Journal des débats 1993-déc-08 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): I rise in the House today to reaffirm our party's commitment to agriculture in this province and indeed our country.

Right now at the GATT talks our farmers are being threatened by the loss of marketing boards. We are caught in the crossfire of an international trade war, and our farmers need to be protected.

Our marketing board organizations do not contribute to the oversupply of agricultural products which has depressed international markets and led to the current focus of debate at the GATT talks. Our producers should not be penalized for a problem they did not create.

This morning I talked to Lyle Vanclief, the recently appointed parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, who told me that he will make every effort to not let other countries dismantle our agricultural industry and assured me that our farmers will not be abandoned.

Our leader, Lyn McLeod, in a letter dated November 24 to the Prime Minister of Canada has reaffirmed our party's ongoing commitment to the agrifood industry and asked that he personally intervene on our farmers' behalf. I too echo those sentiments and personally call on my friend Jean Chrétien to intervene.

Now, more than ever, we must pull together to protect our province's second-leading industry, one that produces over $5 billion worth of food products.

As my good friend former Minister of Agriculture Eugene Whelan has said on many occasions, quoting Plato, "When the land lies fallow, all other forms of life shall perish."

BAR ASSOCIATION AWARDS

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): On Friday, December 2, the Canadian Bar Association -- Ontario announced the 1993 CBAO awards for distinguished service. This year's recipients are Mr Donald R. Cameron QC, Mr John R. Campbell QC and Ms Linda Silver Dranoff.

Mr Donald R. Cameron QC has made an outstanding contribution to the legal profession through his work in continuing legal education. Mr Cameron has been active in the continuing legal education committee of the CBAO for over a decade. He served as chair of the annual institute on continuing legal education in 1982-83 and was chair of the main continuing legal education committee from 1984 to 1987.

Mr John R. Campbell QC has made an exceptional contribution to the legal profession as a founding member of the Ontario bar alcoholism program and the Canadian legal profession assistance program. Mr Campbell has been active in the area of rehabilitation and recovery from alcoholism for over 16 years.

Ms Linda Silver Dranoff has been prominent in the CBAO through her promotion of the need for reform in women's legal and community issues. Most recently, Ms Dranoff assisted in the formation of a section within the CBAO entitled the feminist legal analysis section, which was established to focus on law reform from a feminist perspective.

On behalf of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, I would like to congratulate this year's recipients and thank them for their contributions to the legal profession and to the people of Ontario.

EVENTS IN MIDDLESEX

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): The spirit of Christmas, of sharing and of remembering that we all have a part to play to make our communities caring and welcoming places to live is alive and well in the riding of Middlesex.

This past weekend I attended the Christmas open house sponsored by the Strathroy and Area Association for Community Living and by ACCESS, the adult community centre for educational support services of Strathroy. The fortunate residents of Strathroy and area were invited to the ACCESS facility on Industrial Road. The grades 1 and 2 students of John Calvin School had helped to decorate the building in festive Christmas style.

Visitors were invited to make crafts, sing Christmas songs, whisper their wishes in Santa's ear, have a picture taken with Santa, eat hot dogs and build their own ice cream sundaes. I helped out at the build-your-own sundae table, guiding aficionados of the ice cream treats to the chocolate fudge, caramel, strawberry, peanut, maraschino cherry and whipped cream toppings.

Needless to say, the enthusiasm of participants was most gratifying and the folks of Strathroy rose to the occasion.

Thanks to Pat Walker, Sherri Kroll, community living board members, the Strathroy community itself, as well as the staffs and clients of Community Living and ACCESS. Your care and devotion represent the very best spirit of the Christmas season.

PUBLIC SERVICE AND LABOUR RELATIONS REFORM

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I rise today to speak about an issue of equity. The whole point of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act amendments which are now being brought forward in the Legislative Assembly is to give some sense of, I understand, a more reasonable organization around the public service. In that regard, several professions have received special consideration to be allowed to practise and to organize under their own professions and are not required to become members of any particular union.

In that regard, the veterinarians who are employed by the public service -- and there are, I understand, some 60 of them -- are asking for the same treatment that other professionals are given. The veterinarian profession is, as we all know, a self-regulating profession and recognized as such under legislation in this province.

One of the constituents in my area who is employed as a veterinarians has said he is not opposed to being treated the same as all other professionals, but he believes it is an inappropriate way to treat the veterinarians in this province to require them to belong to a non-professional group while other professionals are in fact allowed to organize their own self-regulated professions.

I agree with this person. I think the veterinarians should either be allowed to become part of their own self-regulated organization within the Ontario public service or all professions should be treated the same way.

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): My statement today is addressed to the Minister of Education and Training. In early November, the Wellington County Board of Education and the Wellington County Roman Catholic Separate School Board submitted their 1994 capital expenditure multi-year forecasts to the Ministry of Education. In other words, they submitted their applications for provincial grants for new school construction.

In Wellington county there is a real need for new schools and additions to our existing schools because of the considerable increase in population over the past few years in the county. The submissions from the two boards include growth and non-growth priorities.

At the top of the Wellington county public board's growth list is a 110-pupil-place addition for Centre Peel Public School in Peel township. The board's non-growth top priority is a 71-pupil-place addition to Salem Public School in the township of Nichol.

The Wellington county Roman Catholic school board's top priority is an expansion of the classroom space for St Joseph school in Fergus. The construction of six portables as freestanding units is needed to alleviate a serious overcrowding problem. The board's non-growth top priority is the need for improvements to outdoor facilities for Our Lady of Lourdes school in Guelph, which many Wellington residents attend.

From this brief summary, it's evident that the need for improvements to school infrastructure in Wellington county is every bit as great as other areas of the province. There are too many portables in the county and this situation simply must be addressed.

I urge the Minister of Education to carefully review and give serious, positive consideration to the multi-year forecast needs of the Wellington county boards.

1340

ANTI-TOBACCO LEGISLATION

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): Last week, Dr Doug Kittle, the medical officer of health at the Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph health unit, lobbied me about the proposed tobacco legislation.

The Addiction Research Foundation reports a 50% increase in the proportion of grade 7 students who smoke. Our local health unit surveyed two area schools where the number of youths under 18 smoking exceeded the provincial average of 22%. In one school 35% of students under the age of 18 were smoking, and at the other school 23% were smoking before the age of 18.

Parents were concerned that their children would be exposed to smoking earlier when one of the high schools also incorporated the grades 7 and 8 classes. Studies show that the majority of youth who experiment with smoking start in earnest probably within two or three years and then they are hooked by the age of 15. Many students told their health unit that they bought their cigarettes from local retailers. Despite the fact that 35% of Wellington pharmacies voluntarily do not sell cigarettes, cigarettes are easily available to youth.

The health unit also found, and this is significant, that 40% of these students who smoked wanted to quit and wanted help to quit.

Dr Kittle tells me that education is not enough. He points out many examples where legislation combined with education has ensured greater benefits: seatbelt legislation, stiffer penalties for impaired driving, childhood immunization. It's easier to help kids stay smoke-free than to help them quit after. That's what this legislation is all about.

DEVELOPMENT IN RENFREW COUNTY

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): Last Saturday in the city of Pembroke in the heart of the county of Renfrew, some 200 people gathered together under the auspices of the economic development committee of our county to attend what was billed as an issues summit looking at a number of very contentious land use and resource controversies that are currently before the communities of the upper Ottawa Valley. As I indicated to the House last night, the mood and the temperature of that meeting was, from my point of view and I'm certainly sure from the point of view of the Ministry of Natural Resources, a real concern.

It is obvious that loggers and farmers and small business people, men and women, young and old, who depend on their economic livelihood for and from the resource base in that part of the province are feeling very, very threatened by a variety of resource policies that are being pursued by the current government.

There is a sense in my part of eastern Ontario that the current government, and particularly the imperial authorities of the Ministry of Natural Resources, are more worried about the health and safety of deer, moose and wolves in places like Round Lake, Killaloe and Pembroke than they are about the jobs of people who are working and paying taxes in those communities.

The message from that issues summit in Pembroke last Saturday: "Government, stop and listen. You are developing policies that are being driven by narrow special interests that are not in the general public interest where everyone's concern is about jobs and economic growth."

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PLAN

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I rise on behalf of pharmacists and seniors from across Ontario to note that the government has finally come to its senses and will withdraw its severe and heavy-handed Bill 81.

I'm certainly pleased to see the government finally listening to the concerns that have been raised by me and my caucus colleagues concerning this dangerous bill and the impact that it would have on pharmacists and seniors.

The government's decision not to charge user fees to seniors for prescription drugs is also a recognition of what our caucus has been saying about the issue of user fees. User fees currently exist in our health care system and are being applied by Liberal and NDP governments in a random fashion without regard for the individual's ability to absorb the cost. Because we already have hundreds of millions of dollars of user fees in our health care system, what is needed is an open, extensive public discussion about what role user fees should play and are playing in our current health care system.

I was glad to see the government finally listen to the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party and to seniors from all across this province, who believe the government should stop adding user fees in an ad hoc fashion, stop lying to the people of the province about this particular issue and come clean on the issue of user fees.

SAFE HAVEN FOR CHILDREN

Mr David Winninger (London South): I rise in the House today to share a story of help and compassion, a true story which took place recently in my riding of London South.

Four Bosnian children arrived in London on November 22 to receive medical treatment at Victoria Hospital/ Children's Hospital of Western Ontario. These children would not have been able to receive care in the former Yugoslavia, now war-ravaged Bosnia-Hercegovina, due to existing conditions.

Over a year ago a group of individuals in London saw the news reports of brutal war acts against children in Bosnia. They formed a humanitarian, interfaith, multicultural organization of Canadians citizens called Safe Haven for Children to set up a temporary haven for these children until it is safe for them to return. Safe Haven is based on a fostering parent plan in which each host family, screened by a team of professional social workers, agrees to provide a loving, caring home.

Dr Jonathan Kronich of Victoria Children's Hospital provided a special kind of help to Safe Haven by offering to bring their hope to get medical care for these children before the hospital board of directors. Safe Haven's concerns and goals were discussed, a task force was formed, and physicians volunteered their time to treat the children. Now, after 18 months, the effort has proved successful: Six-month-old Haris, three-year-old Lejla, five-year-old Danita and 13-year-old Amir will be the first to receive medical treatment in London.

I laud the good work of every individual involved in this project.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I invite all members to join me in welcoming to our chamber this afternoon, and seated in the Speaker's gallery, a visiting delegation from the consulate of the United States of America, headed by the consul general, Mr George Kennedy. Please welcome our special guests.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

CORPORATE MINIMUM TAX

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): Later this afternoon, I will table a bill entitled the Corporations Tax Amendment Act. With this legislation, we are acting on a promise made in the budget that I presented last May. At that time we pledged that large profitable firms in Ontario will pay at least some minimum amount of corporate income tax.

Today's legislation accomplishes what we set out to do. It helps to ensure tax fairness, the cornerstone of our tax policies. At the same time, it acknowledges the important role of the private sector, particularly small businesses, in Ontario's growth. Our corporate minimum tax will stop big, profitable companies from taking advantage of tax preferences to the point where they pay little or no corporate income tax.

We have designed the tax so that it will not hamper the current recovery, discourage investment in our future or impair Ontario's tax competitiveness. I should note here that the United States imposes a more onerous and complex minimum tax on corporations.

I would like to outline briefly to the House how our tax will work:

First, it applies only to large firms, those with assets of more than $5 million or gross revenues of more than $10 million a year. This means, right at the outset, that small businesses, in fact about 90% of the businesses in this province, will not even have to calculate or file the tax.

Second, it targets only those large firms that are profitable but are able to use various tax preferences to reduce or eliminate their corporate income tax. We are asking these firms to pay a minimum amount of corporate income tax.

The tax will be phased in over three years, starting in 1994. Transitional measures, including this phase-in, are being provided to give relief to firms which are just returning to profitability after the recession.

In addition, in recognition of the cyclical nature of business, corporate minimum tax paid in one year can be credited against future corporate income taxes. Further, losses related to the tax can be carried forward for up to 10 years.

In outlining this tax in the budget, we asked for feedback on its technical aspects. One of the messages we heard clearly in our consultations was that the requirement to file audited statements would add to the cost of complying with the corporate minimum tax. As a result, we have dropped the audit requirement. This will make it easier and less expensive for firms to comply.

This legislation represents an important balance between the need for fairness for all taxpayers and the need to maintain tax incentives that encourage new investment and help to create jobs.

1350

With this corporate minimum tax, we are achieving this balance. We are ensuring that large corporations pay their fair share, which reduces the burden on other taxpayers, whether they are small businesses or individual workers. It is our tax system, after all, that provides us with the health care, education, training, roads and public transit that benefit all members of our society.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I would like to respond to the Minister of Finance's statement and suggest that, I think, as we look at the bill, it does run the risk of doing more harm than good. I realize the political optics of it may be good, but in terms of good public policy I suggest time will tell on that, Minister of Finance.

Let's be clear on what we're dealing with here. As the Fair Tax Commission report points out, why are corporations not paying taxes? Why would you think? The reason profitable companies are not paying taxes is solely because of government programs, such as capital costs allowances, R&D allowances, programs that the government brings in and says to corporations, "Please participate in these things because they are good public policy."

Corporations around the province do participate in them and then, as they participate in them, find that by taking advantage of programs introduced by the government, suddenly they're not paying taxes. What we're doing now is introducing a corporate minimum tax. Let's be very clear about it; I think the public must understand why the corporations aren't paying taxes. It is because of government programs designed by the government to get corporations to do things the government feels are in the best interests of the public.

What we're going to do, and let's be also very clear about this -- 13,000 companies in this province now will be required to fill out forms, to go through the whole corporate minimum tax exercise, to do all of the bureaucracy associated with that for one reason: so the government can claw back money it already gave them. The minister himself points that out.

What are we doing here? We're chasing our tail. The rest of the world is getting on with running the economy and competing successfully and we're just running around chasing our tail. We introduce a program and say, "Apply for it." They apply for it. Suddenly we've introduced another tax to get the money back. Something's wrong.

The Fair Tax Commission's report, $9 million and three years later, is coming out when? Next week. The Fair Tax Commission points out that there is about $4 billion of what's called "tax incentives." Incentives, I guess the minister would call them: tax expenditures, programs that the government, the taxpayers, pay money for corporations to participate in. As a matter of fact, I think many economists would suggest, as the Fair Tax Commission itself suggests, that the solution to this isn't a minimum tax. It is dealing with those tax expenditures.

But no, we are going to put 13,000 companies through this exercise January 1. We're going to put them through that exercise when the Fair Tax Commission's report, you taxpayers out there who have spent $9 million on it, is coming out next week -- one week from today, I think, or one week from tomorrow. Yet here we are proceeding with a minimum tax piece of legislation.

As I say, the politics and the optics may be good on this because everybody wants those welfare corporate bums to pay their share of the taxes, but what we've done is we've told them: "Get involved in these programs. We want you to be involved in capital cost allowance and depreciation." As a matter of fact, the Finance minister's own budgets proposed these things. They did, and now we're going to set up a whole bureaucracy; 13,000 companies will go through an enormous exercise to claw back the money the government gave them.

The second thing is, the minister says this doesn't affect small business. That's not the fact: 20% of companies in this province with between five and 19 employees will be hit by this tax. Where are the jobs coming from? I recall Premier Rae saying it's small business that will create the jobs. We've all heard that. Who will be hit by the corporate minimum tax? Twenty per cent of the companies with under 20 employees, between five and 20 employees, will be hit by this.

Here we are spending our time sending our tax auditors out after those 13,000 companies that have taken advantage of the programs we told them to take advantage of, while the rest of the world is out competing and taking our business.

As I say, I understand the optics of a corporate minimum tax. As a matter of fact, I suspect 80% or 90% of the people watching this say, "Yes, I'm for a corporate minimum tax." Indeed, it sounds great, but as we get involved in this thing, I will suggest it will do more harm than good, unfortunately.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): The master of doublespeak is the Minister of Finance. You go through the press release and the statement you've made: soft, lovely, sweet-sounding, syrupy words, and they stink. They really do.

"We are acting on a promise made in the budget." That's one promise we didn't want you to keep. "It helps to ensure tax fairness." There isn't any tax that's fair, Floyd. They're all bad. You say tax fairness "will not hamper the current economy." The economy is in such sick shape, I can't see you doing a thing to help it.

"It applies only to large firms." Oh, that's great for you guys. If you can go after the big fellows, you'll feel bigger, because you're so small as it is now. Beat up the big ones. "It targets only those large firms that are profitable." That's something the New Democrats have really tried to do. If you want to have a small company, buy a big one. It will get small, because you're taxed to death by the New Democrats.

These are the words of your press release: "to help create jobs." I can't believe it. You put right in the statement that you're going to create jobs with another tax. That's an impossibility. What you're really doing is taxing the big companies out of business. This, Minister of Finance, is the wrong time to be levying any more taxes. The people of Ontario have hit the tax wall. We can't afford to keep paying you guys. Don't do it to us.

Hon Allan Pilkey (Minister without Portfolio in Municipal Affairs): That's it. Hit the little guy.

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

Mr Cousens: The people out there are trying to get the economy going again, and the moment they do, there's going to be Pink Floyd putting his hand in their deep pocket, trying to take some more taxes away from them. This is the thin edge of the wedge.

During the election campaign, in the Agenda for People, the New Democrats talked about an 8% tax like this. They haven't come in with 8% right now, but they have said it's 2% now, 3% in 1995, 4% in 1996. What they haven't said is that it's going to be another percentage point in 1997, 1998, 1999. By the year 2000, it's going to be up to 8%. It's just going to keep on going. Once you start a tax like this, it just keeps on growing until we're like the United States, where it's at 12%. Starting off really small now, it's just going to build.

We're the only jurisdiction in Canada that has done this, so again we're going to cause people to celebrate in Halifax, Quebec City and out west, because Ontario is now the place that businesses, where they're already trying to get established, are going to emigrate from. They're going to move out of this province and settle somewhere else. Why should they stay here and be taxed to death by the socialist government of Bob Rae?

I think what you've really done is made an ideological position with this. It's a $100-million tax grab. What it is is a sop to the left wing of your party. What you're really trying to do is say to the people who have supported you in the past, who probably won't support you in the future -- yes, left-wing Floyd is trying to support the people over to the left of his party -- "Hey, at least we're out getting some money for the government from the big guys, those who made a profit" -- that evil word "profit." "We're going to take some money out of them. The corporate minimum tax allows us to do that."

You as a government say, "We're going to build jobs in Ontario." What you're doing with another tax is eliminating jobs. Every tax dollar has a way of eroding jobs and the ability for companies to create new jobs.

Why don't you start collecting some of the taxes that are already out there? We've been on the committee on finance and economic affairs. People, through the underground economy, are generating $1 million a night down in some of the places near Cornwall. That's just three months' business for those guys. Why don't you come out there and start doing the job you've already been given? But in the meantime, you have a way of explaining and justifying another tax for the people of Ontario.

I oppose it. Our party will oppose it. We see it as another offence of the New Democratic government, where you stand up with all the sweet-sounding words that you're doing us a favour by having another tax. Let's face it: It is not the time to keep taxing the people of Ontario. We've had it with your taxes. People are fed up with a government that doesn't even know how to administer the functions of government right now. But in order to keep things going, here you are raising another $100 million over the next couple of years with this one.

I just am so disgusted at the way Ontario's starting to look. You're just ruining it for the next guy, you're ruining it for the --

The Speaker: The member's time has expired.

1400

ORAL QUESTIONS

EXPENDITURE CONTROL

Mr Charles Beer (York North): My question is for the Minister of Finance and it concerns his expenditure control plan. For the first time publicly, this morning we learned that you were starting on round 2 of the expenditure control plan. Colleges and universities have been informed that they will be cut by at least $34 million.

In responding to the concerns about these cuts on the radio this morning, the Minister of Education and Training admitted, confessed indeed, that this new round had begun and the implications were clear that there would be further cuts for municipalities, for social agencies, for school boards and for hospitals.

The minister went on to say, "I think that all of us have reluctance to start talking about multi-year because then that appears that there are absolute floor guarantees of what transfer payments will be." Surely, I say to the Minister of Finance, we want our transfer payment agencies to know what those transfers are going to be and that the planning process is one that is open and honest.

You, Minister, are responsible for the expenditure control plan. My question to you is, what is your hidden agenda? What is it you're planning to do for colleges, universities, municipalities, social service agencies and school boards? What are you trying to hide? When are you going to introduce clearly what cuts you're planning for all of those other sectors?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): Perhaps I should begin by assuring the member for York North that there is no hidden agenda. That is really an assertion that's without foundation entirely.

I think it's a fair question the member asked. Last spring, we went through the exercise of trying to find $4 billion in expenditure savings this year and to make sure it was not just a one-year exercise, because that would just create a bulge in the balloon and come back to haunt us in year 2, year 3 and year 4 and so forth.

What we did was engage in an exercise in which we were able to identify $4 billion in savings in committed expenditures for the year in which we are now, 1993-94, but I think the member would appreciate the fact that it's virtually impossible to be precise and pinpoint every expenditure as you go out in subsequent years.

What we did was lay out the details, ministry by ministry, for all the expenditure reductions for 1993-94 without doing the same for the subsequent years. That really would have been a very daunting exercise indeed. But it is encouraging to hear the member for York North assert his party's position that we should be letting those expenditures go up.

Mr Beer: I say to the Minister of Finance very clearly: You are the government. You are the ones who are working with the transfer payment agencies and you've got to work with them in a way that people understand what is going to happen, particularly in these difficult times. The great concern out there, expressed this morning by officials in colleges and universities throughout the province, but also by those who have to head up hospitals and school boards and other transfer payment agencies, is that they don't know exactly and precisely what you are doing. I want to say to the minister I'm glad there's no hidden agenda.

My second question is very simple: Will funding to municipalities for next year be cut? Will funding to hospitals be cut? Will funding to school boards be cut? If there is no hidden agenda, then are you prepared to stand in your place today and make the commitment that your transfer payment agencies are going to receive at least the same level of funding as last year? If you can't make that commitment, then will you tell us today how many additional millions of dollars you are intending to chop?

Hon Mr Laughren: I want to make one thing perfectly clear, because the member for York North is the Education critic for his caucus. The Minister of Education for the government did have meetings with the educational sector. A memo went out to them detailing exactly what expenditures they could expect to be reduced. As well, when the universities prepared their tuition proposals to the government, they factored in those reductions. There's no surprise for the post-secondary sector here.

For the other part of the member's supplementary question, he asked whether or not I will provide a guarantee that there will be absolutely no cuts in any of the transfers. I would say to him that he could be very helpful if, first of all, he would guarantee that his friend Paul Martin will assure that there will be absolutely no cuts in transfers to the province of Ontario. That would be very helpful.

Mr Beer: Again, I simply say to the Minister of Finance that he is responsible for the finances of this province and that's why the question is being directed to him on this issue. What the transfer payment partners don't understand and what they're still trying to figure out is precisely how to implement the midterm cuts that you announced last April. There is still a great deal of confusion out there about exactly what it is that you wanted done and how it was to be done.

The second problem is that we are now in December, and it is at the 11th hour, as they finalize their budgets for next year, that they learn from the minister of colleges and universities, bingo, no $34 million. So everyone else is very nervous and very worried.

You justify your silence by saying that you're afraid your finances might be worse than you expect. Minister, everybody knows that your finances are going to be worse than you expect. This whole exercise quite frankly has been transparently dishonest, because you're treating colleges, universities, municipalities, hospitals, school boards and social agencies like mushrooms: You keep them in the dark and you feed them a load.

My question, Minister, is simply this: Why are you again making these decisions behind closed doors, without consultation? How can your transfer partners plan their budgets when they frankly don't know what or how much you're going to cut for next year?

Hon Mr Laughren: The member for York North, when he talks about mushrooms, left out one of the parts of that famous expression about how mushrooms are treated and encouraged to grow, and that's what the member for York North is doing to me. I would tell the member that there was absolutely no element of bingo for the colleges and the universities. They were told that information months ago by the minister of colleges and universities and education. It's not a great surprise to them; they were not being kept in the dark.

With regard to the other transfer agencies -- the municipalities, the school boards, the hospitals and so forth -- that announcement will be made in a regular way in due course. We're not trying to stall that any longer than is absolutely necessary. But I do find it regrettable that the member for York North finds irrelevant the level to which we receive our fair share of funding from the federal government. I can only assume that he will be there lobbying with the rest of us to make sure that Ontario, unlike in recent years, will start to get its fair share from the taxes that we turn over to the federal government.

1410

LANDFILL

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Minister, I've been provided with a copy of a document which has been produced by the Ministry of Environment and Energy. It's entitled The Environmental Assessment Proposal: A Guideline for Public Sector Waste Management Planning. Basically, this document is a blueprint for getting landfills approved.

I'm referring to page 38 of the document, where it states, "In combination with the systematic site selection approach, proponents may choose to undertake a willing host siting approach." It goes on to say, "For a municipal proponent, a willing host site is defined as a site where the owner is willing to sell their property for the purpose of landfill development and the host municipality is supportive of the proposal."

Minister, I can see that the previous Minister of the Environment is whispering to you at this very moment. As you must be aware, this is totally inconsistent in principle with Bill 143. My question very simply is this: Can a municipality, such as for instance Kirkland Lake, stand as a willing host for waste, for garbage from municipalities located outside the GTA?

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I'm not familiar with the document or the page the member is reading from. I'm not the Minister of Environment. I'm sure the Minister of Environment would be glad to provide an answer. But if the member would follow the normal courtesy of opposition, which is to provide the document from which he's reading, maybe we could give him an answer.

Mr Offer: By way of normal courtesy, this document was provided to me. It is not a private document; it is a public document. It is and was and has been devised by your government since February 1993, almost one year ago.

However you wish to term it, the inconsistencies are glaring. On one hand you have Ruth Grier, I think just a few seconds ago, as well as Bob Rae and Bud Wildman, telling Durham, Peel and Metro to forget about looking at willing hosts; it's not allowed. On the other hand, this document, your government's draft document tells municipalities located outside of the GTA that it's okay to ship their garbage to a willing host. From this document, three conditions are necessary: firstly, that all sites must meet the screening criteria; secondly, that the willing host sites are compared to other sites; and, thirdly, which is the problem with Bill 143, that the most environmentally acceptable site is chosen. What's the difference between waste from municipalities located outside the GTA and waste from those located within it?

Hon Mr Philip: We have said fairly clearly that if Kirkland Lake or any other municipality wants to go through a full environmental assessment the same way as any other site or the three sites in the selected municipalities selected by the IWA are going through, it can do so.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order, the member for Halton Centre.

Hon Mr Philip: There is nothing preventing Metro or Kirkland Lake or any other municipality from going through the full OMB environmental assessment process. I'm sure that can be accommodated, and indeed the IWA has said so.

Mr Offer: That response is absolutely ridiculous, because your own Bill 143 says these municipalities outside the GTA can go through an EA hearing, they can spend all the money, and if at the end of the hearing it's decided that they are the safest environmentally to accept garbage, your government isn't going to accept it.

The question is, will you now change the policy? There was a press conference today. The mayors -- Vic Power from Timmins, Stan Lawlor from North Bay, Joe Mavrinac from Kirkland Lake -- as well as representatives from the CAW and the Transportation Communications union came to this place, came to Queen's Park and said, "Change your policy." Will you today change the policy and say to those people that municipalities outside of the GTA which want to stand as willing hosts that if their site is chosen and is the best and safest environmentally, you will in fact as a government accept the decision of an environment assessment board?

Hon Mr Philip: My colleagues who have been elected in the north have said very, very clearly that the north does not want to accept southern Ontario's garbage, in the same way that the people of Durham said they didn't want the Liberals to follow through with their policy of putting Metro's garbage in Durham, and that's what the Liberal government was doing.

As for economic development, let me just say this to Joe Mavrinac and to the people of Kirkland Lake: No government has done more for economic development of that community than this government has. Since we were elected, we have put $16,051,466 into the economic development and infrastructure of that community. We have nothing to hide from and everything to be proud of in terms of Kirkland Lake and northern Ontario.

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): My question again is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Would the member take his seat, please.

The member for Don Mills.

Mr David Johnson: Mr Minister, your government has accomplished the impossible. It has united the province of Ontario. It has brought together northern Ontario and southern Ontario, rural Ontario and urban Ontario, environmentalists and engineers, entrepreneurs and labour. They want you not just to allow the Kirkland Lake site to go through the environmental process, but for you to include the environmental assessment under the Interim Waste Authority so that it has a fair chance.

They're very frustrated. The mayor of Kirkland Lake today has called for the resignation of the Minister of Northern Development, he is so frustrated. He has termed this Interim Waste Authority process the worst meddling in his 35 years in politics.

My question to you: If you won't take action to help the environment in Caledon, Vaughan and Pickering, if you won't take action to help the economy in northern Ontario, will you at least allow this environmental assessment through the Interim Waste Authority process for the sake of the political future of your own party?

Hon Mr Philip: The decision not to ship Metro's garbage out of Metro into northern Ontario was endorsed by environmental groups.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): It's been thrown out of Metro, Ed. It's going to York. Holy smoke.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Etobicoke West.

Hon Mr Philip: It was endorsed by a great number of groups who saw that the 3Rs method of dealing with garbage was the correct and environmentally responsible method, and that you don't pawn off your problems by shipping them out to someone else.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Would the minister take his seat, please.

Minister?

Hon Mr Philip: The decision not to ship garbage from southern Ontario to northern Ontario was a cabinet decision; it was not the decision of the Minister of Northern Development. But I can tell you, Mr Speaker, that the honourable member, who obviously is just newly elected and isn't aware of what this government has done for northern Ontario --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Philip: Let me tell you that the Minister of Northern Development has done more for the people of northern Ontario than any previous minister and she has the complete support of this cabinet and the Premier.

1420

Mr David Johnson: I may not have all the answers to all the problems, as the minister obviously does, even though the rest of the province doesn't agree with him, but one thing I know, and I wonder if the minister does: Does the minister know what happens in Seattle, Washington? In Seattle, they have the best recycling and waste recovery process in the whole of the United States; 40% waste is recycled or diverted. What do they do with their waste in Seattle? The waste that is left over, they transport 325 miles to Gilliam county, just as the mayors of Timmins --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Neither the intemperate language nor the volume is assisting any of us in being able to conduct a normal question period. I would ask members on the government side to listen to the question posed, and members on the opposition side to listen to the response provided. The member for Don Mills, please place his question.

Mr David Johnson: What I know and what the mayors of Timmins, North Bay and Kirkland Lake know is that it works in the United States. What they also know is that there will be jobs created, 287 permanent jobs, that there will be considerable assistance to the Ontario Northland Railway, that there will be construction jobs. They know this will be good for the economy of northern Ontario. They ask you, Mr Minister, why do you continue to refuse these economic benefits to northern Ontario, a region that needs jobs and needs economic growth?

Hon Mr Philip: The member points out that Seattle is recycling 40% of its garbage. In fact, we think that is the real economic benefit, to develop the green industries to recycle, to reuse. That is what the previous minister was doing and the present Minister of the Environment is in fact doing, along with the Minister of Economic Development and Trade, developing industries that can be exportable, new technologies in terms of recycling and reusing.

That is the program. Indeed, the environmentalists are telling us that we can reach an 80% recycling and reusing. We think we can beat Seattle. All we have to do is have the will and the kinds of policies that this government has enacted and that the previous governments completely ignored.

Mr David Johnson: It's interesting that the labour movement does not agree with the minister. I thought this morning that the most poignant aspect of the press conference was when the labour representative spoke. I refer to Debbie Graham, representing the Transportation Communications union. She spoke of families and people and real jobs: 287 jobs. I refer to Craig Kemp of the Canadian Auto Workers, Local 103, who said there will be no winner in the present IWA process. He said that in the region of York the site will never be prepared.

The mayor of Kirkland Lake has called on you and the cabinet to either allow the environmental assessment through the Interim Waste Authority so that it has a fair chance, a fair and equal chance through the Interim Waste Authority, or to admit that there is another agenda. That other agenda is one driven by ideology, one that is not for people, one that is not for job creation.

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

Mr David Johnson: My question, Mr Speaker: Minister, will you admit today that the Adams mine site makes sense to consider, but that your refusal is because your government thinks that it's not a politically correct site?

Hon Mr Philip: In the first instance, the member is wrong when he says that the union movement has not agreed with us. In fact, CUPE, which is the largest municipal union, has been cooperating very closely with us. Indeed, the Canadian Food and Allied Workers have been working very closely with the Minister of Environment and Energy on a number of programs that will reduce and recycle garbage. So to say that the union movement is not working with this government and supporting what this government is doing in its garbage policy and its garbage reduction policy is simply wrong and the member should get his facts straight.

As for whether or not we want to move to a completely privatized system, which is what the member is suggesting, the answer is no. We don't think that would be in the interest of the taxpayers. It certainly wouldn't be in the interest of the workers. It would not be in the interest of the environmentalists. And the answer is no, definitely no, to his question.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): My question is to the Minister of Labour. Today in the Toronto Star the head of the Workers' Compensation Board said that he intends to hold "public consultations" on, believe it or not, expanding WCB coverage to approximately 30% of businesses not covered in Ontario.

Mr Minister, given the already fragile state of Ontario's economy and given the current mess of the WCB that we hear about in daily reports, will you immediately put a stop to any discussions of this policy that is nothing more, in my opinion, than strictly a cash grab? This is fantasy, any expansion of the WCB, considering the absolute mess this particular government agency is in.

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): To begin with, I don't accept the "absolute mess" comment that's made across the way. I am sure that one of the jobs of the Workers' Compensation Board is to look at areas that may need the coverage. In almost every other coverage in North America, the financial institutions are covered. But I want to tell you that the board won't make that decision; this government will make that decision if it has to be made. One of the jobs of the board, as it did when it came to lung cancer, asbestosis or many other areas that were not covered, is to first go through an extensive consultation process, and that's exactly what it's doing.

Mr Stockwell: If you won't buy "absolute mess," maybe we can agree on a phrase that everyone will accept, like "complete screwup" -- I don't know; what the heck -- "the fiasco" --

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): "Chaos."

Mr Stockwell: -- "chaos," "the black hole," "the cash pit." Pick any of the above.

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): "The swamp."

Mr Stockwell: Everybody who has looked at this particular proposal has come to at least one conclusion, and that conclusion is that any assessed increased expansion of WCB will accomplish one thing for sure, and that is kill jobs.

I have a copy of a report done by the management working group of the Premier's own Labour-Management Advisory Committee. These are the Premier's people. This report says, and I quote:

"Coverage of currently exempt industries" -- and I want the minister to listen very carefully -- "may have a negative financial impact on the Ontario economy."

Mr Minister, if this is what your handpicked group of people are saying, would you agree that Mr Di Santo should not even be talking about a policy of expansion at the swamp, let alone an implementation of expansion?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: The comments I'm hearing from across the way are one of the reasons I've tuned out that member for almost the last year every time he gets up in the House.

I want to tell you also that the Workers' Compensation Board has the responsibility for looking after injured workers when they're injured on the job in the province of Ontario, and I'm wondering what the members across the way want. Do they want us to do away with the board and go back to the old having to sue or go to court before a worker could be covered? That's absolutely ridiculous. What we've got to do is take the current board and make darned sure it can do the best job possible for workers without having to revert back to the provision of having to sue before you get coverage.

Mr Stockwell: This minister has tuned out 90% of the province. He doesn't listen to reason. You refuse to listen to the reasonable positions that are being put forward by the business community with the expansion of WCB. I'm not talking about going back and suing in the old days. The WCB's in place as it is. No one's suggesting that's the case, and for you to make that allegation is nothing more than a red herring, trying to cover up for the absolutely inept job you are doing at the Labour ministry.

1430

Why don't you answer a question instead of getting back to your labour-management confrontational attitudes when it comes to real problems that are on the table? The business community is saying, given the current mess at the WCB -- if you don't think a $13-billion unfunded liability is a mess, then I'd like to know what you think is a mess -- it is ludicrous for the chair to talk about any expansion of coverage.

Instead of desperately grabbing for even more money from Ontario business and costing Ontario business jobs, Minister, will you immediately place a moratorium on all new coverage policies of the WCB and for once deal in reality and give the businesses of this province a break?

Hon Bob Mackenzie: I don't know how long it takes to get through, but we've had a freeze on the assessments for two years. We currently have an increase, which the members obviously don't like, of 4%; that's the average across the board. We have some 50,000 companies where their assessment is going down, not going up; we have some companies where it's going up. And the assessments are based on their accident record; in other words, if you've got a bad record when it comes to accidents in your place of business, you're likely to see an increase in the assessment rates.

Is the member across the way telling us that he doesn't believe in that kind of fair approach?

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I have a question to the Deputy Premier concerning Ontario Hydro. In light of the fact that we know there has been considerable expense to Hydro in its transition program in retiring, with severances, over 6,000 people, plus understanding that a big write-down of its assets has also cost it considerable money, and in light of the fact that in 1993 the net income is not going to pay off the debt, which is statutorily required to be retired, and that in 1994 a reduced income will likewise not enable these people to retire the debt, which is required of them, can the Deputy Premier advise whether the government is bringing forward amendments to the Power Corporation Act and whether the government has authorized or will be authorizing Ontario Hydro to proceed with injecting new equity into Ontario Hydro through employee purchases, through federal or municipal funding of some manner or another, or by the selling off of certain assets of this public corporation?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier): There's a lot in that question.

The board of Ontario Hydro is looking at a variety of ways in which it can get its financial house back in order. I think the member opposite would appreciate the fact that there are problems with their finances. At the present time the government has received no proposal from Ontario Hydro to do any of the things which he suggests; at least, to my knowledge, there's been nothing that's come to the government.

Certainly the government has been sending as strong signals as possible, both the Minister of Environment and Energy and the Premier, and I will repeat it again today, that we are not interested in privatizing Ontario Hydro. At the same time, there is an opportunity, I think, for Ontario Hydro to engage in some joint ventures, whether it's the generation of hydro on the supply side, or, on the conservation side, to engage in joint ventures to accomplish those goals. But at this point there's no intention to do what the member is suggesting in his question.

Mr Elston: I would like to know if the Deputy Premier of this government believes it is appropriate for the rate stabilization fund, which used to be at one point C$6 billion, to be completely eroded, in fact perhaps put into a deficit position in breach of the Ontario Power Corporation Act; whether he thinks it is appropriate, therefore, to make special arrangements that will allow those steps to take place to help to stabilize the Ontario Hydro corporation and whether or not he is in favour of perhaps offering Hydro shares to the public as a public equity offering and whether he considers that to be a partial privatization of Ontario Hydro.

Hon Mr Laughren: To answer the last part first, yes, that would be a partial privatization of Hydro, in my view, and I wouldn't support that, no.

As well, it's my understanding that the Hydro board is indeed looking at some kind of merger of the rate stabilization fund and the statutory debt retirement fund, but I don't know what it's going to recommend to us on that. There are some changes, particularly as regards the statutory debt retirement fund, that I believe would require amendments to the Power Corporation Act, so that would have to be considered before any such step was taken by Ontario Hydro. We would have to wait and see what recommendations come to the government from Hydro, and I certainly haven't seen anything like that at this point.

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): My question is for the Minister of Correctional Services. Yesterday, Minister, when asked about the auditor's findings that Ontario jails are the most expensive in Canada to run, you said: "...when we look at the newer facilities...the efficiencies and cost per diems are lower than the average. It's the higher cost and loss of efficiency in the older institutions which I suggest skews the overall numbers in the report."

Let me remind the minister of a situation I raised with you last spring. The addition to the Mimico Correctional Centre, one of the new facilities that should be much more efficient to run, was supposed to open a year ago. This facility cost the taxpayers of this province $6 million to build. It is complete, but due to the serious security flaws in the jail bars, locks and other hardware, the facility is still not open, although the staff was hired and then had to be laid off. Ontario's taxpayers are paying to light and heat this building which sits empty.

Minister, why is it taking so long to open this new facility?

Hon David Christopherson (Minister of Correctional Services): I believe the honourable member will find -- if it hasn't already happened, certainly the decision has been taken -- that 60 of the beds in that facility indeed will be opening up, and we are now taking a look at the timing for the remaining beds.

Let me also say that in light of the other findings of the auditor's report in terms of the issue she has raised about older institutions and newer institutions and regionalization, we want to factor in the recommendations and issues he has mentioned when we take a look at the issue of the timing of opening the remainder of the beds.

Mrs Marland: There are several other provincial facilities that have been investigated over the security hardware that was supplied by the same company that I brought up in connection with the Mimico centre. The other facilities are the Maplehurst Correctional Centre in Milton, the jails in Stratford and Windsor, the Northern Treatment Centre in Sault Ste Marie, and several others, including the OPP buildings in Downsview, Peterborough, Belleville and Perth, and the courthouses in Oshawa and the East Mall in Etobicoke.

I realize, if you don't, Minister, that this is a very serious matter. We actually have a situation where substandard locks were rebuilt and then the contractor added Chubb security labels to them, although they were not a Chubb security product.

I would like to know, Minister, when you are going to have a police investigation of this matter. In the meantime, can you assure the people who work and live in the communities close to these facilities that in fact all of those facilities are safe and secure?

Hon Mr Christopherson: I think I heard three questions; I'll try to touch on all three very briefly.

First and foremost, yes, I can give the member the assurance that these facilities are secure, and as I said yesterday in my comments, that will remain a priority and we will continue to take whatever steps are always necessary when there's a question of the safety of inmates, staff or the public.

Second, there was an ongoing investigation, as I think the Chair of Management Board has mentioned before, the status of which, whether or not that has been completed, we would have to be in touch with the OPP about. I don't make decisions on the beginning and ending of investigations, but I think we can get that information or at least ensure that the right person can be directed to the member.

Last, let me just say on the issue of the grille work that the honourable member really is mixing apples and oranges. On the one hand we're talking about the efficiency and the operational ability of older facilities to be as cost-efficient as newer facilities. The issue the honourable member raises is one of construction and an issue around materials and work done by contractors, which, as the member knows, is also the responsibility of the Chair of Management Board. But that really does not bear any direct relationship to the issues mentioned in the auditor's report at all.

1440

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): My question is to the Minister of Health and has to do with the redirection of long-term care, specifically multiservice agencies. Many long-term care providers in my riding of Kingston and The Islands have talked to me about this important initiative. In September this year the Minister of Health released a blueprint for multiservice agencies that will provide one-step access to long-term care services for residents of Ontario. What is the Minister of Health doing to ensure that the proposed multiservice agencies blueprint will be flexible enough to meet specific local communities' needs?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I think that question goes to the heart of our long-term care policy, which is to take a patchwork of fragmented programs and design from them a system.

What we heard very clearly from people during the extensive consultation that took place under a number of ministers was that consumers wanted a system that was fair, that was accessible, that was close to home and accountable to the people it served. That's why we asked the district health councils to do the planning in the various communities, because they didn't want it to be government-run and they didn't want it to be a cookie-cutter approach from Queen's Park telling one region of the province how it ought to be run in their community.

With respect to the member's own area, I can tell him that I'm aware that the district health council is working collaboratively with the community-based agencies and with the public health unit to ensure that the plan for that area is built on the very best of what already exists, that the administration is streamlined and that there is a labour adjustment program to make sure the transition is smooth. I think we will have a consensus from both consumers and providers about the type of MSAs that indeed have the kind of flexibility the member is calling for.

Mr Gary Wilson: The question also has been raised about the role of for-profit agencies providing long-term care services. There is concern in my riding about the employment of workers currently in the profit-making health care sector. I'd like to know what the minister is doing to address this concern.

Hon Mrs Grier: My colleague will know that this government has announced that we have a preference for a not-for-profit approach in the health care sector, and at the time we made that decision with respect to home care we indicated that we wanted to ensure that government-funded health care dollars went into the community-based and volunteer component of the delivery system.

We provided our long-term care offices with a plan for rationalizing the system over time, and we've recognized that in some areas of the province the transition will take longer than in others. We believe that the development of long-term care is a growth industry in this province and that there will be a considerable number of new jobs provided, and we believe that the funding from the province should go into the delivery of services and the improvement of services, not into the profits of the various agencies concerned.

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): My question is to the Minister of Health and it also relates to long-term care issues. Ever since your government took office you've promised residents of nursing homes that money provided by the ministry to those homes would be based on levels of care, that it would be equivalent to the funding which is provided to residents of homes for the aged and would ensure that the resources are provided based on the actual nursing and personal care needs of residents in each facility.

Assessments of every resident have been made to measure what those actual needs are, but those assessments are sitting on a shelf. I'm asking you why you've changed your mind about providing levels-of-care funding to meet the individual needs of long-term care residents.

Hon Mrs Grier: I haven't changed my mind. In fact, levels-of-care funding and the case mix index of the various homes are the whole basis for our funding of long-term care facilities under Bill 101.

Mrs Sullivan: That's precisely the point. We passed Bill 101 and it received royal assent on June 1 of this year. I have that document here.

I also have a document here which is a letter sent by the minister on November 22 to Julie Davis, the secretary-treasurer of the Ontario Federation of Labour, and to Ina Caissey of the Ontario Nurses' Association in the aftermath of the implementation of the social contract bill. It indicates quite clearly in this letter that the government is in fact not implementing levels-of-care funding but is reverting to the old formula-based, minimum hours of care provided. The minister is telling the OFL that she will seek changes to the regulations. Now, those regulations being under Bill 101, she doesn't have to follow that law. What do you have to say to those residents now about this change in your direction?

Hon Mrs Grier: What I have to say is the member is quite simply wrong. Under Bill 101, levels-of-care funding is what will be implemented. With respect to that, what had to happen next were contracts that laid out very clearly the level of care for individual patients.

In the interim, what we found was that in some homes, in the absence of having reached the stage of having designed those contracts, homes were withdrawing care from patients because in fact the rules had changed. Many people were complaining to me and to my members that the care was deteriorating and in fact the employment was changing because nurses were being laid off and replaced with other workers.

In an endeavour to make sure that until the contracts that finally implement Bill 101 were in place, no resident of a long-term care or nursing home in this province was going to suffer with less care than they had had before or that they were entitled to under our reform.

EASTERN ONTARIO ISSUES SUMMIT

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. I will expect a very informative answer, because he's been well briefed on this question. My colleague from Renfrew North already has briefed him through a statement this afternoon in the House.

However, Minister, as you are now very well aware, the Eastern Ontario Issues Summit was held in Pembroke on Saturday, December 4, and 175 delegates attended this summit. They paid $20 each to cover the cost of the hall and other related costs for that meeting.

An empty chair sat at the front with the Ministry of Natural Resources marked on it and it sat there vacant. I ask you, Minister, when this was called for the three most important resource issues in eastern Ontario, namely, the Madawaska highlands, the Algonquin natives' land issue and the new wilderness zone outside of Algonquin Park -- those three main issues are of real concern to the people in the Ottawa Valley, and they planned on your being there. Can you tell this House and tell those people why you were not there and why you didn't think it important enough to send a representative?

Hon Howard Hampton (Minister of Natural Resources): I appreciate that the member wants to present an issue with some bombast in the House. I think it would be only proper to make sure that the member is fully informed of exactly who was there.

In fact, from the Ministry of Natural Resources, the manager of planning for the central region of Ontario was there; the district manager of Pembroke was there; the district manager for Algonquin Park was there and the person we have created a new position for, as adviser to the wood products industry in eastern Ontario, was also there. It's quite inaccurate to say no one was there from the Ministry of Natural Resources. People were there.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Hampton: Mr Speaker, I'd like to answer the question. If the Conservatives don't want the answer -- the reality is that I received an invitation from the warden of the county only two weeks before the meeting was held. I told the warden at that time that my schedule had been booked up for some months. To attend that meeting on very short notice, I would have had to cancel meetings with other groups and organizations.

I would say through the member to the county warden that if he wants someone to attend a meeting like that, it is better that someone receive more than two weeks' notice. But certainly don't say that no one was there. In fact, four very highly placed members of the Ministry of Natural Resources staff were there and were available to discuss with people there all of the issues.

1450

Mr Jordan: Mr Minister, that is the problem with your ministry throughout this term of this government. You will not take responsibility as minister. You're trying to dump it off on staff. The summit in Pembroke was a clear sign that you will not personally listen or send a specific delegation to listen. These people were not identified at that meeting as representing the Minister of Natural Resources.

The purpose of this summit was because your consultations on land use have been nothing more than a shabby, smoke-and-mirror attempt to make the people think that they have been consulted. Despite your attempts, we know that the price to pay for your policies will be lost jobs in forestry, lost jobs in tourism and lost jobs in land development. Mr Minister, will you please make a commitment to seriously consult one to one or on a group basis with these people regarding these three issues?

Hon Mr Hampton: I don't want to embarrass the member opposite, but he really should check his facts. A week before this meeting was held in Pembroke, I met for over three hours with the county warden, with the economic development officer of the warden, with the veneer mill at Pembroke.

In fact, he should read the press from his own riding. "Canada Veneers Now Optimistic After Meeting with the Minister of Natural Resources." "Natural Resources Minister Looking at Problem of Low Veneer Log Supply: Canada Veneers Happy." Not only did I receive this in person from the people in the county, I dealt with their issues in detail.

Finally, the member should read his own newspaper in his own riding because, at the same time that this meeting was being held, the Ministry of Natural Resources was able to arrange for a new investor in a sawmill in the member's own home town, creating new jobs. I don't want to embarrass the member, but the member should check his facts.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. There is not enough time to compare press clippings.

CORPORATE MINIMUM TAX

Mr Norm Jamison (Norfolk): My question is to the Minister of Finance.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Jamison: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I hope people are willing to listen to my question because I believe it's one that's pertinent.

The Speaker: To whom is it addressed?

Mr Jamison: The question, for the second time, is addressed to the Minister of Finance. We would have heard that if the House was quiet enough to listen.

My question is about today's announcement about the minimum corporate tax. I've spoken directly to a goodly number of my own constituents and they believe this is a good idea. They believe it reflects fairness in our tax system and is a step forward towards that. The question I want to ask, and I guess it reflects an earlier question, is, why are we introducing this now?

On top of that, having some responsibility for small business, I want to be assured that the small business community is exempt from this tax. I want to clear the air on that issue right now. I believe, as most people do, that they're looking for more fairness in the tax system. Therefore, I would ask the Treasurer to explain or give explanation to the question that I pose here now.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I appreciate very much the question from the member for Norfolk. I was expecting a slashing, vitriolic attack from the opposition on this, but they don't seem to be as opposed to it as they pretend to be.

To the member for Norfolk, who asks a very good question, the reason this bill is being introduced now is, first of all, it is a long-standing commitment of this government to proceed with a corporate minimum tax.

Secondly, in the budget that was brought down last May, we very specifically said we wanted to introduce it later this year. We put out a consultation document which was distributed widely. We got some very good advice from the corporate sector on ways in which it would be better adapted and better amended and so forth.

I do believe very strongly that this has nothing whatsoever to do with any damage to any part of the private sector, but in particular to the small business community. This will not affect the small business community one iota. As a matter of fact, only the top 10% of large companies, 10% of all the corporations in Ontario, will be affected by this, and 90% of corporations in the province will not be affected by this whatsoever.

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

Hon Mr Laughren: It is a reasonable approach that recognizes the fact that small business is struggling to come out of the recession, and I believe it's the right tax at the right time.

Mr Jamison: My supplementary, I would stress, would go towards certain articles that have appeared in the paper and certain questions that have come and gone from the opposition members in this House, that is, that this tax would in their opinion have some detrimental effect on the economy of this province. I personally don't really agree with that, but again the media reports reflect this somewhat.

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

Mr Jamison: Mr Speaker, I've had 38 seconds.

The Speaker: Could the member place his supplementary.

Mr Jamison: I will. The media seem to be blowing this up more so than they should, something similar to us stealing Christmas, which you should be ashamed of.

The Speaker: Does the member have a supplementary?

Mr Jamison: The supplementary question is: Does the Minister of Finance have any qualms on introducing this tax as far as its being detrimental to this economy is concerned?

Hon Mr Laughren: The major consideration as we examined all of the options available to us was to what extent this could be brought in as a fair tax without endangering the competitive position of this province, because as we come out of a recession, it's terribly important that we remain competitive. With this tax, we will still have a lower corporation tax than is present in the neighbouring states to the south of us.

As well, some people say, "What about the province of Quebec?" I can tell you that the province of Ontario still has lower payroll and capital taxes than the province of Quebec. There is absolutely no question that Ontario remains a competitive jurisdiction and will continue to be so in the foreseeable future.

1500

NATIVE CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): My question concerns the 1992 murder of the native teenager Teddy Bellingham. As you know, Teddy's murder was discovered more than a year later, in September 1993. The Ottawa Native Concerns Committee, the Native Women's Association and the Indigenous Bar Association, among many others, are reminding us that the children's aid society did not know where Teddy was, nor did it even know he was missing. They did not file a missing person's report and they failed to provide Teddy with guidance or direction in his young and difficult life.

The Ottawa Native Concerns Committee wrote to you on November 23. My question, Minister of Community and Social Services, is, will you grant their request for a public inquiry to review children's services available to aboriginals, the youth court process and the child welfare system as it serves first nations people? Will you grant a public inquiry on this important request?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): I think it's fair to say that it's my sense that at this point a public inquiry is not the appropriate way to address this issue. The member will appreciate the fact that we have taken some steps with some follow-up as a result of the specific incidence that happened with the particular children's aid society as well as outlining, in some very clear fashion, our expectations to all children's aid societies around ensuring that reports are filed when youths are missing and ensuring also that the ministry is notified promptly when those instances occur.

The reason I said at the outset that I don't think a public inquiry is the appropriate way to go, at this point in time at least, is because there is clearly a process under way to deal with some of the issues here, under the criminal investigation. Obviously, some people have been charged. I think it would be incumbent, certainly on us, to ensure that this process is completed and that those issues are resolved before we could even contemplate the notion of a public inquiry.

Certainly there are issues, Mr Speaker, that I can say to the member, through you, that we continue to pursue beyond what we've already done. Those I will continue to pursue because I believe that the issue is not only of knowing the whereabouts of our young people who are in care of the children's aid societies, but also what we do is very important and is one I'm committed to ensuring that we pursue very vigorously with children's aid societies to ensure that what happened in this case does not happen in other instances.

UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Through you, I request an apology from the member for Etobicoke West for his intemperate language directed at government members during question period. In light of the frequent admonitions made by the member for Etobicoke West whenever he perceives intemperate language from our benches, I'm sure that he would appreciate my calling attention to his intemperance and would also appreciate the opportunity to apologize to members on this side of the House.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the member for Middlesex, I did not hear the unparliamentary language to which she refers. However, as has been the practice, if one member of the House is offended by something which was said during the sitting, we allow the person identified the opportunity, if he or she so chooses, to withdraw whatever remark may have been found to have been offensive.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Is this just a general, at-large complaint or is there a specific? You know what? I'm sorry.

The Speaker: We have restored general goodwill on both sides of the chamber, and that's very good.

PETITIONS

WASTE MANAGEMENT

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

"Whereas the Ministry of Environment mandates that all municipalities (whether upper- or lower-tier) which require to expand or relocate municipal sanitary landfill sites, must conduct a waste management environmental assessment study; and

"Whereas it is the policy of the Ministry of Environment to assist in funding these studies at the upper-tier level of local government only; and

"Whereas of the 830 municipalities in Ontario, only 39 are upper-tier municipalities organized at the regional or county level;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to direct the Ministry of Environment to cease this discriminatory policy and give funding assistance to all municipalities that are required to conduct a waste management environmental assessment study, and that this funding be made retroactive where applicable."

It's signed by 208 constituents. I affix my signature.

RELIGIOUS EDUCATION

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I have a petition from the Concerned Citizens for Bible-Centred Education that reads as follows:

"Whereas section 262 of the Ontario Education Act has not been struck down in principle by the Ontario Court of Appeal; and

"Whereas section 50 of the Ontario Education Act gives parents the legal right to choose what kind of religious education they want for their children;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Peterborough County Board of Education to institute a program of opt-in religious instruction in Christianity according to the pattern of two half-hour periods a week. The program should be implemented and administered in a non-coercive manner with the assistance of the local clergy or their appointees."

This petition is signed by 1,065 people.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I've listened very carefully in this House and I wish an apology from the member for Etobicoke West as well for his intemperate language.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): That's not a point of order. We will continue with petitions.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads as follows:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has consistently mismanaged its finances and failed to support the economy of the province; and

"Whereas the government's new tax agenda has hurt many businesses across the province and killed tens of thousands of jobs; and

"Whereas the government has lost over $2 billion in revenue even after imposing $3 billion in new taxes; and

"Whereas the government is raising non-tax revenue through raising fees on everything it can think of, including toll roads, photo-radar, snowmobile fees, ferry fees, health service fees, children's services fees, without consultation or without studying the impact of these new fees on local communities; and

"Whereas the government is camouflaging its deficit crisis by phantom sales of government buildings; and

"Whereas the government is hiding its spending by setting up crown corporations to take on new debts; and

"Whereas the government even after all these questionable measures has still been unable to control its $10-billion deficit; and

"Whereas the government is planning to introduce even more taxes, which will only lead to further job losses across the province, reduce business confidence and prolong the recession; and

"Whereas the government continues to waste money through tens of thousands of dollars in unjustified expenses on meals and hotels by senior political and ministerial staff;

"We, the undersigned, call upon the government to take action to halt any new tax increases, cut its own wasteful spending, take real action to support business and job creation and get the province working again."

I affix my signature along with the people who have signed this petition.

1510

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): This is approximately 100 names of people from Willowdale, North York, Port Perry, Zephyr and communities south of York region and some in York region and Durham.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas traditional family values that have recognized marriage as a union between a man and a woman are under attack by Liberal MPP Tim Murphy and his private member's Bill 45;

"Whereas this bill would recognize same-sex couples and extend to them all the same rights as heterosexual couples -- "

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): What about your bill?

Mr Cousens: Bill 55 has been removed and has not --

Mr Mahoney: What about your bill?

Mr Cousens: I withdrew it. There will be no further action on that bill. If Mr Murphy would do the same, we'd go a long way.

Mr Mahoney: Was that on orders of your leader?

Mr Cousens: It's on orders from me.

"Whereas the bill was carried with the support of an NDP and Liberal majority with no PC support in the second reading debate of June 24, 1993; and

"Whereas this bill is currently with the legislative committee on administration of justice and is being readied for quick passage in the Legislature; and

"Whereas this bill has not been fully examined for financial and societal implications;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to stop this bill and to consider its impact on families in Ontario."

This is a very, very important petition and I'm very pleased to affix my signature to it with the hope that it has some impact on the Liberal and NDP majority in this House so it will do something to reverse this process.

Mr David Winninger (London South): I too have a petition signed by many people in the London area expressing their opposition to Bill 45, the private member's bill put forward by the Liberal member, Tim Murphy.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I also have a petition regarding that legislation.

"To the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Bill 45 will change the meaning of the words 'spouse' and 'marital status' by removing the words 'of the opposite sex.' This will redefine the family as we know it.

"We believe that there will be an enormous negative impact on our society, both morally and economically, over the long term if fundamental institutions such as marriage are redefined to accommodate homosexual special-interest groups.

"We believe in freedom from discrimination, which is enjoyed by everyone by law now. But since the words 'sexual orientation' have not been defined in the Ontario Human Rights Code and since sexual orientation is elevated to the same level as morally neutral characteristics of race, religion, age and sex, we believe all such references should be removed from the Ontario Human Rights Code.

"Bill 55," which is in this petition the member refers to, "would make it illegal for people to make any public statement, written or oral, which ridicules, demeans or discriminates against a person on the grounds of sexual orientation. This is a grave threat to free speech in a democratic society.

"Bill 55 is also an attack on freedom of religion against historical Christianity which does not condone homosexuality.

"We have moved away from a position where homosexuals and other special-interest groups are no longer content to express their ideas, but demand that contrary views be suppressed with stiff penalties. At the same time, these special-interest groups will be allowed to teach their controversial alternative lifestyles to youngsters in the classroom, thereby proselytizing children with their viewpoints without allowing for different opinions.

"Therefore, we request in this petition that the House refrain from passing Bill 45 and Bill 55."

ROAD MAINTENANCE

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I have a petition for the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Shebeshekong Road is in a bad state of repair,

"We, the undersigned, request the government to take the necessary repairs immediately or as early as possible in the spring of 1994."

I have affixed my signature as the member thereto.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): "To the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows" -- it's regarding Bill 55, which the PC member for Markham has introduced and I understand has withdrawn. I'll just sign this.

WCB PREMIUMS

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Ontario Workers' Compensation Board's decision to increase assessment rates to over 27,000 Ontario employers in excess of 25%, to over 90,000 employers in excess of 10% and to over two thirds of Ontario business in excess of 3% will cost jobs; and

"Whereas the WCB ignored a responsible plan from the business community; and

"Whereas the WCB did not consult with business before making this reckless decision; and

"Whereas the WCB chair, Mr O. Di Santo, cast the deciding vote to allow this irresponsible tax grab;

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

"That the Ontario government roll back WCB assessment rates, accept the business solution and demand the resignation of WCB chair, Mr Di Santo."

This is submitted on behalf of 66 corporate citizens through the Canadian Association of Recycling Industries. I affix my signature thereto as well.

TAXICABS

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto (Metro) and its agency the Metropolitan Licensing Commission (MLC) has created and caused untenable, harsh and restrictive regulatory and business practices to the Metro Toronto taxicab industry; and

"Whereas the MLC and Metro have refused to deal with the taxi industry in a civil and businesslike manner, thereby causing hardships to all individuals within the industry; and

"Whereas the MLC and Metro refused or failed: to accept province of Ontario vehicle safety standard certificates, or to provide published mechanical safety standards to be applied in lieu of the certificate; to provide an appeal procedure for mechanical safety inspections for vehicles used as taxicabs; to implement the MLC bylaw rewrite as promised for January 1990; to provide leadership and control over the MLC despite continued complaints by the industry and others; to stop conflict-of-interest situations; to stop discriminatory fee practices against the taxicab industry; to publicly tender contracts for services; to exhibit apprehension of bias against the taxicab industry as a whole;

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

"That under the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter M.62, part 28, section 278, to investigate the activities and the relationship of Metro and the MLC, and as a result legislate that Metro and the MLC establish a separate Metropolitan Toronto Taxi Authority with the appropriate taxicab industry representation."

This is from the Toronto Taxicab Owners and Operators Association and signed by over 1,000 owners, operators and users of the taxi industry in Metro Toronto. I affix my signature thereto.

MINISTER OF NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT AND MINES

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition that reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas the Minister of Northern Development and Mines has indicated that she consulted with members of the mining industry regarding the termination of eight claim inspectors of the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines; and

"Whereas the assistant deputy minister has indicated that no such consultation has taken place; and

"Whereas this set of circumstances is consistent with previous actions of the minister in the past;

"We, the undersigned, call upon the Premier to investigate the inconsistent remarks made by the Minister of Northern Development and Mines and the assistant deputy minister forthwith."

This is signed by a number of people from northern Ontario and I too attach my name to that petition.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): This completes the time allotted for petitions.

TIME ALLOTTED FOR PETITIONS

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I didn't want to rise at the time because the clock was running on the petitions segment, but at the beginning of this petition time period, over two minutes were consumed in a point of order by a member of the government asking for an apology from the member for Etobicoke West.

While I understand that it was seen to be an appropriate statement, I just wanted to ask, Mr Speaker, why in this particular case the clock was allowed to run down by over two minutes when petitions were delayed by more than two minutes and as a result people were prevented from carrying on the routine business of the day.

Had I thought I could have won the day, I would have stood at that point and asked that the full 15-minute time period be reallocated. I would ask you to check into the regular or traditional way of handling that and advise us if, when this happens again, we could have the full 15 minutes for petitions to be presented in the House.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): I want to remind the honourable members that the Speaker has an allotted time to work within and must recognize the honourable members on a point of personal privilege or on a point of order. I appreciate that it does shorten the time and I would remind members to possibly bring their points of order, points of personal privilege, at a time when there is no time allocation or time limit.

1520

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I just read a petition into the record. I wish, as the Mines critic for the Ontario Liberal Party, to indicate what I was talking about.

This is reading from an article in Northern Ontario Business, which indicates: "During a recent visit to Timmins, Mines Minister Shelley Martel was quoted in a newspaper article as saying she consulted with the industry before making the decision to lay off the eight claims inspectors," as I indicated before. "But Gammon," who is the assistant deputy minister to the minister --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. I can appreciate that it's a point of view and it's an opinion and the member is quoting. However, there will be a time and place for that. It's not a point of order.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mrs Marland from the standing committee on government agencies presented the committee's 12th report.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): The member for Mississauga South, Mrs Marland, has provided a report from the standing committee on government agencies. Does the honourable member have some brief remarks to make pursuant to this report?

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I would like to take the opportunity to comment on the fact that the standing committee on government agencies this morning appointed two very exceptional citizens of Ontario to responsibilities.

One of them is Mr Peter Munk, who has been appointed as a member of the University of Toronto Crown Foundation Board. Mr Peter Munk, as I think everyone in this Legislature recognizes, has been a very outstanding citizen of this province and this country and will serve, as he has in many voluntary positions, extremely generously in terms of his own personal time as a member of the University of Toronto Foundation. I think we're very fortunate to have people of his calibre and experience willing to serve for the public good.

Also, Dr Swaminath, as a member of the Ontario Criminal Code Review Board, who is himself a psychiatrist, is also willing to make a personal contribution for the good of the people of this province.

I think we are indebted to both of these individuals for their willingness to serve and we applaud their generosity.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr Mills from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment.

Bill Pr67, An Act to revive All-Wood Land Clearing Ltd.

Bill Pr68, An Act to revive Le Groupe Concorde Inc.

Bill Pr73, An Act to revive Ukrainian People's Home in Preston.

Your committee recommends that Bill Pr39, An Act respecting the United Townships of Dysart, Bruton, Clyde, Dudley, Harcourt, Eyre, Guilford, Harburn and Havelock be not reported.

Your committee further recommends that the fees, and the actual cost of printing at all stages and in the annual statutes, be remitted on Bill Pr73, An Act to revive Ukrainian People's Home in Preston.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Mr Mills has moved a motion on the standing committee on regulations and private bills. Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

Pertaining to the previous report by Mrs Marland, pursuant to standing order 106(g), the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

Mr Jackson from the standing committee on estimates presented a report.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Does the honourable member have brief comments? If not, pursuant to standing order 60(b), the report of the committee is deemed to be received and the estimates of the ministries and office named therein as not being selected for consideration by the committee are deemed to be concurred in.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CORPORATIONS TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR L'IMPOSITION DES CORPORATIONS

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

Bill 133, An Act to amend the Corporations Tax Act / Projet de loi 133, Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'imposition des corporations.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I am introducing for first reading a bill to amend the Corporations Tax Act. This bill will implement the 1993 budget proposal to introduce a corporate minimum tax for the province.

The corporate minimum tax will apply only to corporations or companies in an associated group with total assets of more than $5 million or gross revenue of more than $10 million. Profitable corporations over this size which are currently paying little or no regular income tax will be required to pay the corporate minimum tax.

The corporate minimum tax will improve tax fairness while maintaining tax incentives for new investment and job creation.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Orders of the day.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Before I move the calling of the first order, we had some discussion among the House leaders about an item which we'll be dealing with later this evening, Bill 120, which we'll be coming back to late this evening. We've reached an agreement that at the time that debate ends this evening, regardless of whether there should happen to be five members present to stand and cause a division, we will see a division and the vote will be deferred until before orders of the day tomorrow.

The Acting Speaker: Do we have unanimous agreement from all parties? Agreed.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL

Mr Cooper, on behalf of Mr Mackenzie, moved third reading of Bill 80, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act / Projet de loi 80, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les relations de travail.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Do you have some opening remarks?

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): It's my pleasure to rise today and move third reading of Bill 80, a bill designed to promote greater balance and fairness in relations between Ontario construction union locals and their international parents. Ontario-based construction locals have long expressed the desire for greater control over their own affairs, and I'm pleased that several members are here in the galleries today to watch this.

I am proud to say that this government is responding positively to these concerns. Right now, these local unions need more say in how internal union jurisdiction issues are resolved. They need a fair voice in the collective bargaining process and they need protection from sanctions imposed by their parent international unions. These Ontario locals have often had little input into the administration and use of their funds for employee benefit and pension plans to which their members have contributed.

These circumstances have developed over time and can be traced to the unique nature and history of trade union organization by craft in the North American construction sector. Bill 80 will bring a sense of balance and fairness to the relationship between locals, their members and their international parent unions.

In particular, these reforms will guarantee to Ontario construction locals joint bargaining rights with their international parents across the entire construction sector, much greater protection of their geographic and work jurisdictions, greater protection from interference or reprisals from their parent unions, and representation on the boards of their benefit plans proportionate to the number of local members enrolled.

Bill 80 is the latest in a series of progressive measures our government has taken on behalf of working people in the province of Ontario. I urge this House to give its final approval to these important legislative proposals.

1530

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I'm pleased to rise and join in the debate on this particular piece of legislation. I anticipated that there would have been a separation of time per caucus, but I understand that hasn't yet been decided. I'll still have enough time, I believe, to put a few points on the record.

Let me say at the outset that I am currently the Environment critic for our party but previously was the Labour critic and, as such, was involved with this particular piece of legislation really from its outset. At that point I was very concerned with the legislation, with the way in which it was arrived at and what it was doing to good, hardworking people in this province.

My concern is that this particular piece of legislation has not helped many people. I am concerned and opposed to the bill for a number of reasons, and let me indicate that the first reason deals with the whole process by which this bill came about.

We all know in this Legislature that it was a year and a half ago that the Minister of Labour, when introducing the now infamous Bill 40, in his statement to the Legislature on June 4 indicated in one paragraph of that statement that there was going to be another piece of legislation coming. At that point in time, what he was referring to without name was the subject matter of this particular piece of legislation, known as Bill 80, and indeed they did introduce Bill 80 at the end of the month, June 1992.

The problem that has happened is that no one who was impacted upon by Bill 80, no one who was involved in the unions of that kind, knew about this particular piece of legislation, knew that the minister was going to be introducing a piece of legislation that dealt with this, knew that the government was considering dealing with a piece of legislation that was going to change their rules and regulations.

For me, at that time as the Labour critic, I received a number of pieces of correspondence, by telephone, by letter, by fax, from good, hardworking people who were saying, "What the heck is this government doing?"

The Minister of Labour stands up and makes a statement on a particular subject matter about which he has not spoken to anyone who is affected. They don't know that the minister was in on this bent to deal with the issues such as Bill 80. They weren't involved in any consultative process; they weren't involved in dealing with any of the issues. But all of a sudden the Minister of Labour stands up and says, "And hey, by the way, something's coming down the line in a month's time." That became Bill 80. That was a problem from its outset and it's a problem that this government has had from the day it was elected.

The fact of the matter is, you don't know how to talk to people. You don't know how to deal with the issues of the day. You don't know how to make decisions that do anything less than exclude people from policymaking. You've done that countless times. You have Bill 80 as an example. Before Bill 80, you had Bill 40 as an example. Before Bill 40, you had other pieces of legislation as an example, such as the waste management legislation, Bill 143.

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture and Food): You have been talking about Bill 40 for 40 years.

Mr Offer: The Minister of Agriculture and Food is up and is saying something. The fact of the matter is that the legacy of your government is a government which divides people, which deals with issues in a manner which seeks to exclude people, and Bill 80 is another example of that.

We are under time allocation. We can't speak about all the very important issues that arise from Bill 80. We can't talk about the many people who want to have some discussion on Bill 80. This government seeks to shut the door on the people of this province. The problem is that it hurts good, hardworking people, people who don't want to be involved in stuff down here. What they are concerned about is jobs and their family, and Bill 80 does nothing to help in that area.

Bill 80 is an intrusion. It's an intrusion into the way in which people manage and organize their own affairs. It's an intrusion into the way in which unions organize and orderly deal with the issues of the day. It's government saying, "We know better." The fact of the matter is, it is the worst example of governing in the 1990s. If there is ever a lesson to be learned, it is that what you guys are doing in so many areas is dead wrong, not only in terms of the substance but in terms of the process.

You don't deal with the issues of the day by picking teams and by saying: "Here's the issue and now we're going to pick teams. We're going to divide. We're going to seek to increase chaos, seek to increase opposition." That isn't how you deal with these things. That isn't what makes a healthy economy. That isn't what creates a climate for investment, for job creation not by government but by the private sector: the good, long-term, high-paying, highly trained jobs, the ones that come from the private sector. But this government just continues to work along the path of saying: "We know best. One group we will shut the door on. We will not listen to your concerns. We will invoke what has become institutionalized in this place, and that is time allocation."

We know that what time allocation is is limiting debate. Why the heck were we elected? We were elected to bring forward to this place the issues from our constituents and from interested parties across the province. This government invokes, day after day, time allocation. If it isn't on Bill 80, then it's on Bill 40. If it's not on Bill 40, then it's on the Environmental Bill of Rights. If it's not on the Environmental Bill of Rights, then it's on waste management. If it's not on waste management, then it's on photo-radar. And the list goes on and on and on.

The legacy you leave is one of a group of people who shut doors, either to this Legislature or to committee rooms -- also, in fact, to your own constituency offices, because how do you tell people that you can't listen to their concerns any more because the bill has already whooshed through the Legislature?

That's what your legacy is. It's a legacy of division. It's a legacy of chaos. It's a legacy of dealing with matters that are important in an improper way. It's one on which I, as one member of this Legislature, hope that some members on the government side will finally get the message that your job is to listen and to deal with issues and to seek to bring together people.

But you like chaos, you like dissension, you like division. We see it each and every day. The problem is, that doesn't create jobs. It doesn't create a healthy economy. It doesn't create a climate for investment for good, well-paying jobs. It doesn't create a message that Ontario is a place where you can invest, either in terms of dollars or in terms of some brainpower, to build business here.

I know my time on this particular piece of legislation is coming to an end because we're under this crazy time allocation rule. I will be against Bill 80. I've been against Bill 80 from the outset. I've been against Bill 80 not only because of its substance but because of what it's done to good people in this province. You should be ashamed for standing up and seeking to defend something which divides people.

1540

The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments?

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I understood that there was an agreement with the House leader that we would split the time equally, which would mean there would not be the two-minute responses to each speech. That was agreed with the government House leader. Can I ask for unanimous consent?

The Acting Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent to forgo and divide the time evenly? Agreed. Further debate.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): The Bill 80 consultation process was flawed from the outset, further emphasized by the fact that we had time allocation brought in on this bill. The government has been ramming it down the throats of supporters and opposers alike in the same way it rammed photo-radar down everybody's throat and everything else on this government's agenda is being rammed through. Let's take a look at the list of the bills they've been pushing through.

We've had time allocation this session on Bill 8, the casino bill, something the government certainly didn't run on in the last election; in fact, it always ran in exactly the opposite direction from the casino bill.

Bill 47, the photo-radar bill: This is the most draconian measure the government could take, and Bill 47 is something we had no public hearings on whatsoever. It's been suggested, in fact, that it's Orwellian, that we're going to have cameras supervising the speed limits now, and we have no opportunity for the public at large to express their disdain for this. I've received over 200 communications at my office on that subject alone, and only three of those communications have been in favour of photo-radar. This government, that ran on a platform that it was going to be an open government, has said it is not interested in any debate. We've seen that again with this bill. We've had time allocation on this bill.

We look at Bill 100, the regulated health professionals bill; Bill 164, the auto insurance bill; Bill 48, the social contract, and now Bill 80. In all of these, closure was applied. The record of this government is that it's escalating this process: In 1991 there were two time allocation motions, in 1992 there were four time allocation motions and in 1993 we've had six.

At a time when so many construction workers are out of work, this bill does nothing to create jobs. Surely the top priority of this government, of any government, should be to ensure that jobs are created in this province. What are we seeing? We're seeing a government that is determined at every turn to pay off its buddies but not to get on with the main job, and that is restoring prosperity to this province. Instead, they're digging us into a sea of debt.

This bill has caused a tremendous rift within their unions, and it's a great shame when you consider that we have relative calm within the union movement at this moment. We find that the unions --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. I want to remind all members that interjections are out of order. Members will have the opportunity of participating.

Mr Turnbull: The government brought this in at a time when it should be concentrating on the provincial economy. It's very hard to see how this could be demonstrated as being beneficial for stimulating the provincial economy. The government has made absolutely no useful case to demonstrate that this was an urgently needed bill.

My friend the member for Kitchener-Wilmot, the parliamentary assistant, smiles. I guess I would have to smile that little smile if I were having to carry through the House a bill when the minister responsible is too chicken to be in the House to take the knocks. Every time we've asked him a question we've got some mealy-mouthed answer. He's usually half asleep and he doesn't have any respect for the questions that are asked. He's got his prepared notes and he looks at the ceiling and then reads some absolutely inane answer, instead of getting on with the business of solving the problems -- the problems which are impediments to creating jobs -- the very minister who should be addressing the serious problems at the Workers' Compensation Board so that injured workers get their fair payout in a timely manner.

I know all the problems I handle in my office with respect to injured workers. At the same time, they have an enormous bureaucracy which is out of control and they're spending money, instead of on injured workers, on building a Taj Mahal for themselves, an office building they had no permission from cabinet to build. Yet the minister refuses to do anything to bring them to heel.

We've had a chair of this board who has clearly misled this House and the committee. We had the deputy chair in charge of administration mislead the House. We have called for the resignation of both of them, but the government has not seen fit to do anything about that. Instead, they're concentrating on job-killing legislation like Bill 40, and now we see this useless piece of legislation.

Let us be fair. Let's say, for example, that half of the union members want it and half of them don't. I really don't think there is a demonstrated need. Certainly in the small amount of the hearings that I sat in on, there were not very many people speaking in favour of the bill. There were some, nevertheless the majority of the people who spoke to this bill were saying this is not needed.

At a time when we are talking about level playing fields and international markets and we have multinationals, why on earth do you want to limit unions just to Canada? A perfect example of how this can be detrimental to the union movement would be with the Canadian Auto Workers. Since they split away from the United Auto Workers, they have now got no support in the US to maintain auto jobs in Canada -- not very good for Canadian auto workers.

Fortunately, Canadian auto workers have been, on the whole, more productive than US auto workers, and there are some competitive advantages that we enjoy, but not in all plants. But the United Auto Workers' desires are strictly to maintain their jobs in the US, instead of having an interest in Canada.

This bill does nothing to affect the vast majority of taxpayers in this province. Why are we handling this? Once again, the government's priorities are out of whack. There are many other changes that this government should be addressing, and number one on that list has got to be job creation. How do you create jobs? The very best way that has been demonstrated throughout the world is to make sure that businesses have an incentive to invest and to increase their investment and have long-term plans for the nation.

As an environment becomes inhospitable, you know what? Investment goes away, and so it should. We're in an international market. Today we have an international economy which is so completely and fundamentally different from the economy that existed 25 years ago that we cannot take these narrow views that perhaps past socialist governments have taken throughout the world. We must look in an international way at our ability to compete. This bill is doing nothing to do that.

Instead the government is bringing in corporate minimum tax. Well, my friends, let me tell you something about corporate minimum tax. The fact is that not many companies are making any money. You won't be getting very much money. I challenge you, next year at this time, when you see the revenues that you've had from corporate minimum tax, we'll see if it is any significant amount of money. But it is demonstrative of the attitude of this government, an attitude of greed and avarice against anybody who would be successful.

We have seen the attitude of this government with respect to doctors. The government talks about the income of doctors and they talk about their gross income, as if they didn't have any expenses. It's well known that the average doctor's expenses are 40% of his or her income. That demonstrates an ignorance of how to stimulate the economy.

1550

We've seen it time and again. We saw the best demonstration with the enactment of Bill 40, the famous job-killing legislation which our party, the Progressive Conservatives, has said unequivocally we will revoke immediately upon forming a government.

We're in favour of protecting unions and union members, have no mistake about it. We are not bashing the unions, but what we are saying is we must make sure that legislation is such that it respects the ability of the employer and the employee to be able to strike a fair bargain. We talk about level playing fields. It is such a common term today in a time of internationalization and yet this government is moving in the opposite direction.

There are many other challenges and, as I've said, job creation should be the number one challenge. Bill 80 interferes with the internal workings of unions. Bill 80 will override the building trade constitutions and takes power to solve international problems out of the hands of unions, placing it in the hands of the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

There is a very, very serious question. Why does the government think, at a time when it is quite clear the government is absolutely broke, it should be taking on more responsibilities into government institutions? Do they want to bankrupt us just a little quicker? Although, of course, it could already be argued that we are bankrupt now and that any commercial corporation in the financial straits we're in today -- I would suggest that probably a private corporation would have already been in liquidation because its creditors would have moved in on us.

We are now one of the most indebted places on the face of the Earth and this government has done everything to create that set of circumstances. They have, in the three years that they have been in power, doubled the total amount of debt that occurred --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The member for York Mills has the floor very legitimately. Other members will have their turns.

Mr Turnbull: I find it interesting, the interjection from across the floor, talking about the debt for Ottawa. Haven't you learned a lesson from that, my friends? The lesson is, they will throw you out, based upon those figures. It is just so shortsighted for you to throw all of these abusive comments out and not think and contemplate maybe your own belly. I think Buddha would have some words of advice for you on this.

We have a problem in this province and the problem is that investment is not coming into the province. We have no way of being able to completely identify the forgone investments. Here's the funny thing. I'm hearing one of the ministers heckling. I was appointed to the investment panel of the Premier's Council and let me tell you, my friends, because I heard it and you didn't -- I heard it at the same time as the Premier that one of the Premier's own appointments, Professor Horvath from York University, did a study on behalf of that council and concluded that the absolutely essential element was to abandon trying to attract investment, because we were fairly unattractive, and concentrate on trying to keep the investment we've got.

The government's solution is to get some of its favourite corporations like Bombardier, bail it out, and then for massive amounts of tax dollars to go to subsidize those foolish decisions, instead of letting businesses survive on their own merit. Instead, we now have the situation that for every aircraft that is made in Toronto, there's probably several million dollars in subsidy. It's not a very healthy situation. It's not a situation that Boeing was prepared to accept. Why should the taxpayers of Ontario be prepared to accept it?

Let me just read into the record some of the concerns and some of the pros and cons of this legislation.

I will start with the pros. The main argument for this legislation is that it will provide Ontario-based locals of international construction unions with greater democracy, freedom and local control. They argue that the international unions, which are based in and dominated by the US, are insensitive to the concerns of Canadian locals. They argue that this bill is necessary in order to ensure that the rights of local union members are protected from the heavy hand of an international union.

The cons: Those who are opposed suggest that there is no demonstrated need for this bill. There are no concerns within the construction unions about freedom or local autonomy. There are no problems with local unions being oppressed by international unions. This is a solution for a problem which simply does not exist anywhere other than in the Minister of Labour's mind.

Mr Cooper: Read the briefs.

Mr Turnbull: I hear the parliamentary assistant shouting across the floor, "Read the briefs." To the parliamentary assistant, I have to say, you're not paying attention to what I've already said.

I said it hasn't been demonstrated adequately that this legislation is needed, and it certainly shouldn't be a priority. The priority should be job creation, so that the good people of Ontario are put back to work. That is the most important thing. Why we've got this legislation, which really should be sorted out by the unions, is beyond me. If the unions cannot arrive at a solution, then bring in the legislation, but concentrate on what should be done now.

To the parliamentary assistant I would say that one day I sat in on these committee hearings. I hadn't had the benefit of listening to the parliamentary assistant's presentation the week before, but there was somebody, who came I believe from his own riding, who had a binder about an inch thick and it was indexed.

This man went through, and these were not generalities. I couldn't speak in the specifics that this man did. He understood all of the problem. I don't know if he was right or wrong, but I will say that his arguments were very compelling and he cited chapter and verse what was wrong with your arguments, sir. So that is my suggestion.

Interjection.

Mr Turnbull: It may have been from the international, I say to the parliamentary assistant, but the point is, there is very clearly a rift between various people on this issue. I suspect this government has got its priorities a little mixed up when it's concentrating on something which doesn't affect the average taxpayer. You should be getting on with the affairs of the average taxpayer, that is, creating jobs.

I return to the cons. The Minister of Labour has failed to consult with the affected unions and is ramming this bill through without even attempting to reach a consensus.

Thirdly, they are very concerned that this bill infringes on the democratic rights of their unions to decide their own affairs by giving the government the power to interfere unduly with the operations of their unions.

1600

Then there was a rather interesting brief that was presented by Mr Robert Belleville, the director of Canadian affairs for the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association. I think it's a rather excellent summary. It reads:

"Throughout the long debates no one, especially the government, has made a solid case for such draconian legislation, legislation which is suspected in the very least as being biased and motivated by a minority dissident group. Implementing many of these proposals could create instability in the construction industry.

"Implementing many of these proposals could have disastrous effects on construction members. Our organization believes that nobody except the members of the Sheet Metal Workers have a right to interfere in the workings of our union. We firmly believe that government action in proposing Bill 80 is a direct violation of the ILO charter." I will return to that.

"Having stated all of these reasons why this legislation is not acceptable, I would however suggest this committee look at the recommendations put forward by the Canadian building trades department as a way of settling the Bill 80 dilemma."

The point is that the issue of the ILO charter is very interesting. In fact, I'm assured by my good friend Mr Mahoney that there will be a challenge to this legislation as violating the ILO charter. I think that as soon as you get charter challenges like that, and the cost to the taxpayer fighting it, I have to say, because probably the challenge wouldn't occur until the next government is in, why would the government be going out and spending the next government's money? It isn't even their money; it's the taxpayers' money. But that is typical of what this government is doing. They are setting up a confrontational situation, and they are also setting up some awful financial problems for the next government.

The construction industry is absolutely on its knees, and instead of concentrating on taking away the impediments to investment in Ontario, they are concentrating on internal matters of the union.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): He's not qualified to talk --

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Turnbull: A very interesting matter is raised, and that is that the member for Yorkview is shouting across the floor that I'm not qualified to talk on matters of the union. Do you know something? He's quite right, but in the same way as I believe sincerely that most of the time most of you, if not all of you, are not qualified to talk on matters of the economy, but you still do.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Give me a break, your bona fides.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Turnbull: My bona fides? I would say, look back at the Conservative government record in Ontario. There is no doubt about it, it was a very well-governed province. I suppose one would have to look at just the financials and say: "This government doesn't have any credibility on the financial front at all. Can you imagine, in three years, to double the debt of the province?"

Double the debt of the province: Those are the qualifications this government has to put this through. I don't know definitively who is right or wrong in this case, and I'm not saying to the unions that positively this is not something that might be desirable, but I believe there should be more consultation and we should try and get the unions to sort it out. It isn't legislation that should be coming before us. We should be concentrating on the fiscal affairs of this economy, which the government has absolutely abdicated. This is payoff time. It's payoff time for Bob White and it's payoff time for some of Bob Mackenzie's other friends, union leaders, not the rank and file.

Interjections.

Mr Turnbull: The final comments that are being made are, "Where is Mr Murdoch on this thing?" I think you're going to find that Mr Murdoch will be speaking in favour of it. But that is truly the benchmark of democracy that occurs within the Conservative Party, that we allow for differing views. That is the case. You are not allowed to vote differently, because we've seen you voting on obnoxious things like Sunday shopping.

Do you remember campaigning in the last election? "Sunday shopping? Never." But instead you came and you voted on Sunday shopping.

Casinos? Let's not forget that gambling is negative to the poor person. It's the poor people that this government is disadvantaging with gambling. They had the ability to put through a law which would allow for only high-stakes gambling, which would not intrude upon poor people, but that's not what the government put through. The government put through legislation which would allow --

The Acting Speaker: I want to remind the honourable member that we are dealing with third reading of Bill 80.

Mr Turnbull: In conclusion, this is legislation we shouldn't be handling; we should leave it up to the unions. I think it's payoff time. I really believe the government has taken a kicking on this, because there has been overwhelming evidence from those people presenting at committee that they don't like this legislation.

Mr Mammoliti: I'll start by saying that there are some members in this place who I think should frequently put on a pair of work boots or a pair of coveralls or even do a little bit of construction work in their life before they stand up and try to criticize and talk about why we're passing such a bill and talk about why workers want this type of a bill. Before they stand up in this place, maybe they should do that. I'm not talking about putting on a pair of construction boots to take out the garbage or a pair of construction boots perhaps to clean their windows in their house. I'm talking about hard labour. I'm talking about drywall. I'm talking about bricks and mortar. I'm talking about roofs. I'm talking about sheet metal. I'm talking about the stuff that the previous speaker doesn't know anything about, knows nothing about, but yet he stands up in this place and he says: "I care for unions. Oh yes, I care for unions."

I didn't have time today or I would have pulled out Hansard and all of this character's speeches over the last three years. They will prove to you that this guy doesn't give a darn about unions -- notice I didn't say the word -- and doesn't care, quite frankly, about the concerns that the unions have had or labour has had.

Mr Turnbull: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I believe the House rules do not allow for another member to impute motive. It is very clear that the member is currently imputing some motive. I would ask him to withdraw.

The Acting Speaker: To the member for Yorkview, please, you know the rules. Address the Chair.

Mr Mammoliti: Where's the pair of work boots? If he does some hard labour, I'll withdraw.

Interjection.

Mr Mammoliti: We hear some heckling from the member who actually sits beside this guy.

Mr Turnbull: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: The member has not withdrawn. He is suggesting that I have to put on some work boots. I can tell him I've probably done more physical work in my life than he has.

1610

The Acting Speaker: This debate is degenerating. Please address the Chair, abide by the rules and keep it on a high plane.

Mr Mammoliti: Season's greetings to you as well. Season's greetings to the member, Mr Speaker. I won't provoke him any longer, I'll get on with Bill 80.

I must confess I've had some concerns about Bill 80 and I think that most in this place will know that I was quite vocal about how I felt about it. I was quite concerned when I heard that there were some people in labour who didn't agree with this and felt that the government would set a precedent perhaps in sticking its nose where it doesn't belong: in constitutions. I talked about that in committee, and Mr Mahoney would know that because he was at committee.

But since then there's been a breakthrough, and I would commend the minister in bringing labour together and hashing out a package that everybody could agree with. I think there's a lot to be said for what the minister has done. He could have totally disregarded some of the groups that had concerns with it and totally disregarded some of the concerns that I had, quite frankly, but he didn't. He was concerned genuinely and he brought everybody together and hashed out, as I said, a compromise that everybody is happy with. For that reason, I stand today and say that I will be supporting Bill 80. We know that everybody seems to be on board at this point and everybody agrees.

In answering some of the questions in terms of government interference, I don't think labour was afraid at any point that this government would set a precedent, that it would -- how should I say this? I don't think labour at any point was concerned that this government would do something to harm it, or its constitutions, for that matter. I think the reason they had the concern was because they were afraid of future governments, what other governments might perhaps do to them in the future.

A Liberal government, for instance, might have taken the precedent that they were afraid of and worked it to a degree where it could have changed their constitutions completely. We all know what the Conservatives are capable of when it comes to constitutions, or labour, for that matter. That is a genuine concern. It was a genuine concern from the start and still is to a degree for some people.

However, the package is here. Everybody likes it. The people I've spoken with over the last little while have recently spoken to me and have said they can live with it, they like it. The people who quite frankly may have had some concern with this are now saying, "Okay, we can live with it."

This is another commitment. I spoke a couple of days ago on the commitment from this government to labour. There are some people, believe it or not, in this Legislature who will stand up and say this government hasn't done anything for labour, that it has totally forgotten about its promises. Let me remind you that Bill 80 is a commitment to labour as well, among things like Jobs Ontario, which by the way is creating thousands of jobs in this province and in my riding of Yorkview here in Metro, and Bill 40.

For those of you who aren't familiar with Bill 40, all you need to do is go down the street to one of the local Miracle Food Mart chains and they will tell you what Bill 40 has done for them. All you need to do is go by one of the picket locations, the pickets in front of the Miracle Food Mart stores and talk to any one of the employees and they will tell you what Bill 40 has done for them. What has it done? Recently, we heard that there was a ruling that the employer was actually hiring scab labour.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Where?

Mr Mammoliti: You're obviously not listening. The member for Etobicoke West is not listening, and he's not even in his seat for that matter. What Bill 40 did was give workers the rights that they have been waiting for for years when we talk about strikes and when we talk about scab labour.

Mr Stockwell: How many jobs are left after that strike is over?

Mr Mammoliti: The member for Etobicoke West continues to howl.

The Acting Speaker: Yes. I want to remind all members that interjections are out of order, particularly when members are not in their assigned seats. Please, the member for Yorkview.

Interruption.

The Acting Speaker: I want to remind that we welcome visitors, but please, you're not allowed to demonstrate.

Mr Mammoliti: Speaking of visitors, there was a question earlier from one of the speakers. I believe it was from the Conservative Party, if I'm not mistaken. It was the member for York Mills. The Liberal brought it up as well in his speech: Who wants it? Why are we doing this? Why is the government taking up the time in this place? This is why we're taking up the time of this place. These are the workers of the province. These are the labourers. These are the people who wear the work boots. These are the people who build your homes. That's why we're doing this here today.

The people who bring this up continually -- and I want to see whether or not Mr Mahoney brings this question up; I can't wait for you to bring this question up: Why are we doing this? This is why we're doing it: because the workers want it.

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): Need it.

Mr Mammoliti: The workers need it. The workers have been asking for this for quite some time now. Have the Liberals given it to them? No, the Liberals have not given it to them. They didn't even make an attempt. And you know why? Because they were afraid to sit down with them. They knew that labour didn't agree. Some of them agreed; some of them didn't. They were afraid to sit down with them and say, "Let's work something out."

Was our minister afraid? No, our minister sat down and talked. Our minister hashed out agreements. Our minister created Bill 80. It's not that big: four pages. It took a New Democrat government to do this. The Liberals didn't want to do it. The Conservatives -- well, the Conservatives quite frankly aren't even worth talking about when it comes to labour and aren't qualified to speak about labour.

Pay equity and employment equity are just other examples of our commitment to labour. De Havilland: We of course bailed out de Havilland. That was Bob Rae who did that.

On Bill 123, we can ask them this question --

Mr Stockwell: I didn't say Bill 123.

Mr Mammoliti: The member for Etobicoke West sits in another seat in this place, continues to heckle, and asks the question: Do they agree with Bill 123? That's the bill that protects them from Quebec. We're going to be talking about this in a few minutes and I'm going to be speaking on this as well, I think. Yes. Quite frankly, you can ask them this question as well, and I pose this question to all of you: Bill 123, Quebec, what have they done to you in the past, the labourers? How many thousands of jobs have they taken in Ontario? What has the New Democratic government done?

Mr Fletcher: Protected our jobs.

Mr Mammoliti: What are we going to be speaking about in just a few more minutes? We're going to be speaking about this particular case, how Ontarians are now going to be able to work in Ontario and not be afraid of Quebeckers taking their jobs.

1620

Did the Liberals want to do that? The answer is no. My colleague from Guelph, wonderful guy, by the way, the member for Guelph cares about labour, knows exactly who represents labour and who's the voice for labour? Is it the Liberals? No, it's not the Liberals. Is it the Conservatives? No.

Mr Stockwell: Yes. it was our bill.

Mr Mammoliti: The member for Carleton did the bill. I give the member for Carleton credit. I can just imagine what he had to go through in the back rooms from people like you, the member for Etobicoke, who's not in his seat.

Collective bargaining is very important. Collective bargaining is very, very important. The international unions have, in the opinion of most workers, from what I could see over the last few days in this province, interfered with some of the rights that they have looked forward to for a number of years. Today, hopefully, that will stop. I believe we're taking the vote later, are we not, parliamentary assistant? We are. It's third reading, is it not? The bill is finally going through, is it not?

Who are the people who brought it through this place, I ask the parliamentary assistant? The Liberals? No. The New Democratic government: collective bargaining rights, commitment to labour, listening, making sure that anything that goes through this place is being communicated and consulted, for that matter. We may even be taking some criticism on consultation.

At times I even think that we consult a little bit too much, but it's also very important. In this particular case I prove my point: Consultation is very, very important. If it weren't for the minister, if it weren't for the Premier, the consultation would not have happened. We would not have sat down with all of the active members in labour and all of the unions to talk about their concerns, to talk about the changes, the amendments, and I believe we even amended a portion of this bill for the Liberals, if I'm not mistaken, Mr Mahoney's amendment.

We even listened to the Liberals, for crying out loud -- consultation, very important. This Bill 80 is a prime example of how this government listens. Some will argue that if you consult too much it could prove to be negative for a government because it gives the opposition the chance to organize and frankly destroy any argument that might be positive. In this case, that's not the case. In this case, now more than ever, and as of early yesterday morning, I believe that the consultation that took place was effective. People are happy with it, their concerns have been met and they're living with it.

Work boots -- the member for York Mills, I need again to talk about the importance of putting yourself, so to speak, in the shoes of somebody else. I think it's very important. In this case it's very important.

They also talk about us not being quiet. I've got to respond to this comment before I sit down. I vowed to myself that I would do this. They told us that we're not qualified to run the province.

Have you read the editorial in the Star today? Has anybody read the editorial in the Star today? Very clearly the editorial in the Star points the finger at the persons and the party which created this mess all across the country. It talks about the recession; it talks about the debt; it talks about the culprit.

Mr Stockwell: Let's guess. The Tories. John A. Macdonald.

Mr Mammoliti: The member for Etobicoke West asks the question, "Who's the culprit?"

Mr Stockwell: No, I didn't.

Mr Mammoliti: You're the culprit.

Mr Stockwell: Me?

Mr Mammoliti: Your party's the culprit, your ex-federal leader is the culprit, and the editorial talks about that in today's Star. The Conservatives stand in their place and talk about fiscal responsibilities, when we find -- are you ready for this, Mr Speaker?

The Acting Speaker: Bill 80: third reading, Bill 80.

Mr Mammoliti: A $46-billion debt. That's with a B. I ask the member for Etobicoke West how many thousands of millions of dollars that is?

Mr Stockwell: How many thousands of millions?

Mr Mammoliti: Yes.

Mr Stockwell: A whole bunch.

Mr Mammoliti: "A whole bunch," he says, and it's his responsibility, him and his colleagues, who put us in this mess, and it's in today's editorial of the Star.

So next time you stand up in this place and you ask the questions to the Premier or to any other minister, for crying out loud, on fiscal responsibility, I would suggest you make a simple phone call to your party leaders, to your ex-leader, to your Kim Campbell --

Interjection: She's not quite ex.

Mr Mammoliti: -- not quite ex-leader, and ask the questions to them first. You are not qualified any more to be critical of anything this government does.

Interjection.

Mr Mammoliti: You are not qualified. The member for Etobicoke West, not in his seat --

The Acting Speaker: And we're dealing with third reading of Bill 80.

Mr Mammoliti: -- continues to heckle. My friend Peter Kormos is putting something on me here. Bill 80, yes. Go give one to my friend across who's not in his seat, my friend the member for Etobicoke West, who is not in his seat. My friend Peter Kormos says: "No way. He doesn't deserve this particular sticker."

Mr Mahoney: George, the rest of them want to speak here.

Mr Mammoliti: There are some people who might want to speak, and I apologize. I think I've gotten all my points across. I needed to respond to some of the criticisms. I'm sorry, Mr Speaker, but this stuff really riles me up. When they stand up and they talk about fiscal responsibility after what we heard last week in terms of the announcement, and after the Liberals quite frankly are ready to pass NAFTA, saying: "Let's do it; let's do it again -- "

The Acting Speaker: Third reading of Bill 80, please, the member for Yorkview.

Mr Mammoliti: "Let's bring labour through that wringer again; let's lose another few million jobs; let's do that." Neither of you, Liberals or Conservatives, are qualified to respond negatively to this government when we talk about fiscal responsibility.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you very much. Third reading of Bill 80, I want to remind all members. The member for Mississauga West.

Mr Mahoney: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It won't be necessary for you to remind me. I assure you that I will contain my remarks to this bill and to what this government is doing in relationship to this bill.

I guess first of all I should say that the things we're talking about today relate specifically to the construction trade labour movement, as opposed to the trade labour movement as a whole.

Let me start out by saying that I actually agree with one thing the former member said, the member for Yorkview, one of the View Brothers. I don't know which view it is, Yorkview or Downsview. He said that this government can take credit for this bill and that neither of the opposition parties were prepared to do it. He's right. You want to take credit for this bill? I'm happy for him to take credit for this bill.

1630

Let me tell you something else, to the members opposite. I'm glad we're at this point today in spite of the fact that the government found it necessary to implement time allocation, or closure, to shut down the opposition. It gets very frustrating to continually bang your head against the wall and know that nobody's listening within the government to the democratic principles that are being put forward not only by opposition members, but by a number of people in the very sector that's being impacted.

The gallery may be full today of people in support of this bill. It's not unusual when you have a majority government. The people who are against this bill are resigned to it passing today. In a perverse, strange sort of way, we're almost glad it's over, because it's so frustrating. Things get twisted; reasons for opposition get lost in allegations that are not particularly backed up. Everything gets turned around on you.

So the people who are opposed to this bill by and large are not here. There may be some, but most of them have said: "It's a done deal. We've tried to get our amendments." I'll admit to the parliamentary assistant that they did concur with one of my amendments, which I'll be talking about later on. But it's over. Bill 80 is over.

I say to the people in support of it, you should learn to take yes for an answer.

Mr Norm Jamison (Norfolk): What have you got against union democracy?

Mr Mahoney: You see what I mean? He says, "What have you got against union democracy?" You see how the purveyors try to twist the facts and the realities? Because this bill is a direct attack on union democracy in the most incredible way I've ever seen.

Interjection.

Mr Mahoney: Well, it is. The International Labour Organization says it is. Are they wrong?

Mr Jamison: Yes.

Mr Mahoney: The ILO is wrong, the members are saying. Let me tell you that Canada is a partner in the ILO, that Canada supports the conventions that are passed at the ILO, in the labour movement. Tell me the CLC doesn't. Tell me Bob White doesn't support Shirley Carr. Tell me Shirley Carr doesn't support it. You see, what you're doing, and I understand this, is you're trying to justify a position. So what you do is you take everything and you twist it around.

One thing that's been done with Bill 80: It has been suggested that this is a battle between the international unions and the locals. This is a battle between those dirty, rotten Americans and the poor, downtrodden Canadian workers. That's what they're trying to tell us. We heard deputation after deputation coming before us saying that was exactly what the issue was.

We heard people who are here in this room today saying: "I'm a proud Canadian. That's why I support Bill 80." Is that then to say that those who are opposed to Bill 80 are not proud Canadians by implication? That is nonsense.

Once again, it is this government attempting to twist this thing around so it can justify the position it's taking of violating the ILO charter, which says that the public authorities in this world shall not interfere in union democracy. That's what it says. This government is running against that International Labour Organization convention and doesn't seem to care.

I predict that there will not be a challenge, by the way. I say to the people in support in the audience, there won't be a challenge to the ILO convention, because they've given up. They recognize that what they really have to do in the construction trade labour movement is be concerned about jobs. What they really have to do is be concerned about the security of their members and the long-term economic position within the economy.

They want to get over this. They do. They want to get over this. They want to get by this. They want to say, the people who are opposed, whether it's Jim McCambly of the Canadian Federation of Labour or whether it's the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario -- there's a long list, and these people know it.

Regardless of who it is, they want to say: "Let's get over it. We should not be fighting among ourselves." We should not be losing sight of the fact that the main purpose of any union to exist in its constitution is for the promotion and the benefit and the economic growth of their members and their families.

That is fundamentally what a union is about, and I support that principle. I think the trade labour movement in Canada has proven its importance, its significance over the years in making life better for workers.

I know full well, being fairly close to it growing up, there were times when perhaps the company, perhaps the working conditions, certainly in the Depression years and after, were absolutely atrocious. It was only through organizing and standing strong against the tyranny that was being put in the place by ruthless employers, it was only through strength and unity that the trade labour movement, be it in industrial, be it in construction, wherever you want it, it was only through that unity that they made life better for their members. That is what makes this province and this country so great, because that freedom is there.

Mr Jamison: You made some derogatory comments about unions --

The Acting Speaker: Order, please, order.

Mr Mahoney: Mr Speaker, the members opposite --

The Acting Speaker: The member for Mississauga West has the floor.

Mr Mahoney: You see, what this is all about, with the NDP and the former speaker and the chirping that goes on over here, is everybody wants to throw blame at people for things. I don't think you understand what's going on in the real world if you want to continue to do nothing but throw blame.

The reality is that many of the people who presented before the committee detailed some problems, no question about that. What's so interesting to me is that the first time I spoke on this issue in this place I had heard from very few people in support of the bill. As a result of the hearings, we did have a number of deputations who came in and who presented problems. I don't dispute their problems. I don't dispute the fact that they have concerns and that those concerns are legitimate concerns.

I said in committee and I say here that if any parent union, national or international, was to in some way unilaterally, arbitrarily come in and do something to the detriment of the working men and women in the local, I would stand shoulder to shoulder with them against that. I have no problem with that whatsoever.

My fundamental problem is the fact that the taxpayers have no business in this. The people of this province are concerned about the economy, about growth, about jobs, about their children, about the future of this province. This is an internal dispute within the construction trade labour movement with some international unions which in the past have been heavy-handed with locals. It is a political dispute within the construction trade labour movement and, frankly, that's where it should be resolved.

What we're going to wind up with here -- and, you see, all of the rest of it, all of the stuff we argue about in committee, whether you support an amendment I put, let me just touch on that. My amendment basically said that if an international came in and interfered in a jurisdiction or work or sectoral dispute or a trusteeship, or did something of that nature with a local, there would have to be an opportunity for a hearing to be held at the OLRB and in the meantime, until that hearing takes place, the status quo would remain.

So if the international came along and wanted to remove somebody from a duly elected office, if they wanted to remove somebody and there was a concern about that and a complaint filed to have a hearing at the OLRB, that person would stay in office until the hearing took place.

Mr Cooper: We didn't pass that one.

Mr Mahoney: Yes, you did. You passed the one --

Mr Cooper: Not trusteeship.

Mr Mahoney: Well, all right, not trusteeship. But the principle is the status quo would stay in place until the hearing is conducted, and I believe that's fair. I don't have a problem with that.

What I have a problem with, though, is that the only reason I put that is because if the bill is indeed going to become law, which it has been made clear to all of us it is, because also it's retroactive. It becomes effective not tomorrow morning; it becomes effective, I don't know, months ago, whenever it was introduced, whenever the introduction date was. That's when it becomes effective.

1640

That's a tactic this government has used in so many pieces of legislation, it's just gotten used to it: "I've got an idea. It's Monday morning. I think we should do something. I'm going to introduce it and we'll make it effective today because we have a majority. It may take us eight, 10 months, a year to make it law, but it won't matter, because I'm going to make it effective today."

Retroactivity is one of the most insidious practices a true parliamentary democracy can use. I admit this is not the first government to use it, but I think it's wrong. The only thing that it can be applied to is a tax bill or something that has an impact that someone out there might be able to use to their advantage. But to do it in legislation that brings in regulations within a union, within an industrial sector? There is no reason for retroactivity, except here's why it was done: The people who didn't come forward in support of Bill 80 apparently did not do so because they feared retribution from the international. So if the bill is made retroactive and those people have a commitment by this government that they're going to carry through with it, then that eliminates any fear they might have of retribution. I can understand that they might be concerned about something like that.

Mr Jamison: No kidding.

Mr Mahoney: No, I admit that. The point I make to you is that the industrial unions -- you know, Rome wasn't built in a day. People say that the Steelworkers and the Auto Workers, a classic example, already have the right to disaffiliate.

Mr Mammoliti: It was New Democrats who built it.

Mr Mahoney: Let me tell you, George -- listen to me -- if this indeed was a battle between the American internationals and the locals, you would have left disaffiliation in the bill. I don't understand --

Mr Cooper: They wouldn't have had jobs.

Mr Mahoney: But just a minute. We heard people come forward flexing their nationalistic muscles and saying, "I support this bill because I'm a proud Canadian"; ergo, if you don't support it, you're not.

Mr Jamison: That's supposition on your part.

Mr Mahoney: No, no. It was very clear in the presentation. Many of the people who support this bill, by the way, would prefer disaffiliation in there. I suggest to you that if you were true to your principles, if you really, truly believed the stuff you say in committee and in here, you would have included disaffiliation, because that then allows that true nationalist Canadian to flex his or her muscles and lead the union out of the international, as Bob White did. You know what? I don't have a problem with that, if Bob White decided, if Leo Gerard decided. It's their call, though. That's the point: It's not yours; it's their call.

Bob White's constituents are the people in the Auto Workers union.

Mr Jamison: You don't understand.

Mr Mahoney: I sure do understand. Leo Gerard's constituents are the people he represents in District 6 and all over this province in the Steelworkers union. If the Steelworkers decide, which they would not do, in my opinion, that they want to disaffiliate from Pittsburgh, God bless.

Now, I understand that these people don't have that right in their constitutions; I do understand that. But Steelworkers and Auto Workers did not get their right with legislation. They got their right through union democracy. They got their right because they fought for it, because they stood up to Detroit and to Pittsburgh and they said, "We want our rights." They stood up to them.

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): They didn't have any fear of losing jobs.

Mr Mahoney: I don't agree. Are you kidding me? The steel industry has been under siege. The auto industry has obviously been under siege over the years. They fought for those rights. If you wanted to encourage that, why not work with those people within the construction trade labour movement who want to disaffiliate, if that's what they want, and negotiate with the parents? I know it won't be easy. I never said it would be. But what you don't understand is that union politics should remain union politics.

Unfortunately, what's happened over the years -- and I see the member for Oshawa, Mr Pilkey, whose father was a great trade labour leader for many, many years. He would understand this, because Mr Pilkey Sr comes from that generation of labour leaders who understood that they had to deal with all different levels of government, that partisanship was secondary to their obligation to represent their members with any particular level of government, whether it was dealing with Lester Pearson when he was Prime Minister of this country or John Robarts when he was Premier of this province.

People in the trade labour movement in your father's day and my father's day understood that they had to do business with every stripe of elected government. The reality was that with the exception of Saskatchewan there were no NDP governments to deal with. The reality is they had to deal with Liberals like Mike Pearson and with Tories like John Robarts and John Diefenbaker. They had to. They had to deal with Pierre Trudeau. Pierre Trudeau was a labour leader, a labour lawyer for the Steelworkers, before he was a politician. He understood the trade labour movement, the industrial.

The reality was, though, that everybody in the movement understood that becoming a vice-president of the New Democrats federally didn't do you a lot of good when you knocked on the door of Mike Pearson and said, "I've got to talk to you about some problems in the labour movement." I mean, why would it? Pearson would sit there and say: "Let me get this straight. You're a vice-president of the party that I'm opposed to, so your first priority is to destroy me." I think he might react that way.

They also understood something else, and that is that the vast majority of the men and women in the labour movement are not partisan at all. They don't hold a card in your party or mine, because they have some priorities of their own. You see, this is not a Liberal-NDP thing. That's what you don't understand. The people in Sault Ste Marie explained to me why in steel town, Sault Ste Marie, they would for so many years send a Tory here -- some pretty respectable people. Russ Ramsay became Labour minister. Why would they send Tories if everybody on the floor at Algoma Steel is a card-carrying member of the New Democratic Party? Why would they vote for a Liberal in Ottawa and a Tory at Queen's Park? I don't understand it.

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): We have some difficulty with that.

Mr Mahoney: Exactly. Now, if you agree with me on that, then you must come to the obvious conclusion. The obvious conclusion is that they are not partisan. That is the obvious conclusion. Even the men and women in the construction trade labour movement -- I talked to them. I remember after a committee hearing, quite late at night, a young man was waiting outside by my car for me to come out. He was pro Bill 80.

Mr Mammoliti: Did he have a hammer?

Mr Mahoney: No, he wasn't like some of you thugs.

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): Mr Speaker, that is totally out of order.

Mr Mahoney: I'll withdraw that remark, Mr Speaker. I'll withdraw that.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member, please, that's not very parliamentary.

Mr Mahoney: I will withdraw that remark. I said I withdraw the remark. You don't have to beat me up.

I understand this young man, if you want to hear this story, was on your side on the bill.

Interjection.

Mr Mahoney: I know you were, Al, and I lost it. Come on, don't leave. They got to me.

This young man wanted to understand. You know what he said? He said, "We have a union hall here in town. We have meeting rooms, training rooms," where they were going and meeting with the union and going through educational programs put on by the union. He said: "We don't have enough parking. We want to build a new one."

Interjection.

Mr Mahoney: Listen to this story. I'm talking about a young guy in the construction trade labour movement who's very concerned about his future and his family, a very decent young man. He said, "We want to build a new union hall because we don't have enough parking, and if we don't get Bill 80 we won't be able to do it." I said: "You've got to help me with this. I don't understand. What's the problem?" He said, "The international union can stop us from building our new home." I said, "Have they done that?" "No, but they could." "Do you think they're going to do that?" "No, but -- "

Mr White: What are you saying, Steve?

Mr Mahoney: I'm telling you what he said. He said, "No, but they could." So I said, "Well, let me tell you that you guys raise your own dues here."

I have no problem with that, you see. I think that if the local here wants to decide it's going to build a new hall, it should make that decision. I don't think it matters. I've said that in committee. What I don't agree with is that it is the place of government to be interfering in the duly passed constitutions of any trade labour movement.

1650

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): You brought this up.

Mr Mahoney: No, I read Mr Peterson's letters, and let me tell you and tell the Premier that what Mr Peterson wanted to do was to resolve the problem. What Mr Peterson suggested in his letters was really quite clear, that he wanted to resolve the problems.

No one is standing in this place and saying that an international union -- a parent union, a national parent; I don't care -- has the right to run roughshod over the members of a local. No one is saying they should have that right.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Oh yeah?

Mr Mahoney: Oh yeah, I say to the Premier. What I'm saying is that it's up to them, within the democratic system that exists, to work out their problems without involving the taxpayers.

Talk to me about what this bill is costing the taxpayers at a time when this government is close to going broke, when this government is running record deficits and is totally out of control. Instead of dealing with a serious problem at the Workers' Compensation Board, with the Workplace Health and Safety Agency, with all the serious funding problems, what do they do? "We're going to meddle in trade labour politics." You know why? "We made a promise." Bob Mackenzie made a promise, and he's just going to stick his nose in there and he's going to make a bunch of guys happy because I guess maybe they're members of the party, and maybe a debt is a debt to Bob Mackenzie. I don't blame Bob, but to suggest that this is a battle between Americans and Canadians is just such nonsense.

If you truly believe that, put disaffiliation back in the bill. It would be interesting, if that happened, how many would actually disaffiliate. I don't think there would be many. There might be some attempts, the people who hate to be called dissidents who came before the committee. We talked about that. I'm often a dissident within my caucus, as I'm sure members opposite are. It doesn't matter. The Premier makes all the calls. Dissidence does not exist, except for maybe Kormos. Kormos and Morrow are the only ones with the guts. They're the heroes, I guess.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): How many times did you separate from your party?

Mr Mahoney: You'd be surprised, to the Minister of Education.

A dissident is someone who disagrees, that's all. I disagree often. I sure disagree with you, I can tell you that much, and you'd better know I'll continue to.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Mahoney: Those who took exception to being referred to as dissidents --

Interjections.

Mr Mahoney: Oh, get excited if you want. The point is that what we have here is a government that has made a commitment for some reason. There have been suggestions it has something to do with Bob White and the Canadian Labour Congress. Eleven years ago the construction trade labour guys broke away from the CLC. I don't know. I don't know if Bob White cares much. He might think it's small potatoes. I don't know. Hundreds of thousands of workers paying union dues maybe ain't small potatoes. I don't know.

I've tried to figure out the real reason and I can come to only one conclusion: Bob Mackenzie made a promise when he was in the position I'm in as the Labour critic, and I guess he feels that for whatever reason he has to go through with it.

There has been some suggestion that dispute settlement is the big problem, that the locals here in Ontario don't like a dispute being settled by some American who doesn't understand what's going on.

There is a plan, Mr Speaker -- and I want to share this with you; I know they won't be interested, but you might -- for the settlement of jurisdictional disputes in the construction industry. It's referred to as "the plan." Interesting name. That's what it's referred to as. It's an agreement between the Building and Construction Trades Department and employers who employ members of the organizations affiliated with the Building and Construction Trades Department and who agree to be bound by the plan.

The plan -- very important here -- is self-financed by the parties to the agreement. So when there's a dispute, whether it's sectoral, whether it's work, whether it's jurisdictional, there is a plan that is in place, that exists. It has been used for some years. In fact, it started, this particular plan, with Canadian administrators dealing with it, understanding what the problems are. It started in 1984. It has been updated as early as 1993. The key point I make to you is that the plan is self-financed by the parties to the agreement.

What we have now is a system where the plan will simply be thrown out and the new plan will be to refer any of these disputes to the Ontario Labour Relations Board. I ask you, might the Ontario Labour Relations Board be busy these days? I understand they just heard a complaint in the Miracle Food Mart dispute and found in favour of the union. I understand they're very busy dealing with those concerns. I understand that.

Think about how this is going to work. It's very complex, this business. Frankly, in the past few months I've learned more about the construction industry and the construction trade labour movement than I ever really wanted to know, I must tell you, but it's very complicated stuff, so if there's a dispute on a job site --

Mr Hayes: Have some sympathy.

Mr Mahoney: Oh, I do have some sympathy, I have said that. There is a better way to resolve this than bringing in government legislation that is going to cost the taxpayers of this province hundreds of thousands of dollars potentially --

Interjection.

Mr Mahoney: Oh, I'm telling you, just follow it through. There's a complaint to the OLRB: "We've got to find a hearing officer." "Well, okay, but he's busy dealing with the Miracle Food Mart problem." "We'll wait till he's done." "Well, in the meantime, the jobs are in some jeopardy." "That's too bad, the law says we have to wait. We only have one member of the OLRB who is trained and qualified and knowledgeable." That's by the admission of the parliamentary assistant himself in committee. "There will be one person on the board of the OLRB who will be capable of making these decisions, so we've got to wait until he's free." Maybe he's on vacation, or she. Maybe they're on vacation. "They're not available, but we'll wait."

Now we have a hearing. We bring in the sides that are disputing. We've seen how extensive -- look at these briefs. These guys don't fool around. They're pretty professional. All of them, on both sides. I've got briefs coming out my ears on this stuff, on both sides. They're going to come in to the OLRB and they're going to take up the Ontario Labour Relations Board's time, and they're going to say, "We want you to resolve this problem."

What in the heck is wrong with the plan that exists today? It works. Ask the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council. Ask Patrick Dillon, the president. Ask Joe Duffy.

Interjections.

Mr Mahoney: Well, Joe Duffy's one of yours now. Ask him if it works. I even understand Joe Duffy is one of Bob Mackenzie's, probably Bob Rae's, closest friends. Why don't you listen to your friends, you guys? Why don't you listen to your friends? Duffy's upset. He can't figure out why it is you feel this omnipotent, omnipresent, benevolent government has to come along and dictate to the construction trades labour union how they can resolve their problems.

There's an old adage, Premier Rae: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Why are you meddling in this stuff? Don't you have enough to do? Don't you think you've got a responsibility to the people of this province, to the democratic system, to allow the union guys to sort their problems out among themselves without you bringing in heavy-handed legislation that you know has upset hundreds and thousands of people in this labour movement? They're upset. They don't understand.

It's shameful. At a time when this government should be creating jobs, it's interfering. I think it's dead wrong. I thought it was dead wrong from day one. I'll be voting against this bill, and so will the rest of my caucus, with some pride.

The Acting Speaker: This completes the time allotted to the official opposition. Further debate.

1700

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): I guess Steve doesn't want to quit, but it is my pleasure to be able to speak on Bill 80. I want to tell you, right off the first, that I support this bill, not because the NDP government's bringing this bill in, because what this bill does -- and I believe in it strongly -- is it gives local autonomy to our local unions. That's the reason I ran to come to this building, that local autonomy must be given to more than just the unions but to local municipalities. That's what was lacking in this House all along and it still is.

It is ironic that this government over here would bring a bill in like this that talks about local autonomy. As I said before, I certainly am going to vote for this bill and I agree with it. But let's look at what this government does on local autonomy.

We can think back to the time when this government sent David Cooke and Ruth Grier into Grey county. The Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Minister of Environment came into Grey county and said: "We don't believe in local autonomy. We're going to tell you how to run your county because we're the Almighty. We've just got elected and we're socialists and we're going to tell you how to run your county."

Ruth and David both came in there, just stomping and biting at the bit, saying, "We're going to take over." What did they do, Mr Minister, but cause more problems than already existed with the two of them coming in there. They didn't even have the decency to drive into Grey county. They had to fly in, and as fast as they could they flew back out because they knew they were totally wrong, and nothing happened. Grey county continued to do its own thing.

So what does the government do then? What do Mr Cooke and Mrs Grier do then? They decide: "Well, we have lots of money. We're only $10 billion in debt this year so we'll spend some more money to come down heavy-handed on Grey county." That's exactly what they did. No local autonomy.

What this has to do with Bill 80 is that it talks about local autonomy and that's what we're talking about here. This government has a hard time understanding that. I want to tell you that is why we're talking about local autonomy and that's what this bill will give to our local unions, which is what we want.

But let's look back to what this government -- as I say, it's ironic that it would bring in such a bill. The fact is that they set up a whole new ministry in Guelph to keep a heavy hand on the county of Grey, to make sure that it did their wishes, not the wishes of the people. So this government is no better than the internationals that try to control our local unions. They're no better; in fact in some cases they're worse.

Let's look at Bill 120. We had the Minister of Housing say yesterday: "We've got to stop the heavy-handedness of municipalities on our ratepayers. We're going to come down with a heavy hammer on the municipalities. We're going to tell them that their zoning doesn't make a hill of beans, that we can take over and we can put houses and we can put apartments wherever we want to." That is not local autonomy. This government shows lack of interest in local autonomy in many ways, and those are just a couple of them.

I sat through the hearings. Our internationals came into the hearings and they professed that there was going to be chaos within the construction industry if this bill's passed. Well, I tell you I don't think there will be any chaos. We heard of the horror stories from the internationals that people will run rampant now, that things won't work out without their heavy-handedness coming down on the local unions. That's one of the reasons I think this bill is good. It will give our local unions some local autonomy to be able to decide their own future.

I had many letters from citizens in my riding supporting this bill. Never once did I have one person call me or speak to me from my riding who was against this bill, not once. But I have many letters from different unions and different perspectives supporting this bill. That is another reason why I think that this is a good bill.

It's unfortunate that it has to come from this government that seemed to jump around and it doesn't have a clear message as to where it's going. Obviously, in this case, they have found a clear path and have taken it, and I understand. I talked to the minister about this, as to why they would do this, why they would cause some problems within the construction unions, because they have caused problems, there's no doubt.

I don't believe in government interference. The less government interference you have, the better. I believe what Mr Mahoney says, that we shouldn't have as much interference by the government in any way in other people's matters. But if it all comes down to it that there can't be a solution found and by sitting through the hearings and listening to the local trades they had trouble getting their message across to the internationals, the same as municipalities have trouble getting their message across to this government and in many other cases, government may at this time have to come in.

It was also pointed out that this has been done before by the Liberals and by the Conservative Party. It was pointed out that Bette Stephenson, when Minister of Labour, did something to this effect and most of them liked it at that time. So there has been interference by governments into union affairs and it happens from time to time.

But I want to read some of the things some of the members from my riding who belong to local unions have said:

"No one should lose their job because the international union decides unilaterally to give it to another local union. Changes to the local union jurisdiction should require local union consent."

It goes on to say that local unions should have bargaining rights for all collective agreements. "It is not collective bargaining if workers do not get a say in the process."

What this points out is that the local unions in Ontario were having problems getting their message across to the internationals, just the same way as I've pointed out municipalities have seemed to be forgotten when this government decides to do things. As I say again, when they come into Grey county and tried to take over the planning, Bill 120 shows clearly that this government has no concerns for local people in the local areas.

Another one would show the garbage issue. They come up with the policy that they can't ship it out of Toronto. It has to stay within Toronto. Even though we have a willing host in Kirkland Lake, even though the mayor comes down here and tells them, "We will look after it," this government again says: "No, we're the heavy-handed boys and we're not going to listen to anybody else. We know what's right." What does that sound like? It sounds like the internationals to me. They sound the very same.

It is very ironic that this government would bring in this bill. I was shocked when I read over the bill and went to the committee hearings to see this government stand up for it. I would have thought they would have been on all sides with the internationals. But as it points out, somewhere along the line they came to their senses on this bill and have finally come through with a good one, after many tries -- as you know, they've been here about three years now, and most of their bills have been very disastrous. I would say all their bills have been very disastrous but this one, and maybe we can go along with them on stable funding.

Interjection.

Mr Murdoch: The member for Chatham-Kent mentions the stable funding bill. I mentioned that also, that they have come up with a couple of good bills. But we must remember on stable funding they messed that bill up so badly the first time they had to throw it away and try again.

The member from Windsor, Mr Cooke, is one of the high-steppers who comes into Grey county and has something to say. Maybe he has a few minutes after so that he'll be able to get up and reply to some of the comments I've made. Maybe he'll be able to explain to us his reasons why he should have all the powers. He is now the Minister of Education and Training, and I think his hidden agenda is to get rid of our local school boards. We can see that, the way he's working around, and then he can have all the control.

Hon Mr Cooke: Let the record show there were no interjections.

Mr Murdoch: If that's his hidden agenda, maybe he would like to stand up and tell us about that sooner or later. He will be able to get up on the floor and tell us when he is going to decide to take over all the education concerns, which he will know all about, I am sure, because when he was Minister of Municipal Affairs, he knew everything there and had no trouble trying to ram his ideas down the throats of all our municipalities. I am sure that's why the Premier said, "Hey, I've got to get rid of this minister before he ruins all our relationships," and he did, but unfortunately he put him in Education, and that's even worse.

Yes, I know, Mr Speaker, you'd like to talk about Bill 80, which I'm talking about, and some of the other things some of the members from my riding sent to me.

"The membership should have a say in how their hard-earned money is used for pension and benefit programs."

We heard many times in the meetings in committee how the local people had a hard time getting their point across, again to the internationals. I think it's time that Ontario stood up to them and I'm proud that the local unions agree with this -- at least most of them do -- and that they're here to say so.

We've also heard that in some instances some people will say they believe the majority of the union workers in Ontario are against this bill. Well, I don't think they're right on that. I think the vast majority of the union workers, the local guys, the guys who want some local autonomy in their union, are in favour of this bill, and after sitting through the hearings I know they are, Mr Speaker, so I have no problem standing up here and telling you I support this bill also, and I will be voting on it when the time comes.

1710

I read you some of the points that come from the some of the members in my riding. They end up with some of them saying, "These points are absolutely necessary to give workers the right to free democratic participation in their union." The word "democratic" comes in there. I think the government across the way has to look at that word and figure out where it comes in with that word, because I'm afraid it's misused that word.

What I want to tell you about is that we're on closure. Again, this government is afraid to hear and listen to some people in the opposition who might have a difference of opinion with theirs. So what do they do? They bring in a closure bill. That seems to be the norm of the day. I don't think closure bills and "democrat" go together; there's just no way. So I certainly think they will be changing the name of their party, because they use that word loosely but they don't understand the word. As you know, in the past three weeks at least four and maybe more bills have been closed by closure motions. That's not the democratic process. We over here should have the right to tell them what we think of some of the bills they've brought in, especially the majority of them.

It's ironic, again, that they're closing this one. They have some people on this side who do support them, but they don't like to hear the truth. Sometimes it hurts, I know. But in this case, as I've said, I will be supporting this bill and I will look forward to voting on it.

Ms Murdock: I'm very pleased to join in today's debate on Bill 80. We have been involved for quite a while, a long time, in the ministry on the subject, and then of course the committee has been more than interesting with the number of presenters we had.

This is not a new idea, as I'm sure many of the people have commented. It has been around for quite a long time by some union members, and there are a number of people in the members' gallery today who support Bill 80 and who have actually been the initiators of this bill. When the Liberals opposite were in opposition, their leader brought forward a private member's bill on this very topic. It is something that has been a problem and a concern within the construction industry for quite a while.

Those who oppose Bill 80 had a number of concerns from the original bill when it was read into the record in June 1992. The concerns were on section 138.6, which was the disaffiliation provision, and section 138.3, which is the provision of jurisdiction alteration.

I should point out that the 138.6 provision that the member for Mississauga West had mentioned earlier, the disaffiliation, as it was read in that bill at the time, still required parental approval. A parent union had to give approval to disaffiliation, which in reality was never going to happen. The section really did need to be withdrawn, and frankly I'm very glad to see that this happened.

Section 138.3 has been much more in the discussions, and as a consequence of the presenters who came before the committee and a number of other conversations, it was changed to being complaints-driven. It is now the 15 days' notice by the parent union to the local for any alteration. We as the government members, I think being responsible, agreed with the Liberal amendment that was presented in terms of maintaining the status quo pending a decision from the OLRB.

The other provisions that were presented by the Liberals -- there were no amendments presented by the Conservatives -- the other amendments presented by the Liberals, many of them, with some changes, were quite similar to the ones the government was presenting.

I would say too that the member for Mississauga West stated in his remarks earlier, talked about "the plan." It is a very valid thing that we have going, but I have to clarify for the member -- and this was stated in committee, so I'm surprised that he made the comments today, but it is a clarification -- that it deals only with interunion disputes, not with intraunion disputes. I think that there has been some mistake in the interpretation there by the member opposite.

In terms of retroactivity, I think it's really important for the members who have come forward and spoken to the bill, in favour of the bill, because as the member opposite has explained eloquently today in his remarks, there is a fear out there. Unfortunately, it does happen. Luckily or fortunately, I would say that it happens in only a few instances and that the majority of the internationals and locals get along very well. But the retroactivity is important because we heard stories in committee where even handing out a constitution could be a cause for some kind of retaliation by the international, if the international felt like doing it, and there would be no provision to stop it. Bill 80 does that. The retroactivity provision is extremely important for the protection of the worker who has the audacity to speak out.

This is a bill that has been worked on at great length. We have had many problems with it and now we can say that the workers are going to have a chance to speak.

The other thing, and lastly, I would like to say is that in all likelihood those unions that have a good working relationship with their international will never access this legislation and those that don't will have to work ahead before they go into that piece of legislation.

Hon Mr Rae: I very much appreciate the chance to participate in this debate, in fact to wind it up. While doing so I would like to express my congratulations to the Minister of Labour and to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour, who has worked long and hard on this issue, and say as well that without the commitment and the sense of the finest of traditions of the trade union movement that have been expressed by literally hundreds, indeed thousands, of working people who literally are building this province today, have built this province, have made it what it is -- and not only do they want to build subways and build buildings and build places of work, they also want to build democracy and build Canada and build Canadian values for Canadian workers. That's what this is all about.

I don't often have a speech in me that speaks warmly of my predecessor. I want to just say this: I recall the day in this House, on February 3, 1983, when the Leader of the Opposition at that time, who later on became the Premier with a little help from some of us on this side of the House, asked a question of the Minister of Labour at that time, who was the member for Sault Ste Marie, Russ Ramsay.

He raised an issue involving Local 1059 of the Laborers' International Union of North America. He raised it because it concerned workers he knew in his constituency and in the area around London. He raised it because there was a particularly difficult situation arising between the leadership and the membership of that local and the international.

He specifically asked the Minister of Labour, on February 3, 1983, if he would introduce "immediately with quick passage -- I am sure it can be arranged in this House -- an amendment to the Labour Relations Act so this matter can go before the board" -- referring to the labour relations board -- "before there is a trusteeship." He was referring to the decision of the international to impose a trusteeship on that local to deprive the local union of the ability to elect its own officers, to deprive the local union of its ability to provide for its membership.

1720

What happened in that situation? Mr Ramsay said no, he didn't think he could do it. Mr Peterson then brought in a private member's bill and they then wrote an open letter to the Minister of Labour. What did he say in that open letter? He said this:

"I am asking the government to give immediate protection to the locally organized workers from the arbitrary, unfair, unilateral takeover of their local union by the international head office, in this case based in Washington."

"I urge you to introduce amending legislation to the Labour Relations Act to provide a mechanism by which either the international must justify trusteeship before implementation or the local can effectively challenge the action in our courts in accordance with our laws.

"In the longer term, we must consider the broader issue of unreasonable control over locally, democratically elected union executives by the international head office."

That was the position of the Liberal Party, I assume, in 1983. I can tell you that in 1993, this New Democratic Party government stands for union democracy, we stand for local election and we stand for people in this province who are committed to that.

I would say to the honourable members that I've heard a lot of arguments on this issue and I can tell you that I've heard some arguments from people for whom I have a great deal of respect.

I've also heard arguments today from the member for Mississauga West. I want to say to the honourable member that I listened carefully to his arguments and I think that on reflection, if he thinks about it for a moment, the logical implication of what he is saying is that international trade unions should somehow be beyond the reach of the law of this province with respect to union democracy and with respect to the participation of members and with respect to the protection of pension plan money which is put in by the workers of this province. It's their money. Their trustees ought to have control over it and they ought to be in a position to say something about it if somebody tries to move in and take it away from them.

That's what this legislation is all about, and that's what it does, Monsieur le Président. Ce sont des questions --

Applause.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Excuse me for a minute. I would ask the people in the gallery to refrain from applauding. Only the members on the floor are allowed to do so.

Hon Mr Rae: I must say to you, Mr Speaker, that being applauded from the gallery is not something to which I've become accustomed in the last few years.

Mr Murdoch: I wouldn't get used to it.

Hon Mr Rae: Don't worry, I say to our new-found friend from Grey-Owen Sound.

I would say to the honourable member that I've had very candid discussions with some members of the labour movement in the building trades sector who have expressed to me some concern. I think it would be a little naïve of me not to suggest that, yes, this is an issue on which there are differing views within particularly the construction trade unions. I think it's fair to say we've all received a very heavy lobby from varying positions with respect to this question.

I would say to members that we respect the right of international unions to represent workers in this province. International unions have a history which goes back 140 or 150 years in this province. If you go back to the earliest trades in this province, if you go back to the Knights of Labor, if you go back to the construction trades, if you go back to all the trades in this province, they were organized on an international basis, that's true, as are many of our finest industrial unions.

But it's also got to be a principle of Canadian law and of Ontario law that we respect and admit and recognize the fact of the matter that it is Ontario people, it is Canadian people, it is people who come from all over the world to make this their home who themselves want to have some sense of responsibility for the trade unions that in fact they've built. They've built them with their sacrifice, with their commitment. They've built it with their contributions.

What they are saying is that when they feel their right to exercise control over their affairs is threatened because of the exercise of international power that's coming up from the United States, they have to have some mechanism, some means, to go before a labour relations board and say, "Look, this is an issue that requires resolution."

I think it's a right that pertains to the members. It's a right that pertains directly to this question of democracy within trade unions. All of us want as much democracy, as much right to participate, as much freedom to dissent -- the member for Mississauga West talked about the freedom to dissent. I can tell him right now that I've seen a whole lot more dissent on this side of the House in the last three years than I've seen over there. Boy, the new Liberals, you know, the Red Army Chorus over there, they all sing in unison, they all stand up, "Three cheers."

I would say to the honourable member that I don't need to take any lectures in dissent from the members of the Liberal Party. I don't know of any Premier who's had to celebrate as much dissent as I have since becoming Premier on September 6, 1990.

Not only do I support this bill; I believe in it and I can tell members that I've encouraged the Minister of Labour to carry on with it. I had something to do with discussions with the trade union leadership in this province to get this under way, I had something to do with discussions in 1983, when we tried to get something moved and we couldn't and we got a reaction.

Now we're moving here because we're the government and we are in a position finally to do something for the men and women of Ontario who have built the construction trade union and made it what it is, not simply because they're in receipt of some international charter or because some international president flies in at the convention and pats everybody and says, "Here we are," but because they themselves, through their sacrifice and their commitment, their apprenticeship programs, their training programs, what they have provided for their members, their dental programs, their health programs, all the programs that are in place in the construction trades, have put it there with their funds.

All they're saying is, "Give us the right and let that right be recognized in law," that Canadian workers can have something to say about what happens to those funds and what happens to these locals when they're exercising their right to express themselves in the workplace today.

I say this says yes to democracy within trade unions; it says yes to the principle that people have a right to express themselves; it says yes to the rule of law within the trade union movement, just as much as we want to apply the rule of law to every other part of our society. No part of our society can be immune or should be immune from the rule of law. Union members have the right to dissent. That right is guaranteed in the Labour Relations Act. They have a right to fair representation. That right is contained in the Labour Relations Act. They have a right to take a complaint against their trade union to the Ontario Labour Relations Board. That right is contained in the Labour Relations Act.

What we are saying is that in the building trades, membership should have no fewer and no less rights than it does in other locals and in other situations. That is why I am certainly going to be proudly standing in my place in defence of democracy within our trade unions, in defence of the construction trades in this province that have built and that are building democracy today. I say three cheers for democracy and three cheers for Bill 80.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Cooper has moved third reading of Bill 80, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1729 to 1734.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Cooper has moved third reading of Bill 80, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

All those in favour of the motion will please rise.

Ayes

Abel, Akande, Allen, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Duignan, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hansen, Harrington, Hayes, Hope, Jamison, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Kormos, Lankin, Laughren, Lessard, Mackenzie, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Mathyssen, Mills;

Morrow, Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound), Murdock (Sudbury), O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pilkey, Pouliot, Rae, Rizzo, Silipo, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please rise.

Nays

Arnott, Beer, Bradley, Brown, Carr, Cleary, Cunningham, Daigeler, Eves, Fawcett, Grandmaître, Harris, Mahoney, McGuinty, Miclash, O'Neil (Quinte), Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poirier, Poole, Ramsay, Runciman, Ruprecht, Sterling, Stockwell, Sullivan, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Wilson (Simcoe West).

The Deputy Speaker: The ayes are 60, the nays are 28. I declare the motion carried. Resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I would like to thank the member for Grey-Owen Sound and say that Agnes Macphail would have been thrilled to see your participation today.

Report continues in volume B.

8 décembre 1993