on a 40%-60% basis. It will be jointly run by all of its investors, with no single institution, including the government, holding a controlling vote.

1350

OLIF will be a fund of funds. It will promote and be the lead investor in a number of individual expert investment corporations, EICs, that will be formed to invest in specific business areas. These EICs will make direct investments and provide specific technological, market and management expertise to the companies in which they invest.

Our fund complements, and does not duplicate, existing private sector financing. That's why it focuses on Ontario's small and medium-sized knowledge-based growth firms. These are the companies that currently do not have readily available access to funds on reasonable terms and in the amounts required. Such firms are found in various sectors of the new economy, including health, biotechnology, energy and environmental technology, telecommunications and information technologies.

OLIF will encourage strategic partnering and cooperation. It will bring together major financial institutions and the Ontario government to jointly make investment decisions, and it will encourage new teams to form EICs, which may involve corporations, venture capital companies, universities and investment managers.

As Gordon Cheesbrough, chairman and CEO of ScotiaMcLeod, said earlier today: "The OLIF will encourage new partnerships that can bring the specialized expertise needed alongside capital to help grow Ontario companies successfully. We expect that it will become a key source of venture capital for Ontario."

When the fund starts making commitments to EICs, it will leverage at least $6 of private funding for every dollar of government money invested. This kind of effort will go a long way to supporting the growth of new jobs and new industries in this province.

This is a long-term investment. It balances the many immediate job creation investments that we have launched over the past months, including Jobs Ontario and our infrastructure initiatives, and it demonstrates that, together with our partners in business, in labour and in communities across the province, by that partnership we are making the investments required to put Ontario back to work.

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): I welcome the announcement of the minister. I think the investment fund is an idea with some merit, and I think it's important that Ontario channel the province's savings into high-growth, high-tech companies. Setting up a partnership with private sector banks and investment firms makes sense.

Having said that, let's deal with the reality and let's deal with the climate in which this has been announced. In April 1992, this government announced, as a real cornerstone of its industrial strategy, that it was going to be starting this Ontario investment fund. It was to have a $2-billion capital fund that was going to be funded over five to seven years. If it had been funded over seven years, it would have averaged $285 million per year, a fairly significant amount of money that would have truly been a major cornerstone of any industrial policy.

So what are we getting? We're getting an announcement today by the government that instead of the $2 billion over five to seven years, they're going to have $70 million over 10 years.

Hon Ms Lankin: Just in the lead investment fund.

Mr Kwinter: Well, we got that. So what you're talking about is $10 million a year, to be shared 60-40 with the private sector and the public sector. That is not very much.

The other reality of the situation is that this all has to be done in Bob Rae's economy. This has to be done in a time when the kind of innovative companies that could benefit from this are not interested in Ontario. They're not interested because of the oppressive labour legislation, the oppressive tax regime that has been brought in and the mismanagement that has been shown by this province.

Let me tell you one other thing. If you take a look at the Working Ventures Canadian Fund Inc, a fund that has been around for five years and gets heavily tax supported by the provincial government, they had a fund of $146 million, and they have only been able to invest $6 million of that $146 million. That is a combination of the environment that has been created by this government; it is a combination of the lack of confidence that people have in participating. The sad part about that fund is that most of its revenue is coming from keeping the money in the bank and getting the kind of interest that it gets, so it has less than a 4% return on its investment.

The private sector participants are to be congratulated in participating, but let me tell you that they will not be checking their fiduciary responsibilities at the door, and when they get involved, they still have an obligation to their shareholders. They have an obligation to make sure that the funds that are going to be invested will be invested in vehicles that have an opportunity of not only promoting the wellbeing of Ontario but getting a return and making sure there's some element of success. Until this government changes its policies, until this government comes up with a true industrial policy, a policy that encourages innovation, encourages investment, encourages research and development, there will not be any vehicles in which to invest.

When we have a program whose initial concept was so poorly received that the government has had to scale it down so dramatically and to find that the original target participants, the public sector pension funds, are not interested in participating, we have a fund that I hope and I wish is successful; I truly do. I think this would be wonderful if it were to happen. But given the difficulty in getting it off the ground, given the fact that it has been so severely downsized and given the fact that the 60% control is going to be in people who I'm sure have every intention of making this thing work but who are still going to have to answer to their shareholders and make sure their investments are prudent and safeguarded, I have concerns.

The last thing I'd like to do is to hope that the selection of the name does not turn into a prophesy. I think it was ill conceived to call this the Ontario lead investment fund. History may show that the pronunciation will be the Ontario lead investment fund, because this thing has sunk like a rock and like a lead balloon. I hope that doesn't happen, but I can tell you that under the stewardship of this government, it has every prospect of having that happen.

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I'd like to put this in some perspective. They're talking about $70 million. The gross domestic product of this province is about $285 billion. Quite frankly, Minister, what you're doing is worrying about mice in the basement when there are elephants on the roof.

I have spent the last couple of days going around this province, talking to small businesses with my colleagues from Waterloo and Wellington. I want to tell you, the anger and frustration out there of small and medium-sized businesses towards, quite frankly, governments at all levels and of all political stripes is unparalleled.

I say to you that some of the things we heard out there are, "Why did you introduce, at a cost of $10 million, the corporate filing fee?" I say to this minister, you're going to give $70 million? You got $10 million from the private sector in the corporate filing fee. Where were you when that program came in? You said nothing when the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations came in. Where were you when the letters went out which basically said, "If you don't pay this, we're going to put you out of business"? Where were you as the minister when that program came in? You said nothing.

Where were you when the WCB increases that we heard from people were anywhere from 3% to 75%? No statement in the Legislature about that. Where are you when the Minister of Labour is killing jobs with his WCB policy? Nothing from this minister.

We heard about the minimum wage, story after story of jobs being lost because of the minimum wage. When the Minister of Labour again is out there again killing jobs with the minimum wage, where were you? You said absolutely nothing.

Some of the other things we heard about are the tax increases: last budget, $2 billion. That killed 50,000 jobs. Where were you when that budget came in and 50,000 jobs were lost?

There's one other thing I'd like to point out. Matthew Barrett, whom they champion today, said this: "So for me, further tax burdens could make our problem worse competitively. There is no sense trying to tackle one problem while making the other one worse." Why don't you listen to Matthew Barrett, who says we don't need any more tax increases in the province of Ontario? Your last budget killed 50,000 jobs and you said nothing.

Some of the other things we heard about as we went out there this morning -- and the minister was not here to hear that; she was down at the press conference. The certified general accountant said today, in the Finance ministry: "We tell people: 'Don't go out and source the government programs. You spend more money paying us accountants to source these programs than you get from the government.'"

One other thing we heard as we were out there: At Randall Klein Design out in London, 28 people are now unionized because one person in that particular shop wanted a union and got it certified. Out of the people who were there -- we talked to them -- 26 people don't want a union. As a result of your Bill 40, they now have a union. They're certified. Bill 40 has done more to kill jobs in the province of Ontario than this little piece of legislation will do, and this minister said nothing on that.

1400

This government talks about the challenges of competitiveness. There has been no other government in the history of this province that has done more to kill jobs and to kill the competitive spirit than the socialist government under Bob Rae, and this minister has said nothing.

If I were to sum up what I heard, there was a chap one night at the meeting and he said this: "The province of Ontario was a great place to live, but the province of Ontario's a terrible place to do business under the NDP." Quite frankly, I agree, and the only solution isn't these programs that come in from this minister; it's to stand up and get rid of this government. That's when we'll create jobs and that's when the people of this province in the next election are going to turn around and show them what they think of this minister who has done nothing for the businesses in the province of Ontario.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): There's a much-ballyhooed announcement about a $70-million expenditure, some of it coming from the private sector.

Do you realize in the first year of the operation of photo-radar they're going to generate $200 million? Two hundred million dollars taken away from taxpayers in this province by photo-radar and they have no ballyhooed announcement about the costs of photo-radar on the people of this province, not a nickel put into road improvement, not a nickel put into better policing to protect people, not one more drunk driver pulled over and stopped, but they want to announce $70 million --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Will the member take his seat, please. It's not related to the announcement which was made.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH CARE REFORM

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): My question is to the Minister of Health, who was here half a second ago. Mr Speaker, may I ask that the clock be stopped while we're waiting for the minister to come into the House?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): We'll start all over. Just hold the clock. We'll reset it in the interest of an excellent atmosphere here this afternoon. Will the member now pose her question.

Mrs Sullivan: Again, my question is to the Minister of Health. Last August, you signed an agreement with the Ontario Medical Association that provides an unprecedented approach to our medicare system because it puts medicare on the bargaining table.

The agreement provides that the Ontario Medical Association will take a package of medical services worth $20 million to the table with the recommendation that those services be removed from medicare. The government will also take its own package of medical services to the table with the recommendation that those services be removed from medicare. A chair and six other people will decide what the final delisting recommendation will be.

My question to the minister is, have you made a decision about who the chair of that committee will be, of who will head this duopoly and be in charge of medicare bargaining? Who is the chair of that committee?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I regret to have to tell the member that I do not at this point remember whether I'm at liberty to tell the House yet whether the chair has been confirmed or not. I can assure her there have been discussions about a chair. Whether the person involved has been informed and the discussions completed or not, I'm afraid I don't know at this moment. I will endeavour to find out. If in fact the person and number of people whose names have been discussed by both ourselves and the OMA have been informed and it is appropriate to make a public statement, I will do so later today.

Mrs Sullivan: This is one of the most offensive steps that has been taken in the history of medicare, placing medicare on the bargaining table in a bilateral situation as is occurring here. Seventy-nine days have lapsed since the agreement was signed. The package was due 30 days after the ratification of that agreement. People want to know who is deciding their health care future. It is unacceptable for the minister to say that she's unsure if she is at liberty to tell them.

My next question is, who are the other members of this bargaining team and how were they chosen?

Hon Mrs Grier: I find myself amazed at the approach by the critic for the official opposition. Earlier this year, when we were talking about better management of the health care system, we proposed as part of our expenditure control plan that a number of procedures that had been covered under OHIP and which were not generally seen to be critical to health care, and I'm talking about removal of tattoos, for example, might be delisted from OHIP as part of our efforts to better manage the system and contain the costs.

There was uproar. There was outrage. There were accusations that the Minister of Health was making unilateral decisions about the management of health care.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for York Centre, please come to order.

Hon Mrs Grier: So what did we do? We sat down with the Ontario Medical Association and we began to discuss how in fact decisions should be made about what procedures the health insurance system should cover and what procedures it should not cover. What we are doing is, for the very first time, let me say, having an open and public process and debate about what the insurance plan should cover. I would have thought the opposition might have acknowledged that, Mr Speaker, and I certainly thought they would have welcomed it.

Mrs Sullivan: Mr Speaker, let me tell you how open and public this process is. There is one day of public hearings scheduled. One day. The people of Ontario have one day to have any information or any input into the bargaining of medicare.

The people of Ontario want to know, Madam Minister, what is being bargained. What are you putting on the table? What is the OMA putting on the table? The people have a right to know, and that's my question on their behalf.

Hon Mrs Grier: Of course the people have a right to know. Of course the people will know, for the very first time. Not only will the people know, but the people will have an opportunity to come and appear before a public process and say whether they agree or disagree or whether they have better suggestions.

This is innovative, this is unique, this is progressive and this is something we are the only government with the courage to do.

The Speaker: New question. The honourable member for Renfrew North.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): Mr Speaker, I have a second question from the Liberal Party for our friend the Premier, but since he's not here, I'll stand it down and await his arrival, which we expect shortly.

The Speaker: Question from the third party. The honourable member for Waterloo North.

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): Mr Speaker, my question is also for the Premier and so I will stand that down until he arrives.

The Speaker: Is there a second question? The honourable member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Mr Speaker, my question is for the Premier and I would say that I will have to stand it down till the Premier arrives.

The Speaker: We now begin the rotation. The honourable member for Mississauga West.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): You'll be delighted to know I have a question for a minister who's here, the Minister of Labour. Hopefully we can get more than a one-word answer out of him.

Recently the Workers' Compensation Board made a policy decision to not extend coverage to apprentices who are part of a co-op program while they are taking their training in a community college or in an education atmosphere. Do you agree with the board's decision to cancel this coverage?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): Yes, I do.

Mr Mahoney: Yesterday he said "No." At least we got three words out of him.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training: What's the question?

Mr Mahoney: Well, the question was pretty simple, we have a letter from the United --

Hon Mr Cooke: He gave you a straightforward answer.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Mahoney: Maybe the minister of all education would be concerned about this. We have a letter from the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 18, from the president and business representative, Charles Calligan. Mr Calligan writes to all members of the Legislature and to Mr King regarding the cancellation of this coverage for apprentices. He says:

"Attendance at trade school is mandatory for apprentices. Carpenter apprentices, as well as many other apprentices, spend much of their time at trade school working in a shop or on an outside project. They only spend a portion of their time in a classroom. While working in the shop, they are subjected to the same risk of injury as they are on a construction site and should therefore be afforded the same compensation coverage" -- coverage, I might add, which has been afforded them for the past 25 years.

"Apprenticeship training is one of the best dollar-value training methods we have. It is also one of the best training methods in the world to obtain skilled workers."

1410

Minister, how can you justify the Workers' Compensation Board, unilaterally with no discussion, with no input from the tradespeople in this province, taking away this coverage for these apprentices and thereby putting them at grave jeopardy where they could be injured while they're getting their apprenticeship training?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: The member knows that there have been some problems with how apprenticeship programs are funded in terms of the WCB. There is a question of the legality of it the way we're currently handling it, and that is now under review to see how we can deal with it.

ROBIN SEARS

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is to the Premier and it concerns his government's expenditure control plan. Mr Premier, you know, like all members, that as a result of that expenditure control plan the public services of this province are facing some of the most difficult times that any of us have seen in the modern period. Hospital beds are being closed, children's services are being reduced and everything and everybody that exists is being taxed.

When you announced your expenditure control plan in the spring of this year, specifically on April 23, 1993, your government announced that all Ontario's international trade offices would be closed, at a saving of $10 million to the public treasury.

My research indicates that in fact all offices have been closed; they've been closed for several weeks, and all staff but one have been brought home to Ontario. The one person who remains overseas is your friend and former campaign manager Robin Sears, who, after his Tokyo office was closed this past summer, was granted by your government, Mr Premier, a new eight-month contract at an annual rate of salary of between $90,000 and $135,000 a year and for that same eight-month period a housing and living allowance of $150,000.

My question, Mr Premier, is, what good works for the hard-pressed taxpayer of Ontario is your good personal friend and former campaign manager Robin Sears doing to earn nearly a quarter of a million dollars' worth of taxpayers' money over this eight-month period?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): Mr Speaker, I'll refer this to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade.

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I'm pleased to have the question referred to me. I can tell you that from the calls that have been coming over the last number of months from the Liberal research, this is information that we have shared with them over the course of time, and I actually fully expected this in light of the member opposite's pursuit of issues with respect to individuals in the public service at deputy level. I think that he has very, very unfairly characterized this situation and I'm glad to have this opportunity to put the record straight.

We took the decision to close the international offices. During that period of time we indicated that there would be a transition with respect to the Asia Pacific. It's a part of the world where trade is growing; it's an area where the cultural differences make it important in terms of transition to ensure that the closure of the offices and the continuation and development of networks are done in an appropriate way.

During the last number of months we've had visits there with respect to trade initiatives. Other initiatives by the minister responsible for international trade and by the Asia Pacific Foundation, looking at issues of Asia Pacific trade, are continuing at this point in time.

We are working with the federal government in terms of, again, transition in this area, and it has placed a very high profile with respect to the role of the Asia Pacific.

The member is wrong in saying that there has been a new contract. Both agent generals, Mr Nixon and Mr Sears, had contracts which were continuing on and we've indicated that in fact, as opposed to the order in council which would run out in 1995, Mr Sears's contract will be terminated at the end of March 1994.

Mr Conway: Let me be clear. In these extraordinarily tough and painful times, when everyone from cancer patients to public servants is facing unprecedented cutbacks, the Rae government has taken one of its best pals and former campaign managers and in these times given Mr Robin Sears a special contract over eight months from August 1 to March 31, 1994, at a salary of somewhere between $90,000 and $135,000, and with a Tokyo living allowance of $150,000 for that same period. That's a total of over a quarter of a million dollars that we do not have according to the Treasurer and the Premier.

Given that, I want to ask the minister, why was it that when we called your trade office, your department, this morning to ask what we might do about pursuing some trade questions in the south Pacific and in southeast Asia, we were told not to bother or even try to contact your quarter of a million dollars a year man, Mr Robin Sears in Tokyo, but were told to contact a bureaucrat here at Queen's Park? What is Mr Robin Sears doing to earn this quarter of a million dollars' worth of public expenditure at a time when we are so broke and so strained for resources?

Hon Ms Lankin: This is the most outrageous construction of facts or misstatement of facts that I have ever heard. The member suggests that there is a new contract that has been issued at some new rate of pay. The rate of salary that has been quoted is the SMG3 rate. This is nothing different than the rate of any agent general and the rate that was being received. The amount is prorated for the amount of time left from August to March. In fact, it is less than a year's salary.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member for York Centre.

Hon Ms Lankin: As to the statement that these living expenses are somehow extraordinary, this is a rate that is based on the federal government's foreign service allowance for apartments in Tokyo. We know real estate and apartment costs are very high there. The fluctuation in the yen is something that changes that rate from time to time, but the amount the member referred to of $150,000 is a prorated amount for the number of months left. Again, it is the same that has been in place for all the years that this agent general and any other agent general has been in Tokyo.

I have indicated that as we brought the offices to closure, there were some staff brought back to Canada and there are some staff who have been assisted in new opportunities where they were living and located at that time. There's some staff who are in fact are continuing to be shared with the federal government, and with respect to the agent generals, we treated both of them fairly in terms of intending to continue contracts. One has chosen to go on and do work for the federal government; the other is continuing in the transition in the Asia Pacific for a period of time until March.

The Speaker: Would the minister conclude her response, please.

Hon Ms Lankin: We have informed the agent general that this contract will be terminated in March 1994, one full year earlier than the order in council would be running out.

1420

Mr Conway: Six months ago, your government announced that you were closing all of these offices to save $10 million and now we find out you've extended Mr Sears at a cost of $135,000 in salary and a $150,000 in living allowances.

It's almost three years ago to the day that Bob Rae said these words in this chamber as he opened the fall session following the 1990 election campaign: "Politics is about far more than what we can all get. It is also," he added, "about what we owe each other."

My question to the Rae government: How much can Robin Sears get? How much do you and the people of Ontario owe this quarter of a million dollar man, and will you not agree today to end this paid exile for your friend, your former campaign manager, someone who was affectionately known in your ranks and in this place a few years ago not as Boy Wonder but as Boy Stalin?

Hon Ms Lankin: These kinds of personal attacks and attempting to get simple, cheap -- I will be interested to see how this is responded to by the media, because this will be the test of whether or not there is interest in truth and in responding to real issues, or whether we're going to go into this partisan political bull -- and I won't add the rest of that.

The money that is going towards accommodation allowance --

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Sean's absolutely right.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Oriole.

Hon Ms Lankin: -- is no different than any foreign service allowance, no different than any rent that is paid on behalf of --

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): What about transition?

The Speaker: Would the minister take her seat, please. The member for York Centre, please come to order.

Hon Ms Lankin: The characterization is somehow that this is lining someone's pocket. This is money that pays the rent for a person who is working for us, who is carrying on the transition activities, whose contract will be terminated March 31, 1994. We are interested in the expansion of training opportunities in the Asia Pacific. We have said what we were going to do --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. The member for York Centre, come to order.

Hon Ms Lankin: -- right from the time I made the announcement. I made it clear to people there would be a transition in the Asia Pacific because of the growth of trade opportunities there, because of the importance, culturally, of handling the transition with sensitivity.

The member has asked, will we end this practice? I will tell him that I will end it on March 31, 1994, when the contract expires, as I have indicated from day one of my announcement, one year ahead of time.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): My question is to the Premier. On March 13, 1987, Ross McClellan, the former NDP MPP and currently your personal adviser, said in a committee that was delving into problems at the WCB, "The only way out of this morass, this blind tunnel, this circular labyrinth, is to take apart an obsolete system that does not serve us and replace it with a system that has the potential to work for our own benefit and the benefit of our people."

It is now six years later and nearly $6 billion worth of unfunded liability later. Is it not time to take a very serious look at overhauling the WCB?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I appreciate the member's question and I will say directly to her that I've been having a series of meetings with leaders of the business community who have been working with us, as well as with leaders of the labour community, in trying to find a solution.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): You're trying to keep them in the same room.

Hon Mr Rae: The member from Mississauga, in his usually constructive way, says I've been trying to keep them in the same room and he's quite right, I have been. It's been difficult. There are very strong views on both sides with respect to the problem and with respect to the solutions. We are trying, we continue to try, to find a consensus and a basis upon which we can make real improvements to the Workers' Compensation Board.

I just had a meeting yesterday with leaders of the business community and they presented me with some proposals. I intend to study those proposals very carefully, as well as proposals that we received from the labour movement. I would hope in the reasonably near future, and I'm afraid I can't be more precise than that, to have some constructive response to the suggestions we've had.

I must say to the honourable member that I think there are, in a sense, two sets of problems. There are some very real problems right now, particularly as a result of the passage of Bill 162, that face older workers in terms of their loss of income and their position, which concerns me a great deal. I'm also very troubled by the overall financial situation in terms of the longer-term picture that faces the board. We have to turn that around.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the Premier conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Rae: Then we have a much broader set of questions which relate to what's happened to workers' compensation generally, which I'll be glad to answer for the member in a supplementary.

Mrs Witmer: Premier, you've indicated and acknowledged that the public no longer has confidence in the WCB. The recent rate hikes have certainly added to the lack of confidence. That's why we have in this province at the present time at least 16 school boards, including two in the region of Waterloo, that have pulled out of the WCB general fund and have set up a cooperative to insure injured workers.

Even after paying their share of the massive unfunded liability, the Waterloo region separate school board is still going to save $1.2 million over the next three years and the Waterloo County Board of Education is going to save almost $1 million per year.

If our school boards can save this type of money by forming a cooperative and if our injured workers continue to be compensated and receive the same benefits, doesn't this make sense?

Hon Mr Rae: I'd be interested in looking at the details of the cooperative plan that's being put forward, looking, for example, at what the benefit structure is and so on, as we look at the question of the rates.

The member raises, I think, an important question, and that is the need for us to recognize the balance that we have to find. On the one hand, we have the business community that expresses very strong concerns with WCB, as it does with unemployment insurance. They're not happy with the 3.3% prospective rise in premiums in January, which they also faced last year, and they're concerned overall with the costs of the system as well as with its efficiency.

Second, we have to deal with the concerns of a great many working people who still feel that the system is not efficient enough for them, and many of them feel that they continue to be treated unfairly and to be unfairly excluded in terms of what coverage they have. We've been working trying to find a consensus. We continue to do that.

I can tell the honourable member that we are determined to deal with the situation and to make sure that the board is set on the right path in terms of its governance, in terms of its financial accountability, which we think is important, and also in terms of the way in which it treats its employees. Those are the three areas in which we continue to want to find a solution, and we're going to keep working at it.

Mrs Witmer: Premier, this co-op is operating extremely efficiently. In fact, when the Waterloo county board was part of the schedule 1, it was paying an average of almost $1 million more in premiums each year than it was in accident claim costs. Part of the reason these boards have left schedule 1 is because this year again they were facing a rate hike of 13%. This is what's happening across the province. Industry, school boards and municipalities are devastated because of the mismanagement at the WCB, and fortunately school boards have the option. What they've done is they've moved to this self-insurance plan. It simply makes good economic sense.

The boards believe also -- and I think this is important and it responds to what you've said -- that if they pay directly for their accidents, it will lead to more accountability, which we don't see at all at the present time, and a greater effort towards preventing accidents.

However, I want to tell you there's a problem. Because of the panic that the WCB has at the present time and the concern that other school boards are also going to leave, the WCB has now said to school boards and municipalities and anybody else that has the option of pulling out of schedule 1, "You cannot do so."

The Speaker: Could the member place a question, please.

Mrs Witmer: My final supplementary to you is this: Until we can convince you to finally overhaul the WCB system, which was suggested by Ross McClellan six years ago, will you direct the WCB to lift the freeze to allow the municipalities and the school boards to leave the WCB schedule 1? Will you lift the freeze?

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): We'll give all the credit to Ross.

1430

Hon Mr Rae: I appreciate the honourable member crediting Mr McClellan with the foresight in 1986-87 to see what happened.

I would simply say to the honourable member that I have to take her question as notice and look into the circumstances surrounding the decisions that have been made and the impact that they're having. I would say to her that I am personally very concerned about the WCB situation and I've taken a personal interest in it in terms of working with the business community as well as with members of the trade union community.

We continue to search hard for solutions in terms of the overall set of changes which will make for real improvements. It hasn't been easy, but it's something we have to do.

CONDUCT OF POLICE SERVICES BOARD MEMBER

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): My question is to the Premier. Yesterday, in your absence, I asked the Solicitor General to suspend your appointment to the police services board of Arnold Minors. The Solicitor General refused. Police services board chair Susan Eng has called the allegations against Mr Minors very serious and has said they must be looked into.

Mr Premier, this is not just any of the many agencies, boards and commissions that you make appointments to; it is a board responsible for law enforcement in Metropolitan Toronto. To uphold the integrity of that board, will you today suspend Mr Minors until this investigation is completed?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I'm going to refer that again to the Solicitor General.

Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General): As I stated yesterday, I reiterate again today that I am not at all planning or considering any type of action that would lead to a suspension until such time as the OPP has indeed concluded its investigations and we see what those conclusions are.

Mr Stockwell: I wish the Premier had answered, but I will read to the minister the policy regarding the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force.

In March 1993, the Metro Toronto police set out a comprehensive policy governing the suspension of an officer. Under that policy, an officer may be suspended from duty if keeping him or her on the force would impact on the force's integrity or on public confidence in the force.

Mr Minister, clearly the board's integrity has been tainted by the allegations of Mr Minors's actions. Why will you not treat Mr Minors in exactly the same way as the police officer in Metropolitan Toronto is treated? Why the double standard?

Hon Mr Christopherson: What we have at this point are indeed allegations. What we have is an OPP investigation, and until such time as we have the conclusions of that investigation, I do not believe it's appropriate that any action be taken.

Mr Stockwell: If a police officer were under investigation, that police officer would be suspended. They would be suspended with pay until the completion of that investigation. I put it to you directly, Mr Minister: This is a member of the police services board, your appointment to the police services board, charged with the duty of upholding the law in Metropolitan Toronto. The chair of that board said the allegations are very serious. The police chief has referred these to the Ontario Provincial Police. The Ontario Provincial Police is investigating this matter.

If this were a police officer, he or she would be suspended. I ask you very clearly: If a member of the police services board should not be suspended when an investigation is ongoing, would you then suggest that any investigation into a police officer's actions by the Ontario Provincial Police would mean that he or she would not be suspended? Surely you're not suggesting that. Why, then, very directly, would a police officer be suspended when a police services board member, in the same investigation, does not receive the same treatment from your government?

Hon Mr Christopherson: The decision to suspend or not suspend a police officer is the discretionary decision of the chief, subject to the policies of that particular police services board. Therefore, discretion is used in these kinds of decisions, based on the circumstances.

I have looked at these circumstances inasmuch as there is any relationship to that process, and I do not believe it would be appropriate for me to make any decisions prior to receiving the conclusions of the ongoing OPP investigation.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH SPENDING

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): My question is for the Minister of Health. Yesterday I asked you a very direct question about four of your ministry employees who had their Toronto living accommodations subsidized by the taxpayers of Ontario. Because you failed to answer the question at that time, I'm asking it again.

Your own internal audits show that the public was footing the bill for living accommodations for senior Ministry of Health officials to live close to their work in Toronto. You've now had a chance to look at the findings of these internal audits. How much did it cost the taxpayers of Ontario to furnish these four bureaucrats with apartments in Toronto?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): First of all, let me say to the member that these were not accommodations for people living in Toronto. They were accommodations for one person who was seconded to work in Toronto from Sudbury for a period of time and for others who worked both at the ministry in Toronto and in our offices in Kingston. The decisions that were made were believed to be the most cost-effective way of providing accommodation for these people while they were working in Toronto.

In response to the question that the member raised yesterday, let me assure him that none of these arrangements is remaining in effect; they have all been changed.

Mr Jim Wilson: Of the four senior officials whom I identified yesterday who had taxpayer-paid living expenses for their accommodations in Toronto, two were appointed by your government and two were promoted under your government. In other words, these four bureaucrats bellied up to the trough at your government's invitation.

I very, very strongly feel, and the reason you did an internal audit was your own ministry officials felt, that these four employees whom I have identified were receiving inappropriate living expenses, inappropriate perks.

What assurances can you give to the taxpayers of Ontario that none of your remaining 12,000 employees are invited to the trough in such a disgusting way as these four employees were?

Hon Mrs Grier: I take grave offence at the way in which the member characterizes this situation. Yes, people were provided with accommodation in Toronto. The reason there are internal audits is to review internal matters in ministries, and when it is found that there is something that no longer makes sense or is cost-effective, the situation is changed. That is what has happened with respect to the individuals whose cases he raised yesterday.

I can assure him that we will continue with internal audits and we will continue to make decisions based in the best interests of trying to manage every taxpayer's dollar as effectively and efficiently as we possibly can.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): My question also is to the Minister of Health. The question has arisen from a town hall meeting that I held recently at a residential home for the elderly and it has to do with our long-term care reform initiatives.

With the increase in rates in residential homes and facilities for the elderly there seems to be an unfairness that occurs when the spouse with the lower income still resides within the community. Often this individual living within the community experiences real hardship because of the rate increase.

Minister, what can be done to assist these individuals and what can be done to protect them?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): The changes in the rates for long-term care that are a part of our long-term care reform initiatives are designed to make it more equitable both between homes and within homes with respect to the charges for accommodation that people pay and to recognize that there have been cases in the past where people's assets as well as their incomes were taken into account when the ability to pay was calculated. Our changes take only the income into account.

We recognize that there have been some cases where in the case of a couple, one of whom is in an institution and one of whom is not, if the person with the major share of the family income is the person who is in the home for the aged, there perhaps can be a hardship on the person who is not. I recognize that. I thank the member and the other members who have brought it to our attention. We have been reviewing that and are prepared to consider some changes, again in the interests of equity within the system.

1440

Mr Cooper: Once again along the same lines, with the increases in residential rates and also with the changes to the Ontario drug benefit plan, it seems that the $112 the seniors are receiving now is no longer adequate. I was wondering if the minister has any plans of increasing this amount, or are there any other forms of subsidies that can be offered to these people who are living on the meagre $112 now?

Hon Mrs Grier: The question about drug benefits related to long-term care institutions puzzles me, because anybody who is a resident in a long-term care facility is covered by the Ontario drug benefit plan for their drug benefits and will continue, as in the past, to be so covered.

CASINO GAMBLING

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): I have a question for the Premier. This morning I introduced a resolution in the House that called on the government to introduce an amendment to the casino legislation to ensure that under no circumstances will the taxpayers of Ontario bear any responsibility, financial or otherwise, for any shortfall or debt incurred as a result of the operations of any casinos contemplated under the act.

Mr Premier, it's very simple. It has nothing to do with whether casinos should be or shouldn't be; it's got nothing to do with that. It's a given: We're going to have casinos. All I'm saying is that it isn't a guarantee a casino will make money. Some have gone bankrupt. All I'm asking is that the legislation provide that if there is a shortfall or a debt, it shall be the responsibility of the operator and not the taxpayer.

Everybody agrees -- the deputy minister agrees, members of your own caucus agree -- yet when we brought it to a vote, all of the government members unanimously voted against it. Could you tell me why you're not prepared to safeguard the taxpayers of Ontario, to make sure they will bear no responsibility if there is a loss in the casino?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I find it perhaps passing ironic that --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Rae: I know they don't want to hear about the irony, but let me just remind them of the irony. The political party and the government which gave the people of the province of Ontario a liability of over a quarter of a billion dollars on the SkyDome, this is the party that now wants to stand up and pretend that somehow it is the great defender of the taxpayers. I find it passing strange.

There is absolutely no intention on the part of the government to enter into any kind of a SkyDome arrangement with respect to what we are going to be negotiating that's in place. That is the firm intention of the government and that is the position of the government, and I appreciate the support that we have from the honourable member with respect to carrying out that intention.

Mr Kwinter: The Premier and several of his colleagues trot out the SkyDome, as I did; they trot out Minaki Lodge; they trot out Suncor. We all agree that was something that shouldn't have happened, but that is the whole point. You're not refuting the argument; you're making the argument. All we're saying is, let's make sure that SkyDome, Minaki, Suncor and anything else doesn't happen again.

Surely if you're not prepared to put it in the legislation, there has got to be a reason, because it is a principle that is unassailable, You have said it. Surely there is no reason why it shouldn't be there unless you've got another agenda, unless you want to go down in history as saying, "You had your SkyDome; we had our casinos."

What I'm trying to do is prevent that from happening, and I'd like to know what you're going to do to prevent it from happening.

Hon Mr Rae: What we're going to do is that when the whole competitive process is completed and the contract is negotiated, which contract will be fully public and will be completely open, unlike others which we've seen -- it will be a totally open process -- you will see a contract that will have to provide the kind of protection for the taxpayer that you're describing. That is our intention, and that's our intention with respect to this contract.

LANDFILL

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): My question is for the minister responsible for the three dumps, who's answering questions on the three dumps in the greater Toronto area, the minister for the greater Toronto area.

Mr Minister, you've now established the three superdump sites. We're starting to hold hearings. The citizens of this province are starting to hold meetings as to how to deal with your policies. One was held in Caledon last night. One of the questions that is surfacing is as to when you intend to expropriate the farms and the homes in the areas of Peel, York and Durham.

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I didn't choose the three sites. It was a completely independent scientific process. The IWA chose the three sites. There'll be a complete environmental assessment and OMB hearings. Only after that process is completed, then will the IWA, not the government, move ahead with the process.

Mr Tilson: I think the people of the three regions will be glad to hear that.

The difficulty that I think we're all having is that your government is saying that you're going to have these three dumps in operation by 1996-97. That is a statement that is coming from your government. How in the world are you going to have proper environmental assessments and expropriations by that time if you're not going to be doing the expropriations until after proper environmental assessments have taken place, environmental assessments that should certainly take a lot longer than three years?

Hon Mr Philip: The homework has been well done. In fact, the process that was set up has shown that whereas your government took some seven or eight or 10 years to find a site, the process that was set up by this government took only two years to find three sites. That shows how successfully the process is working.

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD HEARINGS

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): I have another question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. An Ontario Municipal Board hearing in relation to my riding was recently held in Etobicoke. A number of constituents who wished to attend and make a presentation were upset by the distance from Scarborough East. I'll be quick to add that it's not that there's anything against Etobicoke per se, which I am told is well worth visiting. What can the minister do to ensure that hearings are accessible to communities that want to present their case?

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): The member no doubt is aware that the OMB is an arm's-length agency and that it reports to me on administrative and operational matters only.

I do, however, meet with the chair of the OMB on a regular basis. I can tell the honourable member that the board has initiated a number of changes to improve the efficiency by which it conducts its business. The board is, for instance, utilizing pre-hearings, mediation and short, informal hearing formats for less complex cases in order to deal quickly and efficiently with the concerns of individuals and of communities across Ontario.

Mr Frankford: What assistance could be provided to citizens who wish to make presentations to the OMB? The request for intervenor funding seems very reasonable to me. Is there any way presenters could be assisted in their research?

Hon Mr Philip: The integrity, the accountability and the openness of Ontario's land use planning process are certainly dependent on the ability of ordinary citizens to participate in that. That's the case in dealings with the OMB or any of the other bodies.

Often this is made difficult because of the costs associated with appearing before the Ontario Municipal Board. The member will note that the Sewell commission has proposed intervenor funding in its final report, and this may well deal with the problem.

1450

LANDFILL

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): I too have a question for the minister responsible now, at least for carriage of questions in the House for the present time, with respect to the IWA. Last Friday, the minister of dumps will know, the IWA held a press conference to release materials with respect to the three sites in the specified areas in and around the province of Ontario. A number of concerned people, including my colleagues from the third party and colleagues from this caucus, attended, as did representatives of municipalities. Specifically, the mayor of my community, Mayor Peter Robertson, was thrown out and threatened with being charged with trespassing.

Minister, you talk about an open and accessible government. We have a mayor representing a community with legitimate concerns wanting to be there to find out what's going on, and you would not provide him with the courtesy of being there together with my colleagues. Minister, how do you respond to a government that stands in its place from time to time with your stated openness and accessibility when you won't allow a mayor and colleagues in this House to have a place at a press conference of such a vital, important issue for the residents of the affected communities?

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I've been waiting for somebody to ask a recycling question for a long time, and finally I have a recycled question. But I'll try to answer the member. In the case of the particular mayor, and since that particular mayor calls me on practically any issue that bothers him in the least, one would have thought that if it were a major issue he would have called me on this, but I haven't heard from him on this item.

I understand that what had happened is that the IWA had scheduled the meeting, that on its schedule -- and I was just trying to find a copy of the advertisement -- it stated that there would be a press lockup for half an hour before the open public meeting. Everyone was invited, including the honourable member, to the open public meeting; they were not allowed into the press lockup. I understand that's the explanation.

Personally, if I had been asked my opinion in advance -- and I wasn't, because the IWA is an independent organization -- I would have suggested to the IWA that it have a lockup for both the press and for any elected representative who wished to go to a lockup at the same time. But they didn't do that, and that's the process that took place.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the minister conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Philip: But I can tell you at least there was no problem of our researchers or the researchers for the IWA being accused of rowdiness at a meeting.

Mr McClelland: If the minister wants to stand in his place and make that kind of allegation, maybe he should talk to some people who were there. You wanted indeed to have a lockup. What you wanted to do was lock up people who in any way disagreed with you or were a potential embarrassment to you in your situation. That's the kind of government and heavy-handed approach that you have taken, Minister, from day one. You may think it's a recycled issue, and you may think it's funny and trite, but let me tell you that when mayors from across this province can't have access to vital public information and are treated in the way that you treat them, you send a message, and the message is very clear, that it's your way or it's out.

Lockups of that nature are not appropriate for members or staff who are not in any way conducting themselves inappropriately but are simply there to gain information so that they can represent their communities. At the least, you owe those people an apology, Minister.

The Speaker: Could the member place a question, please.

Mr McClelland: More than that, I think that you should revisit your hand-washing on this one and take responsibility for it and deal with the IWA appropriately, Minister.

Hon Mr Philip: Mayors of this province know that we do have an open government. It wasn't this government, it was Jim Bradley, the Minister of the Environment at the time, who put garbage into Pickering and Brampton without any kind of environmental assessment. This government stopped that process. It wasn't this government that used, as the Liberals did, prime farm land to put garbage on without any kind of assessment. The former government, the government that didn't look for any alternatives, has the gall to get up here then and tell us that we are not running an open process? They had no process. We have a process that is completely transparent.

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

Hon Mr Philip: We even provided intervenor funding for people like the mayor he talks about.

The Speaker: New question. The member for Carleton.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think that you should allow the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale, the minister, an opportunity to withdraw clearly misleading information.

The Speaker: There was no unparliamentary language used. There certainly is a difference of opinion.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Whoa.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation and Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs): Did you hear that, sir? "He's lying." He said that word.

The Speaker: Would the member for Lake Nipigon take his seat. I heard the unparliamentary language, as he did. I know the honourable member and I know that he will withdraw the unparliamentary language. Would the honourable member for St Catharines please withdraw the unparliamentary remark which he made.

Mr Bradley: Mr Speaker, in respect to you, I will do so, although you know my true views on this.

The Speaker: I appreciate the honourable member's withdrawal.

PARAMEDIC SERVICES

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I have a question of the Minister of Health -- who was here before. Oh, here she comes now. I'd like to ask the Minister of Health a question vis-à-vis paramedics in the Ottawa-Carleton area.

Last night, thousands of people signed petitions in favour of establishing a full paramedic service in Ottawa-Carleton. They've already collected over some 20,000 signatures even prior to last night's activities.

The survival rate for people who have cardiac arrest outside of hospitals in Ottawa-Carleton is something like 2.4%, whereas the average in North America is about 30% in terms of survivorship. I got those figures from the Ottawa Citizen, which I presume is fairly unbiased with regard to this issue.

Madam Minister, are you or are you not going to provide the Ottawa-Carleton area with full paramedic services?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I'm very well aware of the desire of a number of people and groups within the Ottawa-Carleton area to have this service. We take that request very seriously and are looking at whether or not this is in fact an appropriate service to be added to the services that already exist in Ottawa-Carleton, which has a good emergency service already.

Let me tell the members of the House that a paramedic addition to emergency services is dependent upon the other links in the chain being as effective as possible, so in any approvals for extension we would want to look carefully at the entire system.

We also have in the province a number of places -- Toronto is one -- where paramedic organizations were put in as pilot projects, but without really any effective evaluation of whether they did in fact decrease mortality as a result of their operation. We think there needs to be a careful evaluation of a number of regions to see what the truth is and whether having paramedics would increase the likelihood of people surviving a heart attack before we make any approvals for additional services in the Ottawa-Carleton region.

1500

Mr Sterling: The pilot projects were instituted in 1983 by the former Progressive Conservative government. How long does it take to evaluate whether these particular test projects were in fact successful or not successful?

It appears to me that one of two scenarios exists. Number one is that paramedic services do save lives, which of course the proponents of having paramedics in Ottawa-Carleton would hold out. The other is that they do not save lives and therefore are a service which is not needed.

Madam Minister, if in fact you find it is the second, which it appears your Health ministry is putting forward in terms of the answers to the people in Ottawa-Carleton, that paramedics do not help the situation, if that is your stance, are you then going to withdraw these services in Oshawa, Toronto and Hamilton?

Hon Mrs Grier: The member makes the point that these pilot projects were put in place by his government in the early 1980s, and I agree. The difficulty is that the effect of this, of a pilot project cannot merely be judged by its longevity and how long the governments and the municipal governments in some places are continuing to pay for it, but by its effectiveness in doing the job it was created to do.

Unfortunately, when those pilot projects were built in there were no evaluation components built in, so we don't really know whether they are as effective as their supporters claim or as ineffective as some people on the other side of the argument claim. What we are going to do is try to find out once and for all how effective paramedic services are, and therefore be in a position to make sound policy decisions based on sound information and data, not something that was ever a concern of his government when it was in office.

UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Apparently, from your last indications in response to the member for St Catharines, it's appropriate that a person in this place may mislead this place. If a member cites the person as having misled the House, he or she can be thrown out of the House, but someone in this place can mislead the House and suffer no penalty whatsoever. I'd like your advice on that, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): In this place, it's very helpful if members could raise points of order that are of importance to them outside of question period.

I will say to the member that indeed the Speaker has a responsibility to call to order any member who uses unparliamentary language. The veracity of statements is not to be tested by the Speaker. Those are matters to be dealt with by members of the House in orderly debate. But if language is used which is found not to be parliamentary or to cause disorder, then the member who uses such language must be called to order by the Speaker.

LANDFILL

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. My constituents are becoming quite nervous about the way the reports about the E11 are being presented. They are nervous because the Brock West landfill site in my riding has Metro garbage in it and has had now for a long period of time.

I'd also like to point out that the reason for their nervousness is that the previous government was prepared to take garbage and put it in the pits at Kirkland Lake in a two-phase process, the first phase under the Environmental Protection Act; that they were prepared to put Peel's garbage into site 6B under the Environmental Protection Act; that they were abbreviating the environmental assessment process at P1 by using the Environmental Protection Act; and that they were prepared to put a lift on Keele Valley under the Environmental Protection Act.

My residents would like some assurance that this site at the very least will not receive Metro's garbage and that this government, if I do not have a supplementary, Mr Speaker --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Will the member complete his question, please.

Mr Wiseman: -- is going to speed up and work on the recycling projects that are necessary to divert waste the way that Resources Not Waste presented to this House yesterday.

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I can guarantee the honourable member that unlike the previous government, we will not be shipping or have any part in the shipping of Metro's garbage to his community.

On the question of the --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Will the minister take his seat, please. Minister?

Hon Mr Philip: On the matter of recycling, or the 3Rs, I can tell the honourable member that since we became the government in 1990, our government has invested more than $50 million in municipal and industrial 3R activities in the greater Toronto area. The funding has gone towards the blue box recycling, towards backyard composting and a range of industrial diversion projects.

Let me give you an example. The town of Markham, the regional municipality of York and the government are pursuing a one-year, three-stream, wet-dry collection project to achieve over 50% diversion from landfill at reduced cost. That's just one of the examples of how we are working with local communities to reduce garbage and to find new forms of recycling.

The Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Mr Speaker, considering the fact that the member for Durham West is being saddled with a dump in his riding, I would ask for unanimous consent that he be allowed to ask his supplementary question.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for a supplementary? I heard at least one negative voice. Motions.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would just ask for the record to show that his very own House leader was the dissenting voice.

The Speaker: The member does not have a point of order. There may be some point of interest.

UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Actually, I'm not sure it isn't a point of order that the person denying consent should be named, but that's another issue.

I want to bring your attention to standing order 13(a) in particular, which says that it is your task to keep decorum and to bring people to order. I understand that some days it is difficult, but since it is an obligation for you to keep decorum, when it is pointed out to you, sir, that some member is deliberately saying things that are not correct, that are known publicly not to be correct and yet he alleges the untrue state of affairs and suggests that a member who was in a previous position as cabinet minister --

Interjection.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): If you check the record of what he said, you'll see that what he said was not the truth.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The comment by the member for Oriole is not at all helpful. I would like to hear the point of order that's being raised. It is impossible for me to hear the point of order because of the complete disorder in this chamber, and I ask the cooperation of all members. The member for Bruce.

Mr Elston: Mr Speaker, when it becomes clear that a member in an answer to a question here alleges a state of facts which are in fact not correct and it is brought to your attention, the allegation is then one which imputes a certain state of affairs and a state of mind to a member, in direct contravention to the standing orders.

It is therefore the only avenue so far that we have had as members to defend ourselves against untrue allegations, to raise our voices and actually to stand up when the issue is extremely serious to say something that maybe is unparliamentary.

We have no protection when a minister, who has the last word in each case in reply to our questions, makes an allegation against one of the other people in this House. If it is not unparliamentary to misstate the set of facts that exists in this chamber, can you advise us all, as honourable members, how we are to defend ourselves against unfair and untrue allegations, either as to our states of mind or as to the actual affairs that have been conducted on behalf of the crown as ministers in the executive council?

If there is no way, then what but unruly conduct is left for us to try to bring to the attention of the public that the allegations are clearly and truly false?

1510

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I have some sympathy for the concern that the Leader of the Opposition raises. On the other hand, the same essential jeopardy exists for members against whom allegations are made on both sides of the House, and I understand that.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Charlton: The point I was about to make is that what I know and what I don't know is irrelevant to the point the House leader for the opposition is making.

I understand, Mr Speaker, your dilemma in all of this. It is impossible for the Speaker of this House or any House to know in any kind of an authoritative way what is and what is not true on each and every occasion when allegations are made and/or remade or countered, as members often do in this place, and the dilemma that creates for you.

I would suggest that although it's an unfortunate dilemma we all face, we all do get faced with allegations by members from the opposite side of the House from that on which we sit and we have to deal with those allegations in the best way we can. I guess the best way for all of us to think about remedying that is thinking about those allegations that we as individuals make before they're made.

The Speaker: A point of order on --

Mr Elston: I will be brief. Perhaps, Mr Speaker, in the circumstances, it might be reasonable for us to bring to your attention that we as members have a disagreement, and that what should be done is that we should file written material with you so that you can come back and rule later as to whether or not there has been sufficient prima facie evidence provided to you that suggests that the intention of the member making the allegations was indeed desiring to create disorder in this House.

It is against the standing orders to create disorder. It is against the standing orders to impute motives. It is against the standing orders to vilify another member. In that sense, sir, that is where I come with the point of order, because you can call other members to order and ask them to withdraw that type of language. Suggesting a state of affairs which does not exist and which is clearly to be shown does not exist, in my view, has but one design and that is either to create an impression of a vilified member's character or it is an acknowledgement of a mistake. If either of those happens, there should be an apology to the member who is affected by the intervention.

I only suggest this, sir, because I think it is becoming a real and increasingly an unfortunate state of affairs, where allegations are made which cause us a great deal of frustration and cause us a great deal of delay in the process of the House business.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Mr Speaker, I don't think there is any way, in any way, shape or form, that you as the Speaker are going to have to get involved in sorting out those kinds of issues between members in this House. I do have some agreement with the House leader for the government that it's going to be very difficult if we start referring all these kinds of disagreements between individual members to the Speaker and ask for rulings on them all.

All I would say is that if a member is knowingly misleading the House and he or she chooses to do so and then walks out of the House, we as members just simply must choose to accept that as the source from which it came.

I know what the member said. I know what the member for St Catharines responded. The member was misleading the House. If he chose to simply do so, without apologizing, and leave, then we must just consider the source. That's what I think we should do.

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): On this issue, I believe that the comments I made immediately after those allegations were pretty much the same, in that when I rose on my question, I said that in fact the previous government was putting a site, site 6B in Brampton, in that community with an abbreviated environmental assessment under the Environmental Protection Act, and that I continue to make those accusations in the same way. P1 was the same, and I think it's important to understand that it's the same issue.

The Speaker: Does the member have a point of order?

Mr Wiseman: I think the minister was not misleading the House.

The Speaker: First, on the -- is this on the same issue?

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): This is on the same issue. I think I started this whole issue, and you very quickly indicated that it was not your function to handle the question of misstatements in the House. My House leader picked it up and I think gave you some very salient points under the standing orders that would require you to do that.

I pose this question, Mr Speaker: if in fact it's not your duty to ensure that veracity is maintained in this House, I would submit that's going to create total chaos. I suggest it's probably totally contrary to the oaths each one of us swear as a member of the Legislature to be elected to this august office.

Certainly the public, if they are to have any belief in the credibility of this place, must know that what is said in here is reliable and is not misstated. The basis on which, Mr Speaker, you have rejected it, and Speakers in the past, is the fact that we are all considered to be honourable members. But if my House leader's suggestion is accepted, if you find there is a prima facie case where a member of whatever political stripe has misled the House, I suggest that member, at least for that issue, is not entitled to be considered an honourable member.

Interjection.

The Speaker: I have heard a considerable amount on this point. If it is something new, then of course I would entertain the point. The member for Brampton North: briefly, if possible.

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): I think a couple of telling points. First of all, the question was asked by myself, and the allegation information was thrown at another member. I think that says something in itself in terms of the way you deal with these types of situations. You would expect that at least the interchange would be as between member to member, and not tangential to another member.

Having said that, I think that in order to clarify this, I'm going to file, according to the rules -- momentarily, Mr Speaker -- and I want to advise you that I'll be filing for November 23 to call the minister back to indeed canvass this further point and indicate that his answer was totally unsatisfactory, particularly to my supplementary. I'll be delighted to discuss that with him in greater detail Tuesday, November 23, pursuant to the rules.

The Speaker: The member of course will file the necessary document.

First, to the member for Bruce, I appreciate the point which he raised and the manner in which he raised it. He is right; it is very difficult for any Speaker to determine the veracity of statements. It has never been the responsibility of any Speaker to do that. It is an impossible task.

But the member is right that, should a member knowingly say something which turns out to be a cause of disorder, the result of which is that another member utters unparliamentary remarks and faces ejection from the chamber because of that, the first member is someone who must shoulder some responsibility for remarks that have been made. What is particularly troubling with respect to what unfolded here today was that the two members in question are both experienced, distinguished members of this chamber. That I find troubling in and of itself.

The member for Brampton South is right: The term "honourable member" refers to the fact that all members are considered honourable and are responsible for the statements they make in the House. That is the responsibility that parallels freedom of speech which members enjoy here so that they can speak their minds freely, without fear of reprisal. All I can ask is that all members keep that in mind and try not to make statements which will in turn be a cause of disorder in the chamber.

Again, I must thank the member for Bruce for drawing this to my attention and to the attention of the House, and hopefully we will not have to endure further incidents of this type.

1520

PETITIONS

POLICE SERVICES

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I've got a petition here to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Beaverton OPP station has been a long-standing, integral part of the Beaverton area; and

"Whereas many of the officers have established permanent homes in the Beaverton area and have become a strong voice for the community in volunteer and non-profit groups; and

"Whereas the OPP station provides a much-needed policing presence,

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

"We demand that the government of Ontario maintain the OPP station in Beaverton," as the closure would be detrimental to the interests of the security, safety and wellbeing of all the Brock and Georgina residents, especially now that the OPP district office in Aurora is realigning the duty and the patrols of the officers who patrol those highways.

MEMBERS' PENSIONS

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Walkerville): I have a petition that was provided to me by Karen Bradie. It contains over 4,000 names. They're from Windsor and Amherstburg and from other cities and towns across Ontario, including Toronto, Niagara Falls, Harrow, Leamington, North Bay, St Catharines, London and other places as well. It states:

"We, the undersigned Canadian taxpayers, are pleading for assent of the proposed bills to reform politicians' pension plans. MPPs must act responsibly and align their pension more realistically with the private sector. Doubledipping, severance pay after voluntary resignation and collecting pensions before age 55 must cease.

"We will not support candidates who are more concerned with furthering their own personal financial interests than protecting the interests of the average taxpayer and the security and wellbeing of the nation."

I've affixed my name to that petition as well.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

Mr Jackson from the standing committee on estimates reported certain resolutions respecting supply for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1994.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TOWNSHIP OF GLANBROOK ACT, 1993

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

Bill Pr63, An Act respecting the Township of Glanbrook.

CASINO LEGISLATION

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Yesterday in this House we were time-allocated, or at least we suffered through a motion of closure on Bill 8, the casino bill.

The reason you do closure is that all of the material has apparently been talked about, all the debate is over as far as the government is concerned, and the business of the House is to have been finished.

Today the government has delivered another amendment to us to be dealt with in committee at a time when the amendments which were already in the committee to be dealt with under Bill 8 were considerable in number and few had been dealt with.

Mr Speaker, I want you to tell us whether or not it's in order for these people to time-allocate the bill and then dump in on top of us, as legislators, further amendments that will affect the nature of the legislation that is coming before this House. I don't know how that can be in order. If all the business has been received to be dealt with, that is one thing, but every time we turn around in this place we get clobbered with time allocation, with closure motions and the sort, and then the government brings in further amendments to the very legislation which it has limited time of debate upon.

Mr Speaker, it is an abuse, in my view, of the rights of the members of this Legislature for that type of process to carry on, and in fact I think we have a good cause to raise with you the privilege we have as legislators to be given due notice of all of the business of the House before a time allocation motion is brought here to be dealt with. In fact, after the time allocation is given, we are then given notice of further amendments to this particular bill, the casino bill.

In this case it is not just a slight amendment. This one deals with the issue of expropriation. As you may know, sir, the importance of expropriation to this province is such that we have a complete bill that deals with the relief to be given to people whose land and interests in land are taken for the public business of the province. In fact, there is a special regimen set up under which certain mechanisms are brought to play to determine the financial value of property.

In this casino bill, the expropriation issue is a major one. It in fact is key to a whole series of other events occurring in the city of Windsor with respect to the development of the casino. What is more, it is a very key item in what is going to happen to an individual citizen, the owner, who, up to the point of this bill and its passage -- when that will occur, the government knows; we don't, but it will occur -- has certain rights. This bill will take those away. Today we are delivered another amendment which is guaranteed to deal again with the Expropriations Act.

Mr Speaker, I wish to have you rule as to whether or not the privileges of the members have been violated by us being prevented from doing the business of this House and from having been given reasonable opportunity to have all of the business around the bills examined before time allocation and closure were brought to bear in this place.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): He's leaving too.

Mr Elston: Yes, there are other people leaving as well.

Mr Speaker, I think you should find that if the government keeps bringing these amendments into this place after it does time allocation and closure, that in fact is an abuse of process. That in fact is an abuse and an overriding of the privileges of the members of this House to be aware of all of the business with respect to any piece of legislation before indeed time allocation and closure are brought to bear in this place.

I ask you for your ruling. I just cannot tolerate any longer the fact that every time we turn around in this House, more things are being dumped on top of us after this government takes extraordinary and other actions against the regular standing orders of this House.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): The member for Brampton North, on the same point of order?

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): Yes. Very briefly, just to add to my House leader's submissions on this particular point of order, this amendment that has been given to us today with respect to the issue raised by the House leader is, I want to add, very significant in terms of its implications not solely for the one individual the House leader mentioned, but indeed a number of others; in fact, some 14 land owners.

Mr Speaker, the point is this: This is not a simple amendment. It has significant implications. I have a responsibility as critic for Consumer and Commercial Relations to represent the opposition, and indeed people in this province, on this very delicate -- and, I might add, extremely contentious -- matter. I don't want to be contentious in this place but I think this is of great significance. I say this cautiously but wholeheartedly, without fear of -- well, perhaps with some fear from yourself, Mr Speaker.

I think it very cowardly of the government to introduce it at this point in time, because it has significant implications in terms not only of the privileges that I enjoy as a member but the responsibilities that I have as critic to deal with something that is as contentious and as sensitive as this particular amendment.

So, Mr Speaker, I would ask you to give this your very careful and serious and grave consideration.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West, on the same point of order?

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Mr Speaker, we just received this notice from the government House leader, or from the government itself, and I don't think our House leader has even had an opportunity to read it. I would ask that you reserve your ruling on the decision until we have an opportunity to have our House leader read it and come up here and make his appeal to you as the Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: I can appreciate the frustration on all sides of the House when these amendments come in. However, if you were to read, "...pursuant to standing order 46...all amendments proposed to the bill shall be filed with the Clerk of the assembly by 3:30 pm on the sessional day on which the bill is considered in committee of the whole House following passage of this motion."

That indeed means that when this bill refers to committee of the whole the amendments must be in. The bill has not, to this point, been submitted to committee of the whole.

Interjection: Mr Speaker, the bill is before the committee of the whole House.

The Acting Speaker: The bill is now before committee of the whole House, but it is just beginning.

1530

Mr McClelland: Mr Speaker, I want to indicate to you there have been two full sessional days devoted to committee of the whole in late September, I believe, perhaps early October. I would ask you to take into consideration that, in fact, there have already been two full days of deliberation in this House, committee of the whole, on this piece of legislation.

It may be a matter of reading and perhaps that wasn't the intent of what you stated, but if, indeed, what you said at the instant moment past is that it should be introduced before it proceeded to committee of whole, we have in fact already proceeded to committee of the whole, Mr Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: It shall return to committee of the whole and the amendments must be in prior to 3:30 on the day when it returns to committee of the whole.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PUBLIC SERVICE AND LABOUR RELATIONS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LA FONCTION PUBLIQUE ET LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL

Mr Cooper moved, on behalf of Mr Mackenzie, second reading of the following bill:

Bill 117, An Act to revise the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, to amend the Public Service Act and the Labour Relations Act and to make related amendments to other acts / Projet de loi 117, Loi révisant la Loi sur la négociation collective des employés de la Couronne, modifiant la Loi sur la fonction publique et la Loi sur les relations de travail et apportant des modifications connexes à d'autres lois.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): The parliamentary assistant has moved second reading. Does the honourable member have some opening remarks?

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): It is my privilege to rise on behalf of the Minister of Labour to move second reading of Bill 117, an omnibus bill which will bring significant change and reform to labour relations in the Ontario public service.

Bill 117 consists of three distinct yet complementary parts. Firstly, we are modernizing the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, more commonly known as CECBA, to bring it in line with similar laws in other provinces.

Secondly, we are expanding political activity rights for Ontario public servants so that they have practically the same freedom to take part in the political process as their counterparts in the private sector.

Finally, we are proposing to become the first jurisdiction in Canada to provide whistle-blowing protection for its employees. We want public servants who wish to bring forth allegations of wrongdoing in the public interest to do so without fear of being penalized.

It is my pleasure to begin by telling the House about the first element of Bill 117, the changes we are proposing to CECBA.

As it stands now, CECBA is a restrictive and outmoded piece of labour legislation, not only in comparison to the Ontario Labour Relations Act but also to labour laws in many jurisdictions in Canada and elsewhere.

The old law excludes many workers from all the rights, benefits and responsibilities of collective bargaining. It denies all government workers the right to strike, restricts and narrows the scope of the issues which can be bargained, and relies excessively on costly and time-consuming arbitration.

CECBA remains substantially unchanged from when it first became law more than 20 years ago. But in that same time period, we have witnessed dramatic changes in the nature of work and the workplace. The issues are more complex, making the need for flexibility and a modern act all the greater.

As both the Premier and the Minister of Labour have noted recently, the current act has hindered attempts by both the government and bargaining agents to move labour relations forward in the Ontario public service. A modernized CECBA will help us develop the better working relationships so necessary to improve both the quality of work and services government provides.

Everyone with an interest in CECBA agrees on the need for reform. It has long been desired by the government as employer and the public service unions which represent employees in the Ontario public service and affiliated crown agencies.

As a result, our reform proposals are grounded in a process of consensus between all parties that began almost two years ago.

At this point, I want to highlight some of the more important changes we are proposing to CECBA in Bill 117.

We are expanding, to the fullest extent possible, access to collective bargaining for employees in currently excluded job classifications.

About 9,000 public servants who were previously excluded will be given the right to bargain collectively. That will reduce the level of exclusion from collective bargaining among Ontario public servants from its current 25% down to 12%.

Of those 9,000 workers I referred to, about 2,000 share a community of interest with an existing bargaining unit represented by OPSEU. These employees will be assigned to that bargaining unit and will retain full seniority. The other 7,000 of the previously excluded will be free to unionize and choose their own bargaining agent, if it is their desire to do so.

A limited number of public service positions will remain excluded from collective bargaining. These include judges, physicians, labour mediators, ministers' staff and employees who regularly give advice on public sector employment legislation.

Under our CECBA reforms, employees who are eligible to bargain and who choose to organize will have the fullest range of labour rights, including the right to strike. However, the right to strike will be contingent on both parties reaching prior agreement to protect essential services. The public can therefore be assured that essential public services will not be threatened as a result of any strike or lockout.

We are also proposing that some professional employees who currently have limited bargaining rights should be permitted to enjoy all the provisions of the new act. These professional employees will be guaranteed separate bargaining units and full bargaining rights under this bill, again, if it is their desire to organize.

An especially welcome, long-awaited provision of Bill 117 opens up the collective bargaining process to include all workplace issues, including job classifications, work assignments, training and pensions.

We are also lessening the reliance on binding arbitration by requiring the mutual consent of both parties before resorting to arbitration. The grievance arbitration process will be streamlined in accordance with the Ontario Labour Relations Act. This includes access to expedited grievance arbitration.

Many other changes in the act will also encourage the parties to negotiate successfully and quickly resolve problems.

Finally, I want to point out that the jurisdiction of the public sector labour relations tribunal, which deals with issues such as union certification, termination of a union's bargaining rights and employee status, will be transferred to the Ontario Labour Relations Board on passage and proclamation of this bill.

The bill will also allow the government to conduct its labour relations in a system that is fairer, less cumbersome and less expensive. Our proposals will encourage greater maturity and responsibility in public sector collective bargaining and will place the responsibility for resolution of workplace disputes largely where it belongs, on the two parties and not on the arbitrators.

The second component of this omnibus legislation will expand the political activity rights of the Ontario crown employees. This government has long been committed to giving these employees the same rights already enjoyed by their counterparts in the private sector. We believe that this objective could be met while continuing to ensure the quality, integrity and neutrality of the public service.

This legislation is not about what employees may or may not have done before they joined the Ontario public service; it is about the political activity rights of crown employees once they are on the job. All crown employees will be subject to the provisions contained in the proposed legislation.

This political activity rights legislation will give crown employees greater freedom to exercise a most fundamental democratic right, the right to fully participate in political activity. It's a right that has long been enjoyed by employees in the private sector, a right that we believe has been severely and unnecessarily restricted in the public service up until now.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The parliamentary assistant, I assume, is speaking on behalf of the minister and I think there should be at least a quorum in this place to hear his comments.

The Acting Speaker: Could the clerk check to see if we have a quorum.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

1540

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Kitchener-Wilmot and parliamentary assistant can continue his participation in his opening remarks to the debate.

Mr Cooper: Thank you, Mr Speaker. As I last said, it's a right that has long been enjoyed by employees in the private sector, a right that we believe has been severely and unnecessarily restricted in the public service up until now.

You'll recall that the government's intentions in this matter were outlined as far back as 1990, in the throne speech, where our concerns were voiced. We felt that restrictions on the political activities of crown employees were too broad and that existing rights were too narrow.

In addition, we were concerned that if some provisions of the Public Service Act remained unchanged, they could even be challenged as constitutionally invalid. On that score, our predictions were proven correct.

Anticipating that this bill would not be passed in time for last month's federal election, the Ontario Public Service Employees Union went to court to challenge the constitutionality of political activity restrictions under the Public Service Act. The resulting court decision confirmed the direction inherent in this legislation.

In response, the government issued interim guidelines that mirrored many of the provisions already contained in the legislation. This meant that crown employees were able to exercise new and greater freedoms during the recent federal election. For the first time, unrestricted employees were able to canvass on behalf of a candidate and solicit funds for a party or candidate without being on a leave of absence.

Let me summarize some of the other highlights of this legislation. This bill will redefine the two-tier system that divides employees into a restricted group and unrestricted one. Under the current system, there are approximately 6,000 people in the restricted group. In the proposed policy there will be only 3,000 people in the most restricted category. This is an expansion of rights in and of itself.

Deputy ministers, senior managers in the Ontario public service, senior officers in the Ontario Provincial Police and full-time members of government agencies, boards and commissions will remain restricted. All other crown employees will fall into the unrestricted tier.

These unrestricted employees will have more freedom to comment on political issues, to canvass without taking a leave of absence and to choose whether or not to take a leave of absence when seeking a political nomination for any level of government.

Restricted employees will also enjoy greater rights, among them fewer restrictions when making political statements and when seeking elected municipal office.

Of course, in the interests of maintaining a politically neutral public service, there are some limitations in the legislation as well. For instance, unrestricted employees who directly supervise or employees who deal face to face with the public -- for example, human rights officers, welfare workers and members of the Ontario Provincial Police -- will not be able to solicit funds for candidates or political parties unless they are on a leave of absence.

Mr Mahoney: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I hate to keep doing this, but I think it is incumbent upon this government to keep a quorum in this place. They can't seem to stay in their seats for five minutes.

The Acting Speaker: Do we have a quorum?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Kitchener-Wilmot may resume his opening remarks in this debate.

Mr Cooper: Thank you, Mr Speaker. To continue, crown employees will still be prohibited from engaging in political activity while at work, on government business or in uniform. They may not directly associate their jobs with political actions unless they are on a leave of absence. They must take a leave of absence to campaign as candidates in a federal or provincial election, and as always, they must observe conflict-of-interest rules unless, in the case of unrestricted employees, they are on a leave of absence.

This proposed legislation is the result of a vast consultation process that included the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, the Ontario Provincial Police Association, OPS staff and key members of the public. It stems from some beliefs very fundamental to this government: that free speech and participation in public life are crucial to a vital democracy; that to the greatest extent possible, public employees must enjoy rights parallel to their private sector counterparts; and that it can all be done without jeopardizing the neutrality or the high standards of government service in Ontario.

The final component of this bill will introduce whistle-blowing protection for civil servants. In its November 1990 throne speech, this government announced its intention to introduce measures to protect whistle-blowers. This bill follows very closely the recommendations made by the Ontario Law Reform Commission in its 1986 report involving public comment rights of government employees. Using this report, involving expert legal research by the commission, as a basis for our proposal, we began a consultation through a discussion paper circulated to various employee representatives, ministries, agencies, the media and MPPs.

This legislation breaks significant ground. Ontario will be the first jurisdiction in Canada with legislation that provides comprehensive whistle-blower protection for provincial government employees. Also, discussions are ongoing about extending this to municipal employees.

I would also note that along similar lines, Ontario has recently introduced an Environmental Bill of Rights that protects both private and public sector employees who blow the whistle regarding environmental matters. The legislation we are discussing today will protect government employees who in good faith wish to bring forward allegations of serious wrongdoing in a constructive and responsible way.

This legislation illustrates the government's continuing commitment to an open and democratic workplace, a workplace where we recognize the importance of striking an appropriate balance between permitting allegations of serious wrongdoing to be disclosed in the public interest, while at the same time ensuring that allegations are brought forward responsibly and fairly to everyone concerned. This serves the public interest and also helps to build a more effective civil service.

What this legislation is not about is authorizing leaks of confidential government information. The leaking of government information continues to be unacceptable and improper. It violates the employee's oath of confidentiality under the Public Service Act and may violate confidentiality provisions in other statutes.

This bill will provide government workers with a confidential channel through which they can disclose an allegation of serious government wrongdoing. Currently, employees who wish to disclose information about serious government wrongdoing have very little protection. Whistle-blowers are required to put their jobs at risk if they disclose information about serious wrongdoing. Only in very limited circumstances may the court set aside an employment penalty where the disclosure of information about serious wrongdoing was determined by the court to be in the public interest.

I am pleased to outline the key provisions of the bill regarding whistle-blowing. Firstly, this bill defines "serious wrongdoing" to mean a violation of a statute or a regulation, gross mismanagement, gross waste of money, abuse of authority, a grave health and safety hazard to any person, or a grave environmental hazard.

Secondly, the bill will establish a counsel, who will be a lawyer, to assist employees who wish to disclose information about alleged serious government wrongdoing. A major role of the counsel will be to advise employees on how to deal with their allegations in a constructive way. When the counsel determines that an investigation is required, a provincial government ministry or agency must investigate and prepare a report.

Ordinarily, the counsel will place this report in a file available to the public. The counsel has limited discretion to withhold a report from the public in specific circumstances; for example, when public disclosure may jeopardize an ongoing law enforcement investigation.

Retaliation against an employee who has disclosed information to the counsel may be specifically prohibited. In addition, extensive measures are taken to ensure the confidentiality and anonymity of employees who come forward with allegations.

The public has a legitimate interest in knowing that any allegation of government wrongdoing is dealt with appropriately. Allegations that should be investigated will be investigated.

1550

Mr Mahoney: Mr Speaker, I'm going to do this all afternoon if the government's not prepared to keep a quorum in here. There's not one present at the moment.

The Acting Speaker: Would the clerk check to see if we have a quorum, please.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Kitchener-Wilmot may resume his opening remarks in this debate.

Mr Cooper: We're just about done now. This legislation is infinitely fairer to the employee and, equally important, of greater benefit to the public, and public trust and respect is earned through integrity and openness in government.

In conclusion, these reforms will give working men and women in the public sector the rights and opportunities they have sought for many years. As the Minister of Labour has said, Bill 117 is progressive for workers, practical for government to administer and protective of the public interest. It is in the best tradition of a government committed to progress for working people. I urge this House to give its second reading speedy passage and look forward to the debate on this bill.

The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments? Further debate.

Mr Mahoney: I hope we'll be able to maintain a quorum for the rest of the afternoon, but I can assure you that if that falls below, I'll raise the issue. It's interesting because part of the price, I guess, of having a majority government when you're putting bills before the House, with the limited opportunity that we have to debate them, including this bill, including every bill, with the attempts -- that's right, calm them all down; I'll get them riled up later, Margaret -- that this House leader makes to shut down debate in this place, you would think that the least the government could do, the government that is supposedly representing all the people, whether it's dealing with Bill 117, which I'm going to go into in some detail, or whether it's dealing with Bill 8, like we did with the recent -- can you imagine, here we've already had a closure motion, debated two days ago in this House, on a piece of legislation and they introduce another amendment.

It makes you wonder if you need another closure motion to deal with the amendment; I realize you don't. But it's really an unusual way of doing business. It clearly is an example that proves the point that my House leader and I have raised with the government House leader, with other members, and that is that people in the various ministries don't have their act together.

We're getting amendments thrown on us at the last minute. In the case of Bill 8, that occurred. In the case of Bill 80, we had a group of amendments, I might add, delivered 10 minutes before I, as the Labour critic for the Liberal Party, was supposed to do my leadoff 90-minute speech analysing the impact of the bill. I'm given a document in legalese, in bureaucratese, whatever you want to call it, 10 minutes before the speech, and I'm told that they're doing me a favour. Well, do me a favour: Don't do me any more favours. I don't need that kind of help.

The incompetence that's being shown is becoming very, very difficult to deal with. Our abilities, our tools are very limited because of the changes in the rules that have taken place that preclude getting into any real depth of debate, whether it's on Bill 117 or not.

Let me just tell you that this is interesting because this bill is actually an omnibus bill. This bill, as the parliamentary assistant nods in agreement, is a bill that is a combination of a number of things. I remember another omnibus bill, and it seems that whenever the government gets to the end of a session, all of a sudden we start to see omnibus bills appearing, putting things together.

Bill 29, members opposite will recall, was a bill --

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): Pot-pourri.

Mr Mahoney: Pot-pourri?

Mr Callahan: Yes. They try to hide things in there.

Mr Mahoney: Bill 29 was a bill that was brought before us near the end of the last sitting of the Legislature and it was unbelievable the different acts it amended. One of the things it attempted to do was bring in major amendments to the Pharmacy Act, and it was only upon an outcry from pharmacists all across the province to every opposition MPP's office, to every government MPP's office -- I'm sure in Timmins they were calling the member for Cochrane North saying, "What are you trying to do, sneaking this through on us?" If you want to bring in legislation, bring it in and let it stand on its own two feet.

One again, here in this situation we have three different bills at least -- actually, more than three, but three substantive bills -- with substantive changes to the point where it crosses critics' roles. So the member for Oriole, Mrs Caplan, will be doing the last half, the second half of these opening remarks, because it transgresses from the Labour critic's role into her role as critic for Management Board. I think this combination is an attempt by the government to confuse issues.

Interjection.

Mr Mahoney: Then deal with them separately if that's not the case, because clearly the issue of revising the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act is an independent issue that should be dealt with in that regard and should not be muddled up with amendments to the Labour Relations Act and the Public Service Act. Instead, you bring them together, you put them in an omnibus bill, because it is the only way, due to a breakdown -- well, there is another way: You could bring in each bill individually and you could simply accompany it with a closure motion. You've done that.

We sit four days a week, Monday through Thursday. Two days this week we've already had closure motions delivered. I asked the clerk yesterday if we had the closure motion du jour. We know that every day we sit here like we've got a hammer over our heads. The thing that's so frustrating about that is that we have a responsibility as members of Her Majesty's loyal opposition to question the government, to hold the government accountable. If you have a majority government, and these members know this better than anyone because they had the job -- many of the members in cabinet, not the rookie MPPs who are here for the first and last time, but many of the members in the cabinet sat over on this side. Any time there was any attempt --

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I don't believe there's a quorum present.

The Acting Speaker: Could the clerk check to see if we have a quorum, please.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Mississauga West has the floor. We are dealing with second reading of Bill 117.

1600

Mr Mahoney: I guess the point I'd like to stress in this debate is that it's interesting to me, since the NDP has been elected, three years, how much time we spend on labour legislation.

I think back to our three years in a majority government. We brought in two pretty major labour bills, Bill 162 and Bill 208. Interestingly enough, those bills dealt with amendments to a specific problem, workers' compensation --

Interjections.

Mr Mahoney: Just follow me with this. Follow me with this. I know this is hard for you to understand, but follow me with this.

We looked at workers' compensation and said we need to make some changes. It doesn't matter what side of the issue you're on; we brought in a bill that dealt specifically with an agency that was in some trouble. Obviously, that agency is in even more trouble today. Then we brought in Bill 208 -- a very controversial piece of labour legislation, I might add, very controversial within the business community -- and it dealt with the establishment of a bipartite agency to deliver health and safety training throughout the province, the purpose being to try to reduce the number of person-hours lost due to sickness or accident in the workplace.

I don't hear any chirping over there because even this group would have to agree that is something that would be very important: trying to reduce the number of lost hours. We didn't bring in legislation that dealt with bargaining rights. We didn't bring in legislation that dealt with affiliation to international unions or the power of a local. We didn't bring in legislation that dealt with new ways to organize, tilting the playing field so that --

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): Be careful.

Mr Mahoney: What do you mean, "Be careful"? Why should I be careful? What you've done is put in place a system within the labour movement that allows for raiding to take place, intimidation to take place -- can you imagine, of all things, taking away the right to a secret ballot? And here you're doing it again.

Just one of the things that Bill 117 does is that it forces unilaterally, with no vote, with no option, 2,000 civil servants into OPSEU. They're not given a choice in this bill. Imagine legislation by any government -- I don't care if you would call yourself a labour government. I can tell you that even the people in OPSEU don't call you a labour government. Even Fred Upshaw would like to throw you out on your can, and yet --

Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): Is Fred against the bill?

Mr Mahoney: Why would he be against the bill?

Mr Klopp: Well, both sides --

Mr Mahoney: No, no. Just a minute. You see? Can you imagine? Why would he be against a bill that's going to give him 2,000 union-dues-paying members? I don't think the man's stupid. He's probably saying: "All right. You really gave it to us with the social contract and, boy, oh, boy, my members were upset and I had to politic." This is Upshaw speaking. "Now you're going to give it back to me by giving me 2,000 new members."

How much do you think they'd pay in dues? What do you think an OPSEU member would pay in dues annually? What do you think? Would it be $20, $30, $40, $50 a month, something like that? Two thousand members; let's call it $50 a month. Would it be that much? I'm asking for help here, anybody. Would it be $50 a month, $600 a year, times 2,000 members? Not bad. "Sorry, Fred. We really got you upset with the social contract and we know you've got a political agenda because you're elected. We understand that, but we've got to do this anyway, and you can yell and scream about it if you want. But we're going to make it up to you. We're actually going to pass legislation that forces, with no vote, with no say, with no consultation, with no choice, 2,000 members of the civil service to join a union: one union, only one union. They don't have a choice."

Would you call that a payoff? I don't know. A payback? They're awfully quiet now. It's interesting. I don't know what you'd call it, but it seems pretty clear to me.

Every time we ask a question in the House, let me tell you that the Premier particularly loves to stand up and rant and rave, as he did today, about something the former Liberal government did, so he can't have it both ways.

Let's talk about some things the former Liberal government did in the area of Bill 162 and Bill 208. They were labour bills that dealt with specific problems within both the labour industry and the business industry, that dealt with problems of concern. Maybe they didn't satisfy all of the concerns -- I don't know of a government in Canada that can do that -- but at least they attempted to tackle the issues.

What does this government do? The first thing they do when they get into power is tilt that old playing field with Bill 40. They completely destroy any sense of confidence that the investment sector, that the business sector, that the manufacturing sector, that the retail sector, that anybody has in doing business in Ontario.

They do this at a time of the worst recession in 65 years that we've faced in this province, in this country, at a time when they should be concentrating on getting economic activity going again, at a time when they should be looking at jobs for people in Ontario, at a time when they should know what the men and women in the rank and file on the shop floor know; that is, if the company goes out of business because of undue government interference and regulation, then they're going to lose their jobs.

The workers understand that. They know full well that this government has done more to undermine confidence in the business community, in the private sector, in the investment community here in Canada, in the United States and abroad, than every government in every province of this entire country. The results were clear on October 25.

Anybody who thinks that Audrey McLaughlin lost because of Audrey McLaughlin wasn't paying attention. I actually felt sorry for her. I thought she showed some courage. She tried to stay to her agenda; whether you agree with her agenda or not is not the issue, but she was carrying an albatross on her back like I've never seen any politician have to do, perhaps with the exception of Mike Harris, who has to carry the Brian Mulroney legacy and the legacy of former Tory governments in the province.

Mr Turnbull: What about David Peterson, who lost his seat?

Mr Mahoney: I knew I'd wake up the extreme right-wing fanatic in the Conservative Party. Preston Manning is on line 2; I think he's looking for you. And Ross Perot -- oh, here's Preston now; I'm sorry. There's someone waiting to talk to you.

The Acting Speaker: Please, to the member, address your --

Mr Mahoney: It is addressing the bill, because this is a labour bill.

The Acting Speaker: When you're referring to another honourable member, use the riding from whence he comes.

Mr Mahoney: The point of the matter is that there are a number of areas within the bill that I'm going to address, but I just want to say, in leaving the overview of this, I just wish you would sit down in your caucus --

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): Talk about the bill.

Mr Mahoney: Mr Hansen, you are a reasonable MPP. You've got a constituency out there of fruit farmers, of business people, of small business people trying to survive. Go into your caucus and say to them: "Oh, there's another labour bill coming. It's the agriculture labour bill."

Another example of lack of consultation, of getting it all wrong, is going out and having meetings with all the farmers and saying, "Here's what we want to do," and then writing something up that's totally opposite to what they want. Why can't you people get together in your caucus meeting and say: "Maybe it's time we left the labour movement alone. Maybe it's time we stopped trying to bring in amendments every other day to change collective bargaining rights, to change how people can organize unions, to change the rules under which raids occur, to change the affiliation, be they national, local or international"?

Bill 80 is probably the most draconian bill of all, and yet the public isn't interested. I'll tell you why. Because it only affects the construction labour groups.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): And they've given up.

Mr Mahoney: I don't think they have given up. They're madder than hell and they're going to make sure they throw these guys out in the next election, which they'd like to happen next week.

Imagine this: You've got a union; it's organized. You have a meeting, you set a constitution. In the constitution you have rules and regulations. Everybody votes on it. There it is. It governs how the union functions, everything from grievance procedures to amendments to the constitution.

This government is coming in with its labour laws, of which this is one, and with another labour law saying, "We're going to change your constitution on you and you don't have anything to say about it." That would be like going into a Rotary Club -- imagine going into a Rotary Club; they have a constitution -- and saying: "Okay, Rotarians, line up. We don't like the way you're having your lunches on Wednesdays, so we're going to change it. You're going to now meet every Monday."

1610

Mr Stockwell: No more sing-songs.

Mr Mahoney: No more sing-songs. That's the Kinsmen. No more, "Here we are, a happy bunch of men." I was an honorary Kinsman and an honorary Kinette for some time. I enjoyed the Kinette role more.

They're going into a service club, telling them they don't like the way they operate so they're just going to change their constitution. Where in the world does this government get off thinking it has the right to change the duly passed constitution of a union in this province, with duly elected executives and a board elected by the membership: elected, elected, elected? Where do they think they can do this? I asked people presenting in committee yesterday, "Can you tell me one other jurisdiction in the free world where this is in place?"

Mr Stockwell: What did they say?

Mr Mahoney: They said no. They don't know of any other government anywhere that would have the audacity to come in and unilaterally and arbitrarily pass legislation that just changes their constitution. Frankly, I think it will wind up in the courts. It violates convention 87, article 3 of the International Labour Organization in Geneva. The members know that. It violates that, wherein that article says that public authorities shall not interfere in the inner workings of a trade union. It says that.

That's been passed in Canada. It's been endorsed by the CLC, by the Canadian Federation of Labour, I assume by Gord Wilson of the Ontario Federation of Labour -- I assume he would support that -- by all of the unions, I assume. I assume Fred Upshaw would support that. What would Fred Upshaw say if Bill 117 included an amendment that allowed you, the government, the Minister of Labour, to strike out clauses in his union's constitution? I can't imagine what he would say. I think he would be pretty upset.

Who's to say this is to stop at the construction level? We know it won't stop there. The only thing that will stop this tinkering, this constant interference, this constant manipulation by this socialist, dogmatic government, the only thing that will stop it is an election.

Mr Stockwell: On that note, I would call a quorum.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Etobicoke West has asked for a head count.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Mississauga West can resume his participation in the debate.

Mr Mahoney: I want to thank the member for Etobicoke West for calling a quorum, because I think he, like I, feels that members of the government, whether they like it or not, should listen to the criticism of this bill and of every bill in this place. I appreciate you doing that.

Let me deal with one of the issues in here, whistleblowing. The most interesting thing -- I remember the throne speech. I mean, it was an historic -- oh, it's too bad the Minister of Labour has missed all my discussions about all his bills. Oh well, I'm sure you know I'll repeat them at a future date. I'll send you a copy of Hansard autographed.

The whistle-blowing provisions that are in here: We heard the Premier. In fact, we heard some of the quotes from the throne speech today and the Premier's speeches about politics not being what we can get but what we owe each other. It was great. You could just see McClellan and all of these guys -- I guess Piper was here. Remember John Piper? He was back in the back room saying: "What do we get the Premier to say so we get that 20-second clip?" You know, "Ask not what your country can do for you." They're looking for one of those. They would say to the Premier, "Here it is, Premier, we got it: 'Politics is not about what we can get but it's rather about what we owe each other,'" and a little tear comes down the cheek and everybody goes, "Boy, Premier, it is so sincere." Yet we know better. We know how phony it is.

We know that in that speech three years ago there was a promise by this government that it was going to do things differently --

Mr Stockwell: They have.

Mr Mahoney: Well, that's true, but not quite that way. They were going to open up the process to allow everybody in. It's fascinating. Yet today we have them opening up the process with two closure motions in one week. That's really opening up the process.

One of the motions says there shall be two days of committee hearings and then on the second day you'll do clause-by-clause. So help me with this. Two days in clause-by-clause. That sort of means you do clause-byclause on the second day and you'll do public hearings on the first day, so it's really only one day. One day amounts to -- what? -- two and a half hours, max? Two and a half hours? If you give somebody 15 minutes, is that unreasonable, to give him 15 minutes to come in and analyse a bill? I'm talking about someone from the public. I'm talking about someone with concerns about this. They get 15 minutes. Is that unfair, I say to the members opposite? And in two and a half hours, what are you going to get? You're going to get eight or 10 people in. We have a province of nine million people. That's open government. Yessiree, Bob, that's open government.

Then the next day they bring in another closure motion, and these aren't on unsubstantive bills. These motions are on Bill 8, on a gambling casino. They're on photo-radar.

Mr Stockwell: Did they have a mandate?

Mr Mahoney: Did they have a mandate? Thirty-seven per cent of the people voted for these guys but they got a majority. I admit that. I respect that.

What's the first thing they did when they got in power? They changed the rules so that nobody could filibuster. They put time limits on it. They changed the rules so they could bring in closure so they could hammer bills that they knew would be unpopular. I tell you, when they wrote their Agenda for People they knew darned well they weren't going to follow it if a miracle happened -- unfortunately, it did -- and they became the government. They knew they weren't going to follow it. They were just pandering to a bunch of NDP rank-and-file members at their annual meeting, telling them, "Oh yes, we believe in all of that." Then what happens? They get into office and they do a turn to the right so sudden that the entire province has got whiplash, and because of the auto insurance changes I don't even know what to do about that. Their premiums have all gone up. I mean, it just goes on and on.

One of the things they promised they would be different about was whistle-blowing. Let me tell you, we in the Liberal caucus support the concept of whistle-blowing. We have supported it for some time. We in fact said at the time that it was read as a throne speech initiative, "If they do that, that will be good," because we have found, particularly being in opposition with these people in government, that those brown envelopes keep sliding under the door every day, and guess who they're coming from? They're coming from members of Fred Upshaw's union. They're coming from civil servants all across Queen's Park, all across the province. They show up in faxes, for goodness' sake, at our constituency offices on a regular basis. They show up at our homes. They phone us.

Interjection.

Mr Mahoney: No, those are leaks, and you know why they're leaks? Because they're so frightened of you. They're so frightened.

1620

I hear the minister for the GTA today, in answer to questions about why the mayor of Brampton, his worship Peter Robertson, was physically ejected from the IWA meetings -- here, he's coming into the room -- stand up and go on with some answer about how "That mayor calls me all the time." Let me tell the minister something. Those mayors and those councillors -- and I was a councillor for some time -- know that if they say anything to you that you don't like, you're going to get them one way or another. One way or another you, the NDP, the most vindictive party in the history of this province, are going to get them. So they can't.

They have to come in to you. They phone up the minister and they go: "Mr Minister, hi. How are you? We need your help." Why? Because it's their job. It's their responsibility. There's only one mayor I know of who can come in and tell you to your face, and that's my mayor, and you won't dare take any guff from her.

Interjection: That's Hazel.

Mr Mahoney: That's Hazel. You got it.

Let me tell you, they come in, and they have to come in hat in hand. They have to be careful. They have to say: "Hi. You're looking good. You're doing a nice job." You should hear what they say to us. You should hear what they say when they have no retribution to fear. It's a little different story. They're a little more open and honest.

Mr Klopp: Name names.

Mr Mahoney: I don't have to name names. I can tell you all of them. Go through a process of elimination. Every one of the ones in my municipality is scared to death that you guys are going to somehow do something that hurts their municipality, my city. You know what? I think they have a right to be afraid. They also know that they've only got, at the most, 18 months left, so they just sort of suck it up and hold their breath and wait until they get a chance and the public gets a chance to get rid of you.

That's why you need this whistle-blowing, because what you have going on right now is you have people, not just civil servants but even elected officials, if you can imagine, afraid to say anything. A civil servant today knows that if he or she discovers someone in the civil service above him or her in rank, particularly if they're a pal of David Agnew, particularly if they are part of the NDP infiltration of the civil service, their jobs could be at risk.

That's pretty frightening in today's economy. Now, who is going to come out and say a darn thing other than a nice smile and a handshake and a howdy do and, "Boy, you guys are great," if they think their jobs could be in jeopardy? You even have members of your own caucus who don't have the guts to do that. You have members of your own caucus who don't agree with the direction of the government.

Interjection.

Mr Mahoney: You do. I've talked to them. They come over and talk to us all the time. I say: "Don't tell me; tell Bob. Tell Bob." Why don't you tell --

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): Tell Steve Langdon.

Mr Mahoney: Tell Steve Langdon. He's got some guts. But, you see, he doesn't need any whistle-blowing protection. He doesn't need any of your help.

Mr Turnbull: It's too late now.

Mr Mahoney: He's history. He went down, just like the other whatever number in the NDP caucus, in flames because of one person: Bob Rae. Bob Rae knows it. I'm sure Bob Rae knows it. And for all his denial and his protestations that he has nothing to do with it, I'm sure he's sick to death about the fact that he will go down in history as not a Tommy Douglas, let me tell you. No way. He will not go down as a man who built what used to be a great institution in the New Democratic Party in this country. I don't care if you believe in them; they were at least a group that had something to say. I give your national party some credit for medicare and other things. I do. I think in fact there was a social conscience that was there. Even if you didn't agree with it, at least it was there to hold people accountable, to put forward ideas on behalf of the little guy. What in the world happened to that party?

History will record that Bob Rae singlehandedly destroyed that party -- singlehandedly. He didn't even have help from his caucus or his cabinet, because we all know that the levers of power are vested and rested in the corner office of the pink palace, and there is only one person who has his hand on that lever. And when he pulls it, you all just jump. "How high, Bob? How high do you want us to go?"

How else can you explain the nerve of an NDP caucus, elected on the Agenda for People, to go back into their community to defend some of the policies that they've had to defend?

That's why we're getting whistle-blowing. It's only taken the government three years. They've been busy. They've been dealing with Bill 40. They've been dealing with Bill 80. They bring in more amendments here in Bill 117. They're bringing in the agricultural labour amendments, to the chagrin of the OFA and any other farmer in the province, I say to the minister, who do not agree with what you're doing.

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): That's not true.

Mr Mahoney: Then they're lying to you or they're lying to us, I don't know which, Minister, but we're going to find out, unless you decide that you're going to bring closure in on that bill and shut them down so they don't have a chance to speak. Maybe you are, I don't know.

But we're finally going to get whistle-blowing with this bill, and let's be clear: This bill, just like every other bill that this government introduces with their massive majority, is going to carry. The amendments that will take place will not be as a result of things that we say in this place; they will not be as a result of anything that we do in committee; they will only be as a result of whims of either the Labour minister or the Chairman of Management Board. That's all. They will be the ones who will determine.

The fact of the matter is, all we can do is we can hold them accountable, we can publicize whatever they're doing, be it in a draconian way. We can point out to the people of this province the damage that they're doing, and we can ask people to simply hold their breath for another 18 months or hopefully less, but probably not, until we can go to the polls.

Ms Murdock: We're not David Peterson.

Mr Mahoney: If you're right, if you thought you were right, call an election. I'd be delighted. I don't think that that'll happen.

I talked earlier about the payoff to Fred Upshaw. Let's just understand something. There's a very important issue here. The right to strike in the public service --

Mrs Ellen MacKinnon: (Lambton): You're still not on the bill.

Mr Mahoney: -- I'm still not on the bill? -- the right to strike in the public service is an issue in this bill that's coming forward.

My colleague the member for Oriole will be going into some detail about the impact of that but I also want to put on the record some concerns.

They are attempting to identify, somewhere in all this stuff I have it, essential services. They have to negotiate an essential services agreement with the public service and they will define, hopefully, anything that represents danger to health and safety in the province, destruction or deterioration of equipment, serious environmental damage.

I wonder if that would include the dumps. What do you think? That's interesting. I just thought of that. That could include the new dumps: serious environmental damage to farm land. It may be a reason to support some of this. Interesting. Maybe this is going to come back in your face. Interesting.

Disruption of the courts: We know that Bob is going around building courts in NDP ridings and, according to my colleague from Brampton South, who's very upset, he's derailed the project in Brampton. Although, thanks to the intervention by Bob Callahan, the Liberal member for Brampton South, the Premier apparently in the newspaper today is saying the Brampton courthouse is back on track. I don't know, Bob, if you saw that. Apparently it is.

Thank you on behalf of the people of Peel, let me tell you, to this member, for holding this Premier accountable and for embarrassing him to the point where he had to put that issue back on track. I really think that that is a clear example of how an opposition member can indeed function and get something done around here, and you're to be congratulated for that.

Those are the definitions, I guess, in the agreement for essential services that they're going to deal with.

1630

They've got to have an agreement in place and presumably that will exclude those people from the right to strike. This is like the social contract. They defined critical services in the social contract. So now you've got firefighters -- I think we agree those are critical -- and the firefighters have to work and don't get paid instead of not working and not getting paid because they're critical. Guess what they get to do with that day's work that they didn't get paid for? Right here, in the bank, in the pocket.

In 1996, when Bob is no longer the Premier, the firefighters are going to have a right to come back to their municipality, unless they've negotiated something different, and say: "Guess what? I have worked 12 days a year for the last three years for nothing. I want my money now."

"The act says you can't have it in money. What would you like it in? How about holiday pay? How about holidays? How about if we give you time off paid?" What happens if they give them a paid holiday to make up for the Rae day they worked that they didn't paid for? You've got to hire somebody else to pay him because they were defined as critical.

Mr Stockwell: No savings.

Mr Mahoney: Well, not only no savings; there is an accumulation of an outstanding liability that could cripple some of the municipalities in the province if they don't have the foresight and the good luck to negotiate a better deal with their union, with their local in the Firefighters. This is simply putting off today's problems to 1996.

It reminds me that there's another example. The member for Etobicoke West will get a kick out of this. My mother-in-law -- hi, Edna, how are you doing, kid? -- is 70 or something young. She goes to get her licence renewed and she doesn't know how long she's going to be driving. They took six years of licence fees out of her in one cheque. She said: "I might not be driving in six years, in two years, in three years. Do I get a refund?" What do you think?

You see, you're collecting anything you can. The truth is she's not watching because she's on holidays, but it's okay; she's a good lady. You guys are gouging all the seniors with six years' worth of licensing fees today to try to solve the problem you've created with your $10 billion deficits every year. This is unbelievable.

A new government's going to come in power. I think you probably agree with that. You may not say so, but I have a sneaking suspicion that you're probably in agreement that a new government will take over in 18 months. They're going to come in, all that revenue's already gone and they still have to provide services. The money that you collect from that is supposed to go into road improvements, it's supposed to go into GO trains, and you've already spent the money. It won't be there. That source of revenue will have dried up.

The point is that in the same way, in the social contract, by allowing everyone who is defined, everyone who is deemed a critical service, many of which would fall into the same category under Bill 117 that's deemed an essential service, this government has put off the payday to 1996.

We know that. So the fact is that like Mr Chrétien, we're not going to be able to get into power and say, "Look, we opened the books and they're worse than we thought." We know how bad it's going to be. The business community, the people of Ontario know how bad it's going to be. We just wish you would stop making it worse. Just stop. Just take a seat. I mean, stop. Please. I'm afraid you won't.

Ms Murdock: Bill 117.

Mr Mahoney: Well, Bill 117 is going to lead to that because what's going to happen with Bill 117 is that everybody outside of these essential services is now going to enjoy the right to strike. Will the province of Ontario be able to withstand the economic damage that will be done by widespread strikes that will occur in 1996 as a result of the social contract coming to an end and the civil servants in this province saying: "You have blamed us long enough; you have put this problem on our backs; we're mad as hell and we're not going to take it any more"?

That's what they're going to say. They're going to come to the government of the day, and they're going to say: "We want our Rae days back. We want our overtime back. We want our job security back. We want our respect back." Where do you guys get off dumping on them?

Absolutely you have to reduce the size of government. You were given alternatives. You were given alternatives of reducing pay by 5% across the board and every six months, in 1% increments, increasing the pay so that after three years, the civil servant, the worker -- they're workers too, by the way -- could say, "I'll be back to where I was in three years time." But you didn't do that. That would have solved the problem.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Would you address your remarks through the Chair.

Mr Mahoney: They didn't do that. The government refused to do that.

Instead, Bob said: "You're going to do it my way. You're going to do it the way I say, because I, Bob Rae, know best." Let me tell you, everybody out on the street knows better than Bob Rae about the economic problems, because they have to live with it every day. They aren't some silver-spooned, they aren't some born-in-a-log-embassy brat, educated in private schools around the province.

The Acting Speaker: To the member: I find that offensive. Could you refrain and use other words, please.

Mr Mahoney: What else could I call him? Born in a log house embassy, anyway, silver-spooned: I think those are accurate. I think brought up cocooned, protected, never really had to work, came out of law school, went to work for the Steelworkers, gave some advice here, did some things there, that kind of stuff, never really had to go hungry, never had to worry about feeding his kids. Well, the people of Ontario know. They're out of work.

Instead of passing cockamamy legislation that's going to spread the right to strike all over the place, why don't you create jobs in the province? Why don't you do something to get the province working again, Madam Speaker? Well, why don't they? Maybe you can answer for me. I'd delighted to put my remarks through you if you could give me an answer. I don't understand and the people don't understand.

There are some aspects of this bill, such as whistle-blowing, that we can support. It's about time. It's overdue. But we need some consultation. I ask the government, in all fairness, to ensure that this goes to committee, ensure that there are full public hearings, ensure that the people you're forcing to join OPSEU have a voice, a democratic right to stand up and say what they want to change.

Give us a chance and we'll work with you. Keep shoving legislation down our throat, and we will fight you every step, every inch of the way until the next election, when it will be your last election, and thank God, we'll finally get this country and this province going again.

The member for Oriole, by unanimous agreement with the House leaders, is going to finish the last 45 minutes of this debate. I thank you for allowing me to put my comments on the record.

The Acting Speaker: Is there consent for the member for Oriole to use the next 45 minutes? Agreed.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I am pleased to join and participate in today's debate. It is a continuation of a debate that I participated in some time ago now.

I'd like to review the history, if I can, particularly because this is an omnibus bill: a piece of legislation, for those who are watching, which includes many parts and many amendments to other pieces of legislation.

Mr Anthony Peruzza (Downsview): Madam Speaker, Elinor is back. She has been away for a while, but she's back now.

Mrs Caplan: Madam Speaker, I have the floor. The member opposite is not behaving in a manner in which I can continue. Would you ask him for order.

The Acting Speaker: To the member, order, please.

Mrs Caplan: I believe this piece of legislation is particularly important from a number of perspectives. In the beginning of my remarks -- I find it difficult to understand why the member for Yorkview is not interested in the issues I'm about to address. I find that disturbing. I know that his constituents and mine are interested in what Bill 117 is all about. What I'd like to do is read the title and then address some of what is contained in this bill.

1640

Bill 117 is An Act to revise the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, to amend the Public Service Act and the Labour Relations Act and to make related amendments to other Acts. We were handed by the government a packet of material that literally was about four inches thick. This is a very complex piece of legislation that has been put together to amend numerous pieces of labour legislation and legislation which is presently under the responsibility of the Chair of Management Board of Cabinet.

There are a number of very important issues which are addressed in this package of legislation. I mentioned previous debate on amendments to the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, and I'd like to point out that was a separate piece of legislation that had been proposed by the government which is now included in this package.

Probably the primary concern I have about the package at this time is that, in my view, what should be a priority for the government at this time is reviving the economy, creating a climate for jobs to be created. There is nothing in this package of legislation on labour reform that is going to create a climate for new jobs, that is going to do anything to revive the economy. In fact, it's not a piece of economic legislation at all; it is a piece of labour legislation, which I think speaks to the misguided priorities of Bob Rae and his government.

At a time when Ontario is hopefully emerging from one of the worst economic downturns, certainly in memory -- I think people have suffered in a way we could never have contemplated and which is heartbreaking to see -- we have the government putting its attention to yet another piece of labour legislation which, quite frankly, I'm concerned people will not be putting time and attention to simply because their priority is economic stimulus and job creation.

I'm very concerned that while the NDP and Bob Rae keep saying his new priority is going to be job creation, when you look at the legislative agenda of this government and what's on the agenda today, what you see is that it is not only merely paying lipservice, but it is, I would say, deceptive, because the people of the province think the government is paying its priority and attention to job creation and economic recovery.

Mr Peruzza: Hey, Elinor, didn't you hear the announcement today, the investment fund? Obviously, your speed reads didn't get that one.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Downsview, come to order.

Mrs Caplan: But here what we're saying is we're going to see legislation that enhances the power of unions and tilts the playing field --

Mr Perruzza: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I'd just simply like to draw to the attention of the member -- I think the record should be set straight. She keeps saying this government isn't doing anything for job creation. I'd just simply point her to the NDP --

The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of order. Would the member take his seat.

Mr Perruzza: The joint investment fund was announced today. Maybe you should point that out to her.

The Acting Speaker: You'll have a chance to make your remarks later. The member for Oriole has the floor.

Mrs Caplan: I know the truth is difficult for the member for Yorkview to be able to bear, and I know it's hard for him to hear these words because his own constituents are concerned about the economy, but I think it's important --

Hon Mike Farnan (Minister without Portfolio in Education and Training): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: The good member for Oriole makes a point of the truth and she has blatantly misrepresented the facts in her opening statement, blatantly. She has suggested that there is no business creation, and in fact today in the House --

The Acting Speaker: Would the member please take his seat. I would ask the member to withdraw his allegations.

Hon Mr Farnan: The member for Oriole blatantly misrepresented the facts. If I must withdraw that fact, I will make the withdrawal. Nevertheless, it is a reality.

Mr Stockwell: That's no withdrawal, Madam Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: To the member for Cambridge, I have asked him if he would withdraw.

Hon Mr Farnan: Really, Madam Speaker, unequivocally I withdraw.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Oriole has the floor.

Mrs Caplan: On numerous occasions I've expressed concern about public cynicism and the message people get when they watch debates in this House. Unfortunately, seeing that kind of behaviour from members of the government caucus, behaviour such as you saw from the Minister of Municipal Affairs this afternoon, encourages public cynicism. When the member refuses to stand and withdraw and behave, I really believe it does not enhance the debate and discussion in this House.

Mr Stockwell: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: I would ask that the member for Downsview withdraw the comments he made. They are unparliamentary and clearly out of order. I heard them.

The Acting Speaker: To the members, I have asked all of the members to come to order. The member for Oriole has the floor. Obviously, she has the right to make a statement and express her own opinions, and she is doing that. You will have a right to respond.

Mrs Caplan: The point that I'm attempting to make when we consider Bill 117 is that while there certainly has been discussion within government for quite some time about changes to the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act and changes to the Public Service Act and to the Labour Relations Act and to the many acts, the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act, all of those pieces of legislation which have been around for quite some time, at this particular point in time what my constituents and what the people of Ontario are telling me is that they want the government's priority to be economic stability, economic growth and job creation. This legislation does nothing to further the economic agenda. At a time when Ontarians are out of work, worrying about the future for themselves and for their children, worrying about job loss, what we see from Bob Rae and his government is a piece of legislation which I believe tilts the playing field once again in the area of labour legislation. While there are some parts of this legislation which are worthy of merit, overall this tilts it in a way which I don't believe is in the public interest.

Mr Perruzza: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: I tried to make this point earlier. I will try to make the point again, and I look to you for direction in this matter. I don't think it's a light matter when you talk about a piece of legislation that has the potential for saving so much taxpayers' money through whistle-blowing so that people can come forward --

The Acting Speaker: To the member: Will you please take your seat. There is nothing out of order. The member is expressing her opinions on this bill.

Mrs Caplan: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you for the interjection. It is a concern of mine that the member is deliberately attempting to interrupt my remarks. If he continues to do so, I'd ask that you add time to my remarks, because each time he stands on his feet and does that, it not only interrupts the flow of the debate but it also takes time legitimately from my right to make the case on behalf of my constituents. So I'd ask you to consider that request and add time to the time allocated for the remarks.

As critics, under the new rules which were passed by the NDP, we are limited in our debate. That's why Mr Mahoney and I are sharing this leadoff time. It is, I believe, very unfair to have members standing in their place with silly and out-of-order points of order just to simply try to disrupt the debate. I think that's not only unparliamentary behaviour but it's not a very mature way for the members to be acting. Having said that, I'd like to continue with the debate.

The concerns that I have about Bill 117 are both substantive, and I'll address those in a minute, and also with the way it's packaged. I happen to be very concerned about this government's practice of bringing forward omnibus bills, because the problem with an omnibus bill is that if you like one part of it but you don't like another part of it, it is a way that says it's all or nothing.

It seems to me that if we get into this practice of cobbling together omnibus bills that deal with large numbers of issues, what happens is that the public doesn't understand what the whole debate is about because we will tend to focus on one or two of the sections of a large and cumbersome bill, and then democracy is not well served.

1650

It's my view that if you're committed, as I am, to clarity and openness and accountability and the integrity of debate, then you must make sure that debates on substantive legislation are transparent, that people can see and understand what the debate is really about.

The issues that are in Bill 117 are extremely comprehensive, and while I can say clearly that there are some parts of Bill 117 that are deserving of merit -- and I'll say that again; there are some parts of Bill 117 that are deserving of merit -- on balance, I have so many concerns about some sections of that bill and the direction that it takes us in that I do not believe I will be able to support this bill unless it is significantly amended at committee.

In fact, I am so concerned about the complexity and the size and the fact that it is an omnibus bill, all rolled in together into one gigantic piece of legislation, the fact that it is addressing labour issues as opposed to economic issues at a time when clearly what this province needs is to have the economy addressed, because I believe that inside and included in this bill are a number of directions, and I think "directions" is the right word because if there are broad regulatory powers as well that will come from some of this, not only does it push the problems off into the future but it could well affect the ability of future governments to manage appropriately, to look at how services are provided and to ensure the value for money the taxpayers are receiving. The opportunity to reform itself, which I believe government will have to do in the future, could well be hampered by some of the proposals that are in this legislation, and I have real concerns about that.

Let me deal for a minute with some of the substantive issues that are raised by the bill, because I think that those issues should be addressed as we consider the bill, but I will be concluding my remarks again with a concern overall of not only the process but of the timeliness and of the mismanagement of this government in bringing forward this legislation at this time.

The first part of it, the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, CECBA, as it is called, proposes a number of changes; one is extensive changes to the right to strike of civil servants. I believe that is an important debate that is needed in this House.

Mr Turnbull: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: It would appear that once again there is not a quorum in this House to hear this very important debate.

The Acting Speaker: Could the clerk determine if a quorum is present.

Senior Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals (Mr Alex D. McFedries): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Senior Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Oriole.

Mrs Caplan: I was beginning to address the details of Bill 117 and to explain to those people watching what this piece of labour legislation is about.

The first part of it is about reform to the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, called CECBA.

Mr Perruzza: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I'm sitting here, I'm listening to this debate and I'm listening to a lot of the comments that the Liberal member is making, but I believe with only two other Liberals and no Conservatives in the House, there may not be a quorum, and I'm asking you for a quorum call, please.

The Acting Speaker: We have a quorum at the present time. We have just determined that we do have a quorum.

Mr Perruzza: I'm not quite so sure, Madam Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Would the clerk determine if there is a quorum at this time?

Senior Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals: A quorum is present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. The member for Oriole.

Mrs Caplan: I have a question of you, Madam Speaker, and it really is a point of order. I've raised this before. I would say there's been at least five minutes of my debate time lost to those kinds of antics which we've just seen again from the member of the NDP caucus, the member for Downsview, and I'd ask if you will return that time to the clock.

The Acting Speaker: I would say to the member, I do understand her frustrations. I would ask all members to think about being in the same situation as the member who wants to express her opinions on this bill. At this point, I will not ask for more time, but I would ask all members to have the courtesy to try to give the member the time she needs to express her thoughts.

Mrs Caplan: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. As I was saying, the first of this piece of legislation deals with amendments to the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act: One is the extension of the right to strike; the second is the way that essential employees will be designated, and that is to be left open and negotiated; a third is to include in the unionized ranks additional employees who at this point in time have been considered excluded.

Also, one of the things that I'm concerned about, because I'm not sure that it's as clear as I would like, is expansion of the issues that will be able to be bargained under this new legislation. The current legislation has some restrictions on what can be bargained at the bargaining table.

The concern that I have is that while much of this is presented with a view to streamlining and updating and so forth, it really does tilt the balance. When CECBA was actually Bill 49, which was then withdrawn and this put forward in its place, one of the concerns that I had then and that I share now is the government's intention under this legislation of forcing civil servants to be represented by the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, OPSEU, as opposed to giving those civil servants the right to decide who they would like to represent them at the bargaining table.

That may not be a major public issue, but it is an enormous precedent and it is an issue for those members of the public service who would like to choose someone other than OPSEU to represent their interests. I'm concerned because what they're saying here is that about 2,000 will be forced into OPSEU, the others will then be given the opportunity to choose. My own view is that the employees, the professional civil servants who serve this province and work for the provincial government, those who are not presently included in the union, should have the right to choose (1) if they want to join a union, and (2) if so, which union they would like to represent them.

That's a principle that I think is reasonable. It fosters good labour-management relations. It's not included in this bill. It's something that we stressed and pressed for under Bill 49 and we haven't seen any change in this new legislation. So I am concerned about that.

1700

As I say, and I'll express it again, I'm very concerned that the issue of declaration of what is an essential service is not clearly defined except for the four points, and it is then left to negotiation. We know what a failure those negotiations were under Bill 48, the social contract legislation, which also left to be defined what is an essential service.

This bill, as I mentioned, contains another section which I think has some merit. The whistle-blowing legislation is an important and significant step forward. I think employees should be protected in pointing out serious wrongdoing, in bringing forward any violations and also in bringing forward concerns they have about the activity of the government.

Bill 117 has built in some protection for employees that I believe is very important. However, the concern I have about this piece of whistle-blowing legislation is that right now the civil service in Ontario is feeling demoralized. They are frustrated and, frankly, they don't trust. The reason they don't trust is that every time there's an attempt from the civil service to let the opposition know what is going on by sending out the traditional brown envelope, which has always been part of the culture here in Ontario, Bob Rae, the NDP ministers, send in the Ontario Provincial Police. What that has done is send out exactly the opposite message from whistle-blowing.

When I talk to civil servants about the whistle-blowing legislation, they say, "This is an example once again where the government says one thing, they say what their principles are, they say they want to encourage and give civil servants the right to speak out, and then on the other hand they send in the OPP to find out who sent the brown envelope to a member of the opposition when there was concern about a government initiative, a government undertaking or a government policy."

I have some concern that this piece of whistle-blowing legislation is going to be what many tell me they are concerned it will be, and that is, window dressing, that it will not offer any real protection to the civil servant who wants to expose wrongdoing by the government.

The third part that I think is quite interesting and also worthy of significant debate and, frankly, important discussion, is the extension of political rights and political activity reform. I for one believe that individuals should be as involved in the democratic process as they would like to be. But I know there are many members of the civil service who are very concerned that the civil service would be seen as partisan and political in its performance of its duties if you have civil servants who are actively involved in the political process.

I'm not one who agrees with that point of view. I believe that what makes a civil service partisan is when you have partisan appointments made by the government and its ministers to civil service positions or when you have people who are not well and properly qualified winning competitions which have been fixed. We know of that starting with the appointment of David Agnew and we know what's happening at the Workers' Compensation Board: yet other examples of the kind of patronage which has resulted in a politicization of the civil service which has been unheard of in this province in decades.

We know there have been appointments right down to the director level, in just about every ministry, of the NDP's friends and supporters in the hope of changing the culture and the nature of the civil service to make it more responsive to the NDP.

I hear this every day and I'm very concerned about it, because I believe that a non-partisan, professional civil service which is dedicated to the public interest and serving whichever government happens to be in power at that time, from whichever party, is in the public interest and is in the interests of the taxpayers of this province.

I think the government does a disservice when it makes the civil service frustrated, when it makes civil servants less proud because they see people who are being appointed not on merit; they see people who are being appointed because of their political affiliation. I think that is wrong and I will speak out on that at every opportunity. One of the concerns I have is that the political activity components of this legislation may be misinterpreted.

The other point I'd like to make on the political activity reform is that as I've knocked on doors at election time, very often what people have said to me is, "I'm a civil servant and I would really rather not get involved, because I believe that civil servants should remain neutral." I've often said to those very same people that I respect that point of view, I respect their desire to remain neutral and be seen to be neutral, but that I believe if they wanted to participate, if they wanted to put a sign on their lawn, they shouldn't feel pressured; shouldn't feel pressured by the sitting member, the incumbent, nor should they feel pressured by the government.

One of the concerns that I have about the political activity reform contained in Bill 117, when you couple that with the politicization that's taken place within Ontario's public service over the last three years, is that civil servants may feel pressured: pressured if they want to keep their job, pressured to support the government at the time of the election, visibly with campaigning, and I worry about that, because my view is that political rights should be available for those who want them, but nobody should fear that in exercising their political rights, their job will be in jeopardy.

I can tell you that there are many civil servants in Ontario today who know that they can legitimately participate in their free time and they are concerned that if that is exposed to the ministers, the NDP, it will jeopardize their chances for advancement, will jeopardize their chances for job respect, unless they clearly are in support of the NDP. What they have told me is that the attitude coming from this government and the political staff in ministers' offices is the message to the civil service, which is, "If you're not one of us, you're against us." That's the wrong message to go to civil servants who I believe and, I can say very clearly, I respect.

I worked with the civil servants over five years that we were in government. I have enormous respect for the people who consider themselves professional and non-partisan. They serve the government. They give the very best advice and information they can. They are not partisan and they are very hard-working. I respect that and I believe that it's important for the government to respect that quality of a professional, non-partisan civil service.

My concern is that political activity may do exactly the opposite of what it is intended to do in this legislation, not because what's here is badly written, but because what is here, again, is not the practice of what is taking place in government today. So I want to distinguish again between what's here and what is reality and the message the government is sending out to its own employees.

The concern that I have, as I've said before, is that I don't believe this is the time we should be dealing with this piece of legislation, with an omnibus bill that brings everything together. Frankly, I do believe that you could have individual pieces of legislation that would be dealt with comprehensively.

An example of that, and it's happened before in this House, was the Health Professions Regulation Act, where you had one piece of legislation that was the framework and individual pieces of legislation governing each of the professions. It was dealt with as a package but each bill received its own debate, each bill received its own scrutiny, each bill could be amended separately and unto itself. It went forward as a package, but if somebody wanted, and as it did happen, we saw amendments to some parts of the legislation and not others. People were free to support one piece and not another. It wasn't an all-or-nothing situation.

1710

If I were giving advice, and I am giving advice, to the government of another way of approaching the legislative agenda, it would be to look at that kind of package and bring each of these in at the same time, as a package, but as individual pieces of legislation. I think it would be clearer for people. It would be easier to understand. It would allow the issues to be separated. Under those circumstances there would be some parts of this legislation that I would be able to support.

So I want to be on the record and I also want to be helpful in offering the government suggestions on how it can proceed in a way which I think would be easier for people to understand and which would then allow me to support some parts of the package.

I would like to state as well that I consider that Bill 117, overall, is not in the interests of workers or of civil servants, but it certainly is in the interests of the leadership of those unions. For example, OPSEU is going to get a lot of money from the new membership that it's going to get, those membership dues from excluded people who are being forced to join OPSEU. That's a lot of money.

So when we say that this bill is a payoff to unions, let me tell you, I will personally believe that this is part of the government's agenda to try and woo its friends back after the social contract and the criticisms it has been receiving from the unions, particularly from union leadership, and from those who are trying to separate themselves from the NDP. I think one of the reasons the government is bringing forward Bill 117 at this time is to try and smooth the feathers of its friends by giving them more money in the union coffers.

I know a lot of civil servants who have had their wages frozen or rolled back, who aren't getting the increases that collective bargaining gave them early in the Bob Rae administration. Not only are they disappointed, but now they're going to have to be paying additional dues to a union, which will result in yet lower take-home pay. Many of them are feeling angry and frustrated, and some are very worried about that.

The concern that we have regarding this particular piece of legislation is that -- and I mention this in the context of government's ability to manage. If I'm going to be very specific, and I like to be specific so people will know exactly what I'm talking about, when the social contract legislation, Bill 48, expires in 1996, the public sector unions, I believe, will attempt and will be able -- and I hope not successfully -- to blackmail the province into catch-up and giving the kinds of wage increases that have been suppressed through the time of the social contract. I think the threat of that blackmail will be the threat of widespread public sector, public service, strikes.

This legislation will give the right to strike. There's a lot of pent-up anger and frustration, and if it's then used as a weapon automatically in 1996, I don't believe that's in the public interest. I think there is an erroneous expectation among many that the wage increases that were negotiated in 1990-91 under Bob Rae's government and then were taken back by the social contract legislation, Bill 48, will be automatically due in 1996 when the social contract legislation expires. We should be very, very clear that this is an erroneous impression, a wrong impression.

I believe that the original wage increases that were negotiated were unaffordable. In the summer of 1990, during that election campaign, when we were talking about restraint and the need to face this recession in a way which would not damage the economy and not increase wages, people were very angry. Many did not vote for us because we told them, and we were telling them at the bargaining table, that no, we would not be increasing wages.

When the government changed and Bob Rae gave wage increases, I stood in my place here in this House and I said: "The government can't afford to do this. It will hurt the economy, and because of this misguided economic policy we will see job loss." Unfortunately, I was correct. That's exactly what happened.

Then we saw the social contract legislation, which attempted in a clumsy and complex way -- it was more than just clumsy and misguided; it was very complex and it created frustrations and angers that I think will stay for a long time in the public sector workforce in this province, that long time being at least until 1996.

When that occurs, those people are going to have an expectation that all will be well, that the world will return and that all the agreements that were negotiated will automatically trigger. As we've expressed in this House time and time again, the costs in Bill 48, the social contract legislation, have just been pushed forward into the future, and in 1996 I believe we could well see a kind of unrest and disruption because of the unreasonable expectations that Bill 117 creates within the public sector. It provides them with the tool to attempt to pressure the taxpayer, because that's who they're pressuring; they're not pressuring the government.

The government is the guardian of the tax dollars of the taxpayer, and if government agrees to wage increases, that means higher taxes. We have seen that through the term of this NDP government the last three years and, frankly, that was the reason for the tax increases that were put forward by the Liberal Treasurer between 1985 and 1990. It was to pay for increased wages in the broader public sector.

During that same period of time of 1980 to 1985, there were increases of wages in the private sector, and legitimately the public sector was saying, "We deserve to have our wages increased as well." The government raised wages. They had to be paid for by taxes.

There's a big difference with the fragile nature of the economic recovery, and the taxpayers, many of whom work for the provincial government -- one out of five in this province works for the provincial government. They are also saying: "We don't want to pay any more taxes. Enough taxes. No more taxes. You're going to have to find a better way to deliver your programs. No more taxes."

We've had a commitment from Lyn McLeod that says no more taxes. With that is a commitment. The message is really clear: There's not going to be a lot of money for wage increases. Therefore, if Bill 117 is sending out a message that says you'll have the right to strike for higher wage increases, this legislation is doing a disservice not only to those public service workers who will believe they now have the tools to increase their wages, but to the taxpayer, who is I think heavily burdened and very concerned about the economic recovery.

I wanted to make that point and I wanted to make it very clearly because I believe this legislation, coupled with the social contract legislation, will tie the hands of the government in a way which will make it very difficult to manage our economy in a productive and healthy way to encourage job creation in the post-social contract era.

The other concern I have is that in this legislation, because the government has left it to future negotiations, it is not adequately protecting essential services. We heard the Minister of Labour say that he is protecting critical services by negotiating what public sector workers are vital to the public interest. However, it's my view, and I say this to the Labour minister, who is here at this time, that the public good is not negotiable. The government has the responsibility to state very clearly what it considers essential services. That is in the public interest. My view, and I'll repeat it again, is that the public interest is not negotiable.

Mr Turnbull: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I don't believe a quorum is present.

The Acting Speaker: The member for York Mills, on a point of order, has asked if there is a quorum. Would the clerk determine if there is a quorum.

Acting Clerk Assistant (Ms Lisa Freedman): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

1720

Acting Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Oriole has the floor.

Mrs Caplan: As this debate draws to a close, and I note that there's just a few minutes left, I think one of the points that I'd like to make as strongly and as passionately as I can is that it is the responsibility of the government, no matter who the government is, to act in the public interest. Bill 117 sees the NDP government setting aside that responsibility in favour of negotiations.

The concern that I have, as I said before, is it is the responsibility of the government to act in the interest of all Ontarians, not just the unions. The public interest in the determination of essential and crucial services in my view should not be negotiable. That is something which the provincial government must decide: what is essential, what is crucial, what is vital. It should be enshrined in the legislation. In my view that is the right and the responsibility of the government and that is a very important starting point and principle for the development of this kind of legislation.

Its absence alone is sufficient, in my view, to not support this legislation, to make this legislation unsupportable, simply because it doesn't clearly define the public interest in terms of essential, crucial and vital services.

The other point that I'd like to make is: We have heard this government talk a lot about consultation. The concern that I have as it relates to Bill 117 is the flawed process that we have seen in the development of this legislation and in the labour legislation, the pieces that are contained in this.

We know that there was a flawed process of consultation on the crown employees collective bargaining reform, as it was in Bill 49. We know that Bob Rae and the NDP only decided to talk to affected workers after the vocal protests that came not only from their own workers but from members of the official opposition.

I can tell you that if you're going to bring people along in understanding of your legislation and the proposals, it is very important to have those forums available for discussion. It's my hope that this legislation will go to committee for full consideration on all aspects of it.

I hope that the government will consider breaking this legislation into individual pieces of legislation so that it can be dealt with as a package but still in separate pieces of legislation to be considered.

It's also my concern that this is a package of just Labour legislation. As I started my remarks I pointed out that some of this legislation was the responsibility of the Chair of Management Board. I felt that was very important because the Chair of Management Board technically is the employer of the government. All of the civil servants in the province of Ontario technically work for Management Board. The Human Resources Secretariat is a part of Management Board. Therefore, Management Board legislation is what is required to set out the rights and the responsibilities of employer in relationship to their employees. The fact that this legislation in totality is being carried only by the Minister of Labour I think signals in a very poor way that the traditional role carried out by the Chair of Management Board, in his or her responsibility as employer, is in some way being diminished.

Let me repeat, because I think it's an important point. By making this Labour legislation in its totality, the signal that is being sent is that Management Board's ability to manage it is being weakened. That means government's ability to govern is being weakened, and it tilts what was, in my view, a level playing field, although it was in need of change -- I'm not saying changes were not required, but one of the changes that was not required was a tilt in those policies clearly towards Labour and away from Management Board.

It's my view that the balance should have been maintained, that the role of the Chairman of Management Board was critical in maintaining that balance, and that this piece of legislation, untimely as it is, carried by the Minister of Labour, is the wrong signal at the wrong time. Rather than having a piece of legislation which deals with rights and responsibilities of employers and sets up the mechanism for an employer-employee relationship, what this does instead is give additional signals of the government's inability to manage.

We've talked about, and I think the word is often overused, the NDP's mismanagement of the economy. My concern is that add this to that pot, and you will yet see mismanagement of labour relations within the Ontario public service.

The bottom line is, this is a time for jobs and the economy, not a time for yet another piece of labour legislation. I thank you for your attention.

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired. Now we have questions and/or comments. The member for Downsview.

Mr Perruzza: It's a real opportunity and a treat to get the opportunity to be able to respond to the honourable member for Oriole. As you know and as I know, it's not often you get the opportunity to do that, but I'm glad to see that she's here today and I would urge her to come more often so that she can participate more often. You'd have more of an opportunity to respond to --

Mrs Caplan: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: It is unparliamentary to impute motives in this House, and as a matter of parliamentary courtesy, we generally don't discuss absences. For the information of the member, I spent the last two days at the breast cancer forum in Montreal where I will point out to him that only one junior policy advisor of the Ministry of Health was in attendance. I was there and that's why I was not here in this House.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. That is not a point of order, it's a point of information.

Mr Perruzza: All I meant to say is -- there's no motive here -- I'd just like to see her more often. I don't see her often enough, that's all I meant to say, so that I'd have more of an opportunity to be able to comment on some of the speeches that she gives here.

We're elected here to provide some sense of leadership and confidence. In opposition, I understand you have a role and you need to be critical, so be critical but be accurate, be productive, so that at the end of the day, whatever happens, confidence is inspired. That's how you win the confidence of the people, not just by simply being all over the map.

We have one of the best job-creation programs anywhere in the country, probably anywhere in North America, and those facts were clearly misrepresented here this afternoon. To belittle this bill, a bill which introduces whistle-blowing legislation and quite frankly has a potential for wiping out all kinds of waste within government, does an injustice to Ontario and all of its citizenry.

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired. Further questions and/or comments? Any other people who wish to participate?

Mr Callahan: I want to pick up, in the very short time I have, on one of the points that my colleague made. It's the fact that it seems to be the tradition of this government to bring in bills that are called omnibus bills. There are occasions when omnibus bills are essential and beneficial, but when omnibus bills are brought in with little secrets or little pockets in there that the government wishes to sneak through the Legislature, I find that objectionable.

1730

I remember debating the photo-radar bill, and there were things in there that I suggest perhaps people overlooked. It's overlooked because one is looking at a bill and assuming that it's dealing with the one particular issue.

If there's one principle that legislators should always keep in mind, it is the fact that laws should be clear. They should be able to be debated fully. Of course, we were denied that opportunity as a result of the changes in the rules in this House. They should be laws that can be interpreted properly by judges -- in that respect, they should be clear -- in order to ensure that there's justice for people who are the subjects of those laws. That's one of the objections I've taken.

I've seen a lot of omnibus bills come through this House. They purport to be a bill under, let's say, Health, and you'll find, if you look through the bill carefully, that there will be all sorts of topics in that bill. As my friend, my colleague from Oriole said, it's very difficult at times to debate those in a logical fashion.

It's difficult for the people of this province who watch the debates in this House to perhaps follow what is going on. I think a further hallmark of a democratic society, particularly when you're televised, is the fact that the electorate out there has an opportunity to fully follow the proceedings of their elected members.

Mr Stockwell: One of the issues I'd like the member for Oriole to comment on is with respect to the expansion of the union within the public service and what kind of financial impact that would have had when this was originally announced by the government in power.

In my opinion, if there was some kind of improvement to the large private sector corporations by a Conservative government, there would be charges by the socialists -- and there have been charges by the socialists in the past -- that the Conservative government, or maybe it would be a Liberal government, was somehow pandering to big business, in effect because they were close and they donated to campaigns etc, etc.

All things being equal, it seems to me that with the expansion of unionization across this province and the direct relationship between unions and the NDP, although it's a little more tenuous than it used to be, there would be some people out there, the cynical sorts -- not I, for one -- but certainly some cynical sorts who would think that with the expansion of these rights and the inclusions of certain groups into unions and negotiating bodies, somehow the government would benefit through expansion of dollars into the New Democratic Party coffers.

I wonder if maybe the member would want to comment on that, because it would seem to me that there's going to be a benefit here, particularly if checkoff is included. We all know what checkoff is. That's where you pay union dues, you check it off, and some of those go to the New Democratic Party of Ontario and the New Democratic Party of Canada. There are these things that take place.

The average citizen doesn't know it, but there's a very close, tight-knit relationship between unions and the NDP. I think we should have a comment on this and see whether or not, when this was introduced, there was a conflict; today, maybe not nearly as bad, but maybe when it was in place.

Mr Cooper: I'd like to thank the member for Mississauga West and the member for Oriole for their joint presentation.

A couple of things that were raised: About this coming forward now, it didn't just appear. With CECBA, the reform's been in the process for six years, and it's taken quite a while to get it together.

As for the political activity rights of the whistle-blower, they were both announced in the 1990 throne speech that this government put forward. With the unconstitutionality put forward by the courts for the political rights' section, we have to respond to that. In 1991, we sent out a consultation paper on the whistle-blower legislation --

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I just don't think there's a quorum.

The Acting Speaker: Could the clerk please determine if a quorum is present.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Kitchener-Wilmot.

Mr Cooper: As I was stating, there has been a process in place, and that's the reason why this is coming forward now. They were talking about why we're doing this and not job creation. The point is, fairness for workers has to go hand in hand with job creation; job creation alone isn't good enough.

As for the last comments that were made about why we're allowing the right to strike, basically what we're saying is that under the old system nobody was responsible. By bringing in the right to strike, the employer and the employee both have to be responsible, because they have to sit down face to face. They obviously have a vested interest in what's going on, and that creates more fairness.

As for the question that the member for Mississauga West raised about the membership going into OPSEU, what's happening now is that these people, who were excluded under the old CECBA, will be placed into the bargaining unit, where they should have been appropriately placed in the first place.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Oriole has two minutes to respond.

Mrs Caplan: To the member for Etobicoke West, who I thought made some very good points, the estimate's been made on new dues for union coffers at about $10 million in additional revenue. This is from the dues of the 9,000 civil servants who will now be paying dues either to OPSEU or to the other unions that it is possible will represent the civil service. The estimate is more than $10 million.

1740

There were some interesting questions that were raised, but in the two minutes remaining there's not a lot of time to get into a lot of substance. The member from Kitchener raised some interesting points. The concern that I have is not that those issues don't have to be addressed; I have clearly explained that I think some of them are worthy of support, not because they came in the NDP throne speech and not just because they were, in the court's opinion, necessary for government to do as far as changing and upgrading are concerned, but that they're all put together here in one piece of legislation, where it's a take-it-or-leave-it package on the whole.

We have seen more legislation from the NDP government than we have seen, I think, from any other government in this period of time. Perhaps the ties between the NDP and the labour movement are part of that, or maybe it is that the government doesn't realize the importance of an economic agenda at this time as we come out of the recession.

The point I would make is that my constituents are saying to me, notwithstanding the concerns that have been raised by the member for Kitchener and others, that what they're interested in is action to improve the economy, increase job opportunity, protect the jobs that are there. This legislation doesn't do it, and there's enough concern I have about parts of it that I will be unable to support this legislation in principle on second reading. I will work to try to amend it in committee, but I would still say it is wrong at this time to be putting our energy and attention into labour legislation.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Thank you. The member's time has expired. Questions and/or comments?

Mr Turnbull: Mr Speaker, I think it is further debate that we're on.

The Acting Speaker: Sorry; it is further debate. It's the Speaker's mistake.

Mr Turnbull: I'm pleased to rise to speak to this bill today, this tome of 50 pages that we were presented with just a week ago, and in fact the compendium to this was approximately an inch and a half thick. We've been given one week to digest this very sweeping legislation.

I will start out by saying that the CECBA reform is basically the forced unionization of 9,000 of the civil service. These are people who essentially don't want to be unionized. We have a blatant example of a payback by this government to OPSEU, to the union bosses, for the few eggs it's broken lately. This government is trying to get back into its favour. I see my friend Mr Kormos is laughing at what I'm saying. He tends to agree, I think. Well, I don't think it's going to work.

The current difficulties that the union leadership are having in keeping its members in the NDP are quite manifest, and so the government comes forward with this effort to pay off the unions. I would suggest, as has been suggested before, that there is a fundamental conflict of interest in this bill brought in by the Honourable B. Mackenzie, Minister of Labour, this long-time union member who is doing his best to destroy the prospects for the economic recovery of this province. We've already seen what he did with Bill 40, and what we're seeing here is essentially an attempt to mirror that piece of flawed legislation in respect to the government employees.

I would ask anybody who is considering the merits of this bill, do you think the post office is a good idea with the regular strikes that we've had in the post office? What we've had is a deterioration of service. We've had great strife between the union and the management and essentially no satisfaction for the public. That, after all, is what the acid test should be, as to how public servants treat the public, because that is their only function.

Government doesn't exist to create jobs in the civil service. They have the civil service because essential functions of government have to be carried out and they involve services to the taxpayers, the people who pay us all our salaries, the taxpayers who are absolutely fed up with this government. They're fed up with everything you do and they're absolutely repelled by the idea that you now want to give unions the right to strike as the payoff to try to get the unions off your back, to get them to forget about that wonderful piece of legislation, the social contract. We know how flawed that was.

We need, when we're dealing with public sector workers, to get rid of strikes in all areas, but we essentially need to address the problems with the way they're paid at the moment, because all of the arbitrated settlements we've had in Ontario, and in fact in Canada, have run ahead of the private sector. That's because the arbitrators who have been chosen haven't been directed that there was a narrow band of specifications to their job. They should be directed that these are the fiscal realities of the province and that they can only find for the union within that band, within the economic reality.

I remember when the Premier came in here somewhat spitting blood over the settlement that had been made with the TTC because it made him look bad. That's the basic problem. If you have public sector workers who are getting pay settlements to disputes which are way out of line with the private sector, the private sector will, more and more, begin to object to the --

Interjections.

Mr Turnbull: Mr Speaker, can you shut this man up who's jabbering away here?

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. I know it's Thursday afternoon and getting late, but these comments don't assist in keeping some semblance of civility here. The member for York Mills.

Mr Turnbull: Mr Speaker, we're talking about a unionization of 9,000 civil servants, of which 2,000 will be forced into OPSEU with no right for a secret ballot to decide whether they want to go into that union. They're just simply being told they have to go into that union.

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: His information that he's bringing forward is very salient and to the point and I think we should have a quorum to hear it.

The Acting Speaker: Do we have a quorum?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for York Mills may resume his participation in the debate.

Mr Turnbull: As I was saying, Mr Speaker, 2,000 of these 9,000 employees are going to be forced into OPSEU. No choices, no secret ballot -- you're into OPSEU whether you like it or not. This is the state of democracy in this province. I can't imagine a party having the name New Democratic Party and saying it's going to absolutely force people into a union whether they like it or not, but that is in fact what's happening.

Let's look at the legislative agenda for this province. They've brought forward this legislation with one week for us to study it for second reading. This week we've had two days of debate on closure motions that the government has made, closure motions, first of all, on photo-radar, which is a highly controversial bill where I would suggest 95% of the people who have any opinion on it at all are against it, and this government is not allowing any scrutiny by the public. They're not allowing any public input.

1750

When the Minister of Transportation was challenged on this issue the other day, he suggested, "Oh, yes, there are public hearings." So I went to the subcommittee meeting yesterday, and we were told, "Oh, you can chop up the two days as you wish." The clause-by-clause consideration of that bill alone will take more than two days. But the government has already anticipated that. They've said that by 4 o'clock on the second day of those two days they're allowing us, if any amendments have not been considered, then they will be considered to have been brought into the record and we will start voting, whether we've discussed the various clauses or the amendments or not.

We're bringing in sweeping changes which will undoubtedly lead to charter challenges. Notwithstanding that, the government is saying, "We're going to give you two days of debate." How can you call yourself the New Democratic Party? You don't know what "democratic" means.

Reading from the throne speech, from when the government first got elected, it talked about: "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."

What better example of abuse of power than to bring in time allocation which says that there will be two days in committee and that there will be no committee of the whole consideration of the bill and then there will be one day of third reading, which brings me back to Bill 117. Why do we have this bill today? We have it because the government is embarrassed by what it is doing on the other fronts, by its casino bill and by its photo-radar bill, bills which are widely unpopular with the public, and the government seeks to close them down. So they backfill their agenda by bringing forward this legislation today, with one week to consider a tome of one-and-a-half-inch-thick notes as the attachment to a bill and a bill which covers 50 pages.

We're talking about the politicization of the civil service. What is the government doing about this? Well, they're forcing people into unions, and they're also allowing lower-level members of the civil service to get into political activities. I would suggest to the government that it ain't going to work, because they're not going to work for you in the next election, much as you may wish them to, because we listen very carefully.

Quite frankly, we had a very professional civil service, and I believe that it is appropriate that we allow political activity from the lower levels, but one has to question why the government is doing this at the moment. The reason that they're allowing political affiliation is quite simply because the courts have ordered them to do it. But the more sinister part of this is the forced unionization.

We have another part of the bill, which is the whistle-blowing portion. They've been in power for three years and yet they said in their throne speech that they're going to introduce whistle-blowing legislation. When they were in opposition, the NDP always used to talk about much wider-ranging whistle-blowing legislation than what we've got before us. But I guess they are worried about the leaks that will come out.

Well, gentlemen and ladies, I've got news for you: This is not going to stop brown envelopes coming to the opposition, because the civil service are disgusted with the way you're conducting business, but it will allow for the reporting of gross mismanagement by any government, and that is to be commended. But why would you have concerns about gross mismanagement if it wasn't for the fact that this government has politicized the civil service?

It's widely acknowledged that the civil service of Ontario was one of the most professional, best managed in the whole of North America. When the Liberals, to their credit, took over from the Conservatives, they continued on with a relatively unpoliticized civil service. Yes, they made a few changes at the top, and I think it's reasonable that an incoming political party should have the right to make some senior changes.

But that's not what this government has done. They have loaded the civil service with blatantly politicized appointments starting with the Premier's own big buddy, Mr Agnew, who led the NDP election and is now at the head of the civil service. I don't think there could be any more blatant politicization of the civil service than that.

I've got a list of jobs for the friends of the NDP, just to consider some of the people we've seen since the NDP became government:

Stephen Lewis was appointed by the Premier to race relations adviser.

Jack Layton, a former NDP alderman and defeated NDP candidate for mayor of Toronto and also defeated in his efforts to get into the federal House, to a great extent I would say torpedoed by the Premier of this province, was appointed as a consultant and facilitator for a review of the Public Hospitals Act in the Minister of Health's office. He's being paid $300 a day for the job that the minister maintains could have been done by one of the 12,000 civil servants already employed by the ministry.

Linda Jolson, a former vice-president of corporate relations for Manitoba Hydro, that bastion of socialism out west. Jolson is the wife of Doug Davison, former assistant deputy labour minister in Howard Pawley's NDP government.

Marc Eliesen, who of course has departed now, a veteran civil servant with ties to the NDP in the Manitoba government under Edward Schreyer in 1970 to 1974, was brought in at $400,000 a year to head up Ontario Hydro, which was subsequently cut back because of embarrassment to the government when we disclosed how much he was being paid.

Dale Martin is a former president of Lakehead University's campus Communist party, and Toronto NDP alderman from 1984 to 1991. As an alderman, Martin was a vocal opponent of development projects around Metro and appealed to the OMB on several occasions to voice his opposition. The OMB found Martin to have abused the process with frivolous and vexatious matters in order to hold up projects and ordered him to pay legal costs of the developers involved. Guess what? He was appointed in April 1992 as facilitator of the Ontario Municipal Board.

Karl Morin-Strom, a former NDP member of the Legislative Assembly, was appointed to the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission as a corporate planner.

Richard Johnston, former NDP member, Scarborough West, was given 60 days to report on the Toronto Islands.

We've got Shelley Acheson, who was appointed as a special assistant to the Minister of Health on equity issues, Patricia Bishop, Larry Corea, Lin Grist, Andrea Knight, Dan Leckie, Michael Decter -- oh yes, this is one which we always enjoy, a former planning secretary to the cabinet during the Schreyer administration in Manitoba, and of course we know that this is somebody who's been expensing around $100,000 a year to the government -- some payoff.

Some government of integrity. I'll tell you, I don't think there's any integrity in this government, and this legislation that it's brought forward is not a reflection of integrity; it's a reflection of payouts to the unions that put it there. But it won't be sufficient to save them.

It being 6 of the clock, I would adjourn the debate.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): I believe the Minister of Municipal Affairs has the outline for next week.

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Pursuant to standing order 55, I'd like to indicate the business of the House for the week of November 22.

On Monday, November 22, we will consider an opposition day motion standing in the name of Mr Tilson.

On Tuesday, November 23, we will complete second reading of Bill 47. Following that, we will consider government notice of motion number 13.

On Wednesday, November 24, we will continue second reading of Bill 117, the public service omnibus bill.

On Thursday, November 25, during the time reserved for private members' public business, we will consider ballot item 37, a resolution standing in the name of Mr Perruzza, and ballot item number 38, a resolution standing in the name of Mrs Sullivan. The business for Thursday afternoon is still under discussion between the three House leaders and will be announced.

The Acting Speaker: It being 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday, November 22 at 1:30 pm of the clock.

The House adjourned at 1801.

18 novembre 1993