Journal des débats 1994-mai-18 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): When Finance Minister Laughren presented the budget on May 5, I was concerned that he did not mention words central to our provincial economy such as "farming," "agriculture" and "rural Ontario." Instead we heard references to subways, highways and urban centres. A closer inspection of the budget reveals that not only was the Finance minister unwilling to mention the agri-industry, he actually abandoned rural Ontario.

The NDP is cutting the budget for farmers by $34 million this year. Somehow, in spite of the NDP's proposal of restraint, it was able to find $17 million more to spend on the civil servants at Management Board. It is incredible that the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs can justify cutting assistance to farmers by $34 million while increasing spending on administration by $17 million.

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Residents of Mississauga South are reeling in shock after a local man, Brian Baylen, was viciously murdered while out for an evening stroll in a neighbourhood we all thought was safe. A 15-year-old female and a 16-year-old male have been charged with murder.

Like my constituents, I am appalled and furious. I grieve for Brian Baylen and his family. It could have been my friend or relative who was stabbed to death on my street.

I believe we are all responsible for Mr Baylen's death. We have watched in apathy as our society becomes increasingly violent. We have allowed our children to grow up with violence as the norm in television and film entertainment. Children are desensitized to violence at a very young age. Is it any wonder then if some youths commit violent crimes, senseless killing of innocent victims?

Another serious problem is the federal Young Offenders Act, passed by the Trudeau Liberals a decade ago. These two young people who face murder charges in Mr Baylen's death, if tried in youth court and found guilty, will be out of jail in just five years.

I am starting petitions calling on the federal government to toughen the Young Offenders Act and asking both the federal and provincial governments to take action against the portrayal of violence in the entertainment media.

Please sign these petitions and let your elected representatives know that as lawmakers they are not doing enough to make our communities safe. These are young people whom we treat as adults until they commit crimes and then we treat them as children.

MISSING CHILDREN

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): May 25, next week, is National Missing Children's Day. The green ribbons that all MPPs are wearing today are to remind us of missing children everywhere. It is a symbol of hope for their safe return.

It is difficult to imagine the unspeakable grief that parents suffer when their child has gone missing. As legislators, we must be mindful of the work that needs to be done to make our society safer for these our most vulnerable citizens.

Children truly are our hope for the future. Just last week in fact the Premier's Council on Health, Wellbeing and Social Justice released this report which I have here -- it's called Yours, Mine and Ours -- on how best to serve Ontario children and youth.

I would like to take this opportunity today to acknowledge the work of Child Find in Ontario. Child Find is a non-profit organization which does the following: It assists in the location of missing children, increases public awareness of missing children, teaches prevention methods and gives general assistance and emotional support to affected parents. It operates a very important long-distance line, a 1-800 number.

Seated in the gallery today is Jackie Cutmore, executive director of Child Find, if she would stand. I want to welcome her to the Legislature and I want to commend her and her organization on the work that they do helping us get missing children back home. Thank you.

COMMUNITY RECREATION FUNDING

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): The Minister for Economic Development and Trade has informed the town of LaSalle that its application for funding the Robert Carrick Memorial Athletic Complex under the Jobs Ontario Community Action program has been denied, this despite the fact that this complex would be constructed on publicly owned property, that it is a cooperative effort spearheaded by a committee of volunteers comprised of interested and proactive residents, that the complex would be designed for use by the physically and mentally challenged and would have been used to host the 1994 Ontario Games for the Physically Disabled and that the committee has followed the guidelines of various ministry officials.

The town of LaSalle advises me that other projects in the county have received funding and that in the committee's opinion this project, in its unique nature, was most worthy.

By way of this statement, I would ask that the minister responsible reconsider the Jobs Ontario Community Action application from the town of LaSalle so the physically and mentally challenged, as well as the able members of the community, may get on with this worthwhile project.

1340

CONTROL OF SMOKING

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): It's a sad day for Ontario politics when a very powerful interest group uses scare tactics, along with misleading information, to attack a member of Parliament for representing his constituents.

At a press conference today the Ontario Campaign for Action on Tobacco stated that by sticking up for some 450 manufacturing jobs in my area I am somehow posing a threat to the health of our children. Every point the coalition makes in a full-page ad it is running in my riding is inaccurate, every last point.

I have a strong and clear record as a long-time advocate of workable restrictions on smoking, and I am offended, as I suspect most Ontarians will be offended, by the tactics employed by this organization.

I care about fighting the battle to deter our youth from smoking, I care about people losing their jobs and their livelihoods when the government refuses to even listen to them and I care about fighting against special interests who use every weapon at their disposal, including scare tactics and misleading information, to try and intimidate elected officials. Their tactics don't deserve to work, and in this case they are not going to work.

TOURISM AWARENESS WEEK

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): This week the Kingston area is celebrating an industry that's central to the life of our community: central because the industry links our area with its historic place in Ontario and in Canada; central also because it plays an important part in our economy, bringing in millions of dollars every year and creating some 65,000 jobs.

I rise today to recognize the greater Kingston area Tourism Awareness Week, a celebration of the work people living in the Kingston area have done to welcome the some one million visitors we see every year. The event is sponsored by the Kingston Area Economic Development Commission, downtown Kingston and the Rotary Club of Kingston.

Kingston, a former garrison town and port, became the seat of the government of Upper Canada in the last century. This history and the fact that many of the beautiful limestone buildings from that time still grace area streets has afforded the Kingston area a special place in Ontario's tourism industry.

We have more museums than any community of comparable size in the province. We have a beautiful waterfront setting at the head of the Thousand Islands. We have plenty of first-class entertainment, some as old as the Folklore multicultural festival, celebrating its 25th year on June 10 to 12, and as new as the Kingston Summer Festival, set for its inauguration this summer.

As part of Tourism Awareness Week, there's a historic city cycle tour to promote our community's potential as an excellent bike touring area. A bike ride to Kingston Mills will follow that event to acknowledge that this is also Bike to Work Week.

This year Tourism Awareness Week is marking the pivotal role such services as marinas, public transit, restaurants and gas stations play not only in serving our visitors but in heightening the awareness of area residents that tourism in the Kingston area brings in some $273 million every year and creates more than 13% of our jobs. This is a reminder that, as the tourism week slogan goes, "Tourism Is Everyone's Business."

MISSING CHILDREN

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Today we wear green ribbons to show our support for the Green Ribbon of Hope Campaign, which runs from May 1 to May 31, 1994, and allows us to show our solidarity with the families of the thousands of children missing across the country. We especially wish to recognize that May 25, 1994, will be National Missing Children's Day, a day of tremendous importance to all of us.

Every time a child disappears not one person in the community, in the province or in the country is left unaffected. We all share a sense of fear, horror and sadness, especially on those tragic occasions when a missing child becomes a murdered child.

In 1993 almost 56,000 children were reported missing; only 50,000 of them have been recovered. On May 5, 1992, when the people of St Catharines said goodbye to Kristen French, I said on that occasion in this House that life seemed so unfair when a kind, gracious, innocent girl is taken from her family, her friends and her colleagues at school in broad daylight. These words apply to all missing and murdered children taken from their families.

Violence against women and children and the attitudes that breed them must be stopped. This issue must be addressed now and it must be addressed with commitment and determination. We owe it to the families of Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy and to the thousands of missing children across Ontario and Canada.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I too would like to join all members of the House because May 1994 marks the third annual Green Ribbon of Hope Campaign by Child Find Canada, which seeks to increase public awareness about missing children everywhere and works to ensure their safe and speedy return to their families.

The campaign, which culminates on May 25, National Missing Children's Day, was developed soon after the tragic abduction-murder of 15-year-old Kristen French of St Catharines on April 16, 1992. Kristen's teachers and friends mobilized their community to search for her and chose as their symbol the green ribbon, which has now been extended to represent all missing children.

No community in this province is immune from the grave tragedy suffered by the families of victims such as Leslie Mahaffy, Nina de Villiers, Christopher Stephenson and many, many more. The green ribbon is also a call for government action to make community safety a priority and to enhance police investigations against violent sexual offenders. On behalf of my Burlington community, countless legitimate pleas have been made to this government to reverse the trend towards the early release of and temporary passes for violent sex offenders.

The Green Ribbon Campaign also provides a sense of urgency for a victims' bill of rights for Ontario, like the one that was blocked by the Liberals in 1990 and then by the NDP government in 1992. This would give the right to families of crime victims to have automatic standing at coroners' inquests and to be closely involved in all stages of police investigations.

Today we join all families of child victims in calling on the NDP to move from the symbolism of the green ribbon to concerted action on their behalf to curb the tragic increases in premeditated murders of young women and children in Ontario.

PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PARTY PLAN

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): Guess what? I got a letter in my mailbox to join a revolution, the Harris revolution. Usually the people who join revolutions are the downtrodden who want to escape some yoke of oppression. These people are appealing for money, and it says here that I've got to send $100 or more, $50 or $35, and I'm supposed to team up 10 more people to join this wretched revolution.

I want to tell you that I met over the weekend with the fine Liquor Control Board of Ontario workers who are in my riding. These people serve the community, they coach the hockey teams, they coach the baseball teams; they're there in the community when you want them. This revolution wants to put all those people out of work. They want to put the liquor component of the liquor into little stores like Miracle Food Mart and Loblaws, and they'll be on the corner. These people will be getting minimum wages and they've got mortgages like you and me and they've got children to send to university.

I'm telling that crowd over there, you won't have 10 people join your revolution. The liquor control people will get 100 people, every one of them, and you'll have the revolution, the mother of all revolutions on your hands that you'll wish you never had. Shame on the lot of you.

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

Mr Mills: Shame on the lot of you.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

LAND USE PLANNING

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Today I'm releasing legislation, policy statements and administrative changes that mark the beginning of this government's reform of the planning and development system in Ontario.

I'm proud to say the changes to the Planning Act and other amendments represent a major reform of the current land use process. I'm also pleased to tell members of the House that the provincial facilitator, Dale Martin, will head up a committee of municipal leaders, developers, builders and environmental groups that will work on the practical details of implementing our new system.

People in this province have lost faith in the planning system. There are concerns about the integrity of the process, there are very accurate perceptions in the community that the system is inefficient, slow and very costly, and there is the fear that the planning system simply doesn't have the teeth to protect the environment.

These changes will cut red tape in the development process so jobs can be created. They will provide stronger environmental protection for natural features and agricultural land and they will give municipalities more authority and accountability.

1350

In the new system, the government will shift towards better consumer and customer service, with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs the lead, one-window ministry for land use planning.

The system will also favour cooperative resolution to disputes before they enter the system and create lengthy, costly delays that are in no one's best interests.

Municipalities will be given greater control of the development process. We believe planning and the development of Ontario cities, towns and rural areas can best be done by people living there. In this context, the provincial government will set broad policy direction, municipal governments will make development decisions and the Ontario Municipal Board will adjudicate disputes.

A set of provincial policy statements clearly stating the provincial expectations for planning is also being released today. Other changes are focused on promoting more open and accountable local governments, including improving procedures for conducting council business and disposing of property.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Get on with the job.

Hon Mr Philip: The Liberals, who have no policy on anything, want to keep on interrupting me, but I'll continue.

Finally, the new planning system will set out clear rules for achieving a balance of environmental, economic and social interests. This means environmentally sound development proposals can proceed more quickly, creating jobs in the construction industry and other sectors.

Today's events are the culmination of more than three years' work by hundreds of extremely dedicated people. The work began in 1991 when the government appointed former Toronto mayor John Sewell to head up a commission on planning and development reform in Ontario. Last June, the commission delivered its final report to the government. We studied the report very carefully, and in December we released a preliminary outline of our reforms and a set of proposed policy statements for consultation. During that time, we heard from more than 600 people and groups from every area of the province. Many of their ideas have been incorporated in the final documents.

As with any issue this large and complex, it has been tough to please everybody on every detail, but I believe we have reached consensus on most of the important aspects of our proposed new planning system for Ontario.

I would like to acknowledge the tremendous amount of work done by John Sewell and his commission, as well as by Dale Martin. My ministry staff have put in long hours and many weekends, as have the many hundreds of volunteers who have worked in some way in developing this set of proposals. My predecessor, the Honourable David Cooke, has also played a very significant role in the development of the policies and in promoting them in the caucus and cabinet. I want to thank all of these people.

I believe the people of Ontario will be better served by this new system, a system that is clearer, easier, more accountable and more accessible.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): They will be better served by calling an election.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for York Centre, please come to order.

Mr Sorbara: Let's have it: the ultimate turnaround, the ultimate copout.

The Speaker: I ask the member for York Centre to please come to order.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): Last month, the Premier announced that this government would be making major changes to the workers' compensation system to help restore its financial health and to improve benefits to those injured workers most in need. At that time, the Premier outlined the package of immediate and long-term reforms, which had five key components. They were:

(1) a new bipartite structure for the WCB board of directors which will be more arm's-length from the government;

(2) a stronger emphasis on rehabilitating injured workers and getting them back to work safely and quickly;

(3) cost-saving measures which include changes to indexing and establishing government-directed financial targets;

(4) special indexing protection for the most vulnerable injured workers and an additional $200 a month --

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order, the member for York Centre. Sorry. I must caution the member for York Centre that if he refuses to come to order, he will be named. There will be an opportunity for responses to the statements made by the ministers.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: To continue, special indexing protection for the most vulnerable injured workers and an additional $200 a month on the pensions of many older injured workers; and

(5) the establishment of a royal commission to take a wide-ranging look at the workers' compensation system.

Today I am pleased to introduce for first reading in this Legislature the Workers' Compensation and Occupational Health and Safety Amendment Act, 1994. This is one of a number of immediate steps the government is taking to act on workers' compensation reform.

I am also pleased to announce today the appointment of Ken Copeland as interim vice-chair of administration for the Workers' Compensation Board. He will be responsible for the day-to-day operations of the board and, with the board of directors, will help judge and implement workers' compensation reform.

I'd like to summarize for the House the major elements of the bill I'm introducing today.

First, we are introducing a purpose clause which will establish fair compensation, vocational rehabilitation and early return to work as the overriding goals of the Workers' Compensation Act.

We are also proposing amendments that will require the board of directors to act in a financially responsible manner, with a view to the best interests of the Workers' Compensation Board.

We are proposing a series of amendments to the act to enhance vocational rehabilitation services and improve early return to work. They include, for example, a proposal that physicians, with the worker's consent, release prescribed medical information that will help employers and their employees plan for safe and early return to work; a proposal that will clarify the role of the board in enforcing existing re-employment obligations; a proposal that will improve the board's incentive programs by measuring a broader and more meaningful range of workplace programs and practices; and an amendment that will establish a time-limited process for mediation and decision-making in matters that require resolution.

We are also proposing that the act be amended to formally introduce a bipartite structure so that both labour and business have an equal say in the governance of the WCB.

We are proposing amendments to the Workers' Compensation Act that would provide a $200 increase to the permanent partial disability awards of workers injured prior to Bill 162 who are or become entitled to receive, or have been entitled to receive, subsection 147(4) supplements.

We are providing an amendment that would result in the adoption of what is known as the Friedland indexing formula, but with provisions that would ensure that the most vulnerable workers could continue to receive benefits fully indexed to the consumer price index. The Friedland formula indexes pensions to 75% of the CPI, less 1%, with a cap of 4% a year.

Certain groups will continue to receive fully indexed benefits. They are those people who receive survivor and dependant benefits, those receiving 100% pensions for injuries that occurred prior to 1990, those receiving 100% wage loss awards for injuries that occurred after 1989 and those receiving the $200 increase I have just mentioned.

We believe the amendments to the Workers' Compensation Act that we are introducing today will help us achieve the three main objectives we have set for reform of the workers' compensation system. They are ensuring the future financial viability of the system, early return to work for injured workers, and protection for the most financially vulnerable injured workers.

It is clear that we can no longer afford to ignore either the serious plight of the many older injured workers who live in difficult circumstances or the financial crisis towards which the system has been heading. We cannot afford to do so either in economic terms or in human terms.

This untenable situation has been brought to the province's attention a number of times over the last decade, but to date no government has been willing to take the necessary steps to address it. As the Premier's Labour-Management Advisory Committee on workers' compensation made very clear in its framework agreement, however, we must act now. The business and labour members of the committee accomplished a tremendous amount of work and laid the foundation for the package of reforms that this government announced last month. The amendments we are introducing today are an important step towards putting these reforms in place in this province.

1400

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm just wondering if there is a standing order that requires opposition members who then become government members and Labour ministers to introduce policies that are at all consistent with --

The Speaker: The member does not have a point of order. Would the member please take his seat immediately.

LAND USE PLANNING

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): We now have the minister's proposal for the Sewell commission report. We've been waiting for his response to the Sewell commission's $2.2-million review of the Planning Act, which was not well received either by AMO or the municipalities across this province.

I have to point out that the minister says one thing and does another. He is promising to speed up the planning process, make it simpler and make it less costly.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. I apologize to the member for Brant-Haldimand. It would be helpful if members on both sides of the House would allow the member for Brant-Haldimand to respond to the minister's statement.

Mr Eddy: Mr Speaker, thank you. I listened politely to the minister, but they don't bother me. I don't listen to them.

This legislation will only make land use planning more complicated, more time-consuming and indeed much, much, much more expensive for the municipal governments in this province. He is going to force every municipality to go through a complicated process of redrafting its official plans. Every inch of land in every municipality will have to be reviewed to see if it meets provincial policy statements like:

"In decisions regarding development, every opportunity should be taken to: maintain the quality of air, land, water and biota; maintain biodiversity compatible with indigenous natural systems; and protect natural links and corridors."

Development may be permitted only if it does not negatively impact the features or the ecological functions for which the area is identified. Development will not be permitted on adjacent lands if it negatively impacts on the ecological functions or the features listed above.

It sounds like a lot more studies, doesn't it, Mr Speaker? It's as clear as mud, as clear as Haldimand clay. How much is it going to cost every municipality to decipher these dictates? Who is going to pay for these reviews? I expect it's the municipal governments.

The minister says he wants to make the rules of the planning system clearer. The only rule he has made clear is that the province will be calling the shots and of course downloading tremendous provincial planning costs on to the backs of local municipalities.

The legislation will not let local communities decide local issues. The minister's plan says mandatory contents will be stipulated for all municipal and planning board official plans. It's going to be more complicated, time-delaying and very costly.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): To the Minister of Labour's announcement, this is just him announcing what the Premier already announced on April 14 and trying to wrap it up as being some new kind of great move on the part of the government. Unfortunately, Minister, you've done nothing and said nothing about service delivery to injured workers.

As the minister knows, I recently completed a three-month tour of the province and meetings with people on workers' compensation. If there's one thing I heard from injured workers and from business, from employers, it's that they are fed up with the lack of service delivery and accountability at the board.

Minister, I have released a report, which I sent to your office but apparently you didn't get, called Back to the Future, with some ideas on WCB reform. I'm going to have a page take that over to you. You might find some interesting late-night reading in there to give you some ideas.

You talk about making this accountable by setting up what you refer to as "a new bipartite structure for the Workers' Compensation Board." Fascinating. How is it new? It's half labour, half business. There are supposedly two citizen reps appointed, but guess who they're appointed by? They're appointed by labour and they're appointed by management. It's not new; it's just trying to recycle the same old problems.

There are more than just two stakeholders, Minister, I submit to you, involved in workers' compensation. The medical community has a huge stake. Injured workers themselves deserve a specific spot on the Workers' Compensation Board because they know at first hand what's happening.

You pretend, Minister, that you're not trying to fix this on the backs of injured workers. Who do you think is paying for the $200 supplement? It's the injured workers you're making pay ultimately.

The real tragedy is that by tinkering with this, you are failing to recognize that there is a long-term requirement to fix this system today.

I would, however, having been somewhat negative about this announcement, congratulate you at least on the appointment of Mr Ken Copeland. I understand from my colleagues that he is a competent individual and I wish him well.

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): These changes announced today will do nothing to restore the Workers' Compensation Board to financial health or address the urgent problems plaguing the system. It's simply a rehash of what we've heard before. Meanwhile, we have a system that is drowning in an undertow of fiscal mismanagement. This government has stumbled in the dark for four years and there is still no light at the end of the tunnel for injured workers, employees or employers. You have done too little too late for a system which the management caucus of the PLMAC declared to be technically bankrupt. You have an unfunded liability of $11.5 billion. You have failed to respond to their demand that a financial responsibility framework be established.

This plan is fiscally irresponsible and it puts the future security of benefits for injured workers at grave risk, as well as all future jobs for people in this province. Instead of responding to the concerns, instead of responding to the mismanagement problems, you have deliberately proceeded to place your own political agenda ahead of the interests of the total workers' compensation system.

This province is still suffering today from the consequences of the Liberal Bill 208, which was never analysed and costed, and we still don't know the real financial impact. We do know it has given us the highest assessment rates in all of Canada.

You should have listened to the constructive proposals from the PLMAC management. I want you to know that they do not support this package. It is not the result of joint labour-management agreement, and this government should not be allowed to perpetuate the myth that it is. They feel betrayed by you and by the Premier. The original PLMAC agreement was to cut $3.3 billion off the unfunded liability. What you have done is to cherry-pick off that agreement, and the result has been that you've given $2.6 billion back to labour.

This is a cynical move that demonstrates that this government has no real commitment to cutting the cost of the system. You are not and never were concerned about the future viability of the system or the workers or the employers.

LAND USE PLANNING

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): The Planning Act should provide tools to municipalities to create good planning in the province of Ontario; it should not dictate the end result of planning. Unfortunately, that's what this particular document does. It dictates the ends rather than providing the means to good planning in the province. That is apparent through the fact that municipalities will have to be consistent with the policies of this provincial government. Local autonomy should be permitted to provide good planning.

The environmental policy created in this document takes priority. Again there's no flexibility at the local level. There's a particular concern in rural Ontario with regard to wetlands, with regard to agricultural land. There's a perception that this statement will close down development in rural areas of the province.

Downloading: Not only will new official plans have to be created, in some cases where there are no plans, but municipalities will be required to do more technical studies, get more information from more bureaucrats. Today that process is painfully slow; in the future, it will be even slower.

In rural Ontario there's considerable concern about the ability to sever land. In many cases there may have to be an environmental impact study, at great cost. Local land owners are being treated in the same fashion as major developers through this document.

There has been no cost-benefit analysis. Will this plan provide benefits to the environment? What are the additional costs to municipalities and to property owners in Ontario associated with this plan? The Ontario Chamber of Commerce is most concerned about the cost-benefit analysis.

Three of the existing policies in place today will remain in place, and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has expressed particular concern that they may conflict with the new policies.

Finally, the Toronto Home Builders' Association has pointed out that there is a considerable amount of imprecise wording. Words such as "adverse impact," "every opportunity" and "wellbeing" are in this document. What do they mean? There'll be an endless number of challenges and more cost associated with that kind of wording.

1410

ORAL QUESTIONS

PURCHASE OF LAND

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My first question today is for my favourite minister, fearless Frances, the Minister of Economic Development and Trade, who today will continue to answer for the out-of-town Minister of Environment and Energy. I want to take the Minister of Economic Development back to the Costa Rican rain forest.

Yesterday the taxpayers and the ratepayers of Ontario Hydro I dare say were pleased and I suspect proud to hear Ms Lankin say in this House, in response to a question concerning Ontario Hydro's investigation of taking a part of the Costa Rican rain forest, the following, and I quote her directly on that subject: "I find it astounding that we would be considering, particularly in these times, to spend ratepayers' moneys in that way." Minister, you couldn't have been clearer, and I dare say the people of Ontario agree with you.

At 1 o'clock today, the chairman of Ontario Hydro, Mr Maurice Strong, said that he's running Hydro and he's continuing to investigate that particular option and others.

I ask you, as a minister in the government, is Hydro's adventure in the Costa Rican rain forest dead? If it isn't dead, will you make it dead this day?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I wonder if my favourite member opposite is also directly quoting Mr Strong. I didn't see him read that, and I'm unaware of exactly what Mr Strong has said, except to say that I would agree with him completely that he is running Ontario Hydro.

The member opposite will know that I, out of courtesy yesterday, acting in the absence of the Premier and the Deputy Premier, undertook to respond to their questions, and indicated that the minister responsible was out of town for two days and would be back on Thursday to answer questions directly on this.

I do think that there is an area of controversy emerging. I think it would be respectful of all of us to allow the minister responsible for the portfolio to deal with the question and to respond. I don't retract any of my comments or opinions; they're on the record and I stand by them. But I would suggest to the member that it would be appropriate to stand down further investigation of this matter until the Minister of Environment is here tomorrow to answer your questions directly.

Mr Conway: I repeat that I think the people of Ontario were pleased to hear a senior minister say what she said yesterday, and I agree with her. She's forgetting something that perhaps her colleagues are forgetting. Two years ago, the Rae government amended, by virtue of Bill 118, the Power Corporation Act to give the government a clear directive power to tell Hydro what it ought to do in these kinds of circumstances. You did it; it was your policy, you said because you wanted to make it clear to everyone who's running the show.

Minister, clearly you as a government have the power to direct Hydro to cease and desist from what you rightly called an astounding adventure. Will you do so?

Hon Ms Lankin: My recollection is that the member opposite was deathly opposed to the amendments to the Power Corporation Act and the government taking more control with respect to Ontario Hydro.

While I completely, completely agree with the member with respect to how he has supported me in the comments I've made, and I appreciate that support, I also think, to be fair and respectful, the minister responsible, who has a corporate relationship with Ontario Hydro, will be here tomorrow to answer questions in the House. It would perhaps be overstepping my bounds, as the minister here not responsible, for him today to make a statement with respect to how you invoke that legislation.

I'll be quite honest with the member. In the area in which I work and the portfolios I have responsibility for, I know in great detail the working relationships with the agencies. I'll tell you honestly that I don't have that same working knowledge, and I think the minister responsible should be able to answer, and he will be here tomorrow.

Mr Conway: After the minister's declaration yesterday, Ontario Hydro issued a statement and the chairman confirmed it today. The ratepayers and taxpayers of Ontario Hydro would be interested to know that this adventure in the Costa Rican rain forest is but one of several international sorties that the Ontario utility is examining.

We have the new ads, "The new Ontario Hydro: a global enterprise." We've all seen those new ads: Maurice Strong, like Atlas, holding the world in his hand. The taxpayers of Ontario wonder. We've got a $35-billion debt at the corporation, and now we're going out to buy a piece of the Costa Rican rain forest.

Minister, will you table today a complete list of the other parts of the world in which Ontario Hydro, your Hydro, a Hydro that you control more completely than any government because of what you did with Bill 118, table today or at your very earliest convenience a list of all of the other international adventures, so that the hard-pressed Hydro ratepayers from Beaches to Pembroke, from Shining Tree to Windsor, will understand the imperial ambitions of your new Ontario Hydro?

Hon Ms Lankin: A couple of points in response: I am sure that's not Maurice Strong holding it. I know that picture. That's not Maurice Strong.

Second, I'm glad the member brought up the $35-billion debt his government was directly responsible for creating, with respect to Ontario Hydro, and that he points out the kind of effective leadership we've put in to restructure Ontario Hydro to try and do something about that.

I think the maligning of the head of Ontario Hydro, a very well known and respected environmentalist and corporate leader, is uncalled for in the exchange that's going on here.

The minister responsible will be here tomorrow, can respond to requests for the tabling of information, and I'm sure they'll put the question to him at this time.

I will say, however, as ineffective as pine trees are, given that Hydro has told me that one mahogany tree would be 20 times more effective than 20 pine trees, I still say plant the 20 pine trees in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question.

Mr Conway: Ah, Mr Speaker, what 24 hours did. Yesterday an astounded lion roared and today a mouse retreats. Who would have thought --

The Speaker: A second question, please.

1420

EMERGENCY SERVICES

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): A second question, to the Minister of Health. Minister, you will recall that a few weeks ago you and I had a discussion over a couple of days. You will recall our discussion a couple of weeks ago about ongoing problems with small hospitals in rural Ontario and northern Ontario, in their ability to attract and maintain physicians to support a whole range of their services, including emergency services. At that time, you regrettably reported to the House a couple of weeks ago that eight months after your announcement last summer, you were unfortunately not able to report progress in terms of a new Ontario Medical Association agreement with respect to a new, improved underserviced area program.

In the intervening days, have you had any greater luck in dealing with the very real concern in most of rural and northern Ontario, and if so, can you report any progress on that matter to the House this afternoon?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): What I reported and commented on in response to the member's question some time ago was that our attempt to work in a tripartite way with the Ontario Medical Association, the Ontario Hospital Association and the ministry to resolve a very long-standing issue of coverage by physicians in rural areas had not borne fruit, because the OMA had withdrawn from those tripartite discussions last February.

I am happy to be able to tell him that with respect to some specific localities and some specific hospitals, I think we are making some progress, but I don't have anything of a comprehensive nature at this point to report to the House.

Mr Conway: I want to follow up, because I was talking to one of those hospitals just this morning, and it is a very real problem, particularly as we head into a long weekend and summer. My friend the member for Kenora talks about his situation at Red Lake. We've got the member for Elgin talking about his situation at Four Counties General. I've got a couple of hospitals in the region of Algonquin Park, and they are having real problems.

One of those hospitals got a letter from you yesterday that said the following, and I quote you directly from your letter:

"We would like to encourage the hospital's administrators and the physicians to continue to explore other means of settling issues affecting remuneration for physicians. They could examine alternative payment methods for doctors when they provide medical services through the hospital emergency ward and in the community."

Minister, that one hospital said to me, "We don't know what the minister means." Will you explain yourself to these hospitals?

Hon Mrs Grier: Part of our discussions with the Ontario Medical Association has been attempting to provide payments to physicians on emergency hours in a way that adequately compensates them for being there. What we are hearing from the physicians is that they sometimes, in a small rural hospital, see between only one and five patients over the evening hours or the 12 hours between 6 and 6 in the morning, and because they are paid on the basis of how many people they see, they don't earn enough to warrant being in the emergency rooms. This is really an issue about the doctors who have for years served and covered emergency rooms in hospitals now saying that they don't earn enough, by being there, to warrant continuing that coverage.

What we want to work with them to do is to find a much more sensible and modern way of compensating doctors for their services, by working out a global budget and then allowing the physicians in a hospital to decide whether one would work Monday, one Tuesday, one Thursday. Then they would be sure they had a compensation package that adequately dealt with their needs and was the appropriate remuneration as opposed to being paid, as they traditionally have been, on a piecework basis, that the more people they saw, the more money they earned, and if there weren't emergency cases, they didn't earn enough to warrant, they believe, their time in the emergency room.

Mr Conway: This is very interesting policy, and the 40 or 50 or 60 hospitals serving rural, small-town and northern Ontario are going to be very interested in what the minister just said. What she has said is that her policy is that those hospitals are going to be expected to meet these requirements out of their ever-compressed global budgets. That's what you're telling people, and I want you to be clear, because in Red Lake, in Barry's Bay, in Deep River and in Newbury they want to know what your policy is.

They had expected that, as Minister of Health, you would do something along the lines of what you suggested last summer. You are clearly not willing, or capable, to do that. All right. So am I clear, because the hospitals in those communities need to know, that your effective policy is simply this: In Red Lake, in Barry's Bay, in Wingham and in all those other places, you meet those needs by simply taking the money, whatever you need, in whatever amounts, out of your global budget, notwithstanding the fact that that global budget has been contracted for a whole host of reasons over these past number of years?

Hon Mrs Grier: I gather the member is lately come to this issue and perhaps has not followed the progression of policy of myself and other ministers of Health in saying that we believe there ought to be a better way of compensating physicians, particularly in small rural hospitals. It's happening in Kingston; it's happening in other areas on a broader basis.

To deal with the rural emergency area, what has been happening traditionally is that hospitals have had to do as the member describes and pay from their global budgets for med-emerg or for locums. We believe they ought to be able to have a more global arrangement with their physicians covering all the physicians' service. That's what we were attempting to talk about with the OMA and the OHA as part of dealing with this issue.

We have been unable to come to that agreement. We are talking about it in that sense in Red Lake and in other areas, but until we come to some comprehensive agreements, either on a local basis or over the entire province, hospitals have to have in place contingency plans and ways of meeting those needs themselves, because the Ministry of Health cannot unilaterally say to a doctor, "You will work there, because that's where you're needed." We do not have the power to do that to this particular group of public servants.

PURCHASE OF LAND

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I'm going to have to direct this question to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade -- it's related to Mr Strong's activities -- although I think it would more appropriately go to the Deputy Premier. He may refer it, but I'm going to direct it to him, because this has to do with more significant concerns about the decision, above and beyond the question of it perhaps being a bad spending decision.

Deputy Premier, it's been three days since my colleague from Etobicoke West disclosed an offer by Maurice Strong to purchase a tract of jungle in Costa Rica. Since then, Hydro's explanation of the scheme has been, shall we say, tortured, perhaps even inventive.

Today, the Toronto Sun has disclosed details of Mr Strong's extensive business holdings in Costa Rica. These include a $35-million hotel complex which, according to the Sun, was built illegally on native land. Minister, has anyone in your government raised this issue with Mr Strong, and if so, what can you report to the House on this matter?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier): I'm pleased to be back in the Legislature. I have been travelling the province in the last week, so I was trying to catch up this morning on the whole issue of Ontario Hydro and Costa Rica. I came to the conclusion, after having read the newspaper clippings and having listened to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade in the last few minutes, that the best course of action for me to take would be to indicate to you that the minister will be here tomorrow and will be happy to respond to any questions you might have.

Mr Runciman: The best course of action apparently is to run and hide.

I do have a supplementary. In June 1992, the Costa Rican press indicated that a Mr Alberto Vasquez, who's a director of refuges for the ministry of natural resources in Costa Rica, indicated that he planned to press charges against Mr Strong for illegally building a hotel in a wildlife refuge. I quote, "Mr Strong had absolutely no permits and he hasn't even presented a single document."

In October 1992, after a meeting with Mr Strong, the minister miraculously -- not a civil servant, but the minister -- said, "It's okay; we misread the maps." I have a document here from the Tico Times, dated October 1992, which indicates that Mr Strong has submitted plans for expansion of his hotel complex.

Without responding to the details of the allegations, I'm wondering if you are not, as the Deputy Premier of your government, personally concerned about what appears to be a conflict between the private interests of Mr Strong and his public responsibilities.

Hon Mr Laughren: If there are indeed conflicts between personal interests and corporate responsibilities, of course not only I but the entire government would be concerned. I do not yet, at this time at least, have any information that would indicate that's the case. That's why I think you personally will be better served when you hear from the minister tomorrow.

1430

Mr Runciman: I hope that's indeed the case. I would think certainly, once these concerns are raised, we will have very full and adequate explanations.

We know that Mr Strong has significant business investments in Costa Rica. We know he has run into legal difficulties with a hotel development in Costa Rica. We know he has submitted plans to expand his hotel. We know he has offered the Costa Rican government $12 million of our money and we know Ontario Hydro has a $35-billion debt.

Minister, this raises very, very significant concerns. What's going on? What's the real story? When are you going to intervene and have Mr Strong come forward with a full public explanation?

Hon Mr Laughren: I'd be somewhat cautious, I say to the member from Leeds, in drawing the kinds of conclusions he's drawing in such a categorical way that indicates there is a conflict because Mr Strong has some property in Costa Rica and the fact that Ontario Hydro is looking at the purchase of a portion of rain forest. All I'm saying to the member from Leeds is not to be too categorical until the entire story has been told. The Minister of Environment and Energy will be in the Legislature tomorrow afternoon to respond to questions.

JOBS ONTARIO TRAINING

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I have a question for the Minister of Education and Training. Mr Minister, you're directly responsible for the third-largest budget of any portfolio in the government of Ontario, and that makes you one of the most qualified public officials in the province, I think, to respond to our question.

Let's say that you discover almost 35 cents on every dollar spent on a program in your ministry went to bureaucratic overhead. That's 35% of taxpayer funding which never makes it to the people that use it. I would ask you, Mr Minister, is that to you a benchmark of failure for a government program and, if it is, would you pull the plug on that program?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): Perhaps I should wait to hear what program the member's referring to.

Mrs Cunningham: There are a number of programs, but the minister's right, I am speaking of one specifically today. We believe that any program whose bureaucratic overhead eats up almost 35 cents on every dollar fails the fundamental test of value for money, and so would the public. Yet this is exactly what we found in a recent analysis of your budget of the Jobs Ontario Training scheme, and I'm going to send it over by the page.

By your own numbers, your government spends more than $10,500 for every job created, but the average subsidy to employers is only $7,000. These are numbers that all of the members of this House should memorize: $10,500 on every job created, but $7,000 to the employer.

That means the administrative cost of every job created is more than $3,500, and spread over the full $346-million cost of the program to date, that amounts to $115 million in just one of the Jobs Ontario, that is, the Jobs Ontario Training program: $115 million in overhead alone or almost 35% of the total cost of this Jobs Ontario Training scheme.

On that basis, will you immediately cancel the Jobs Ontario Training scheme on behalf of the angry and totally exhausted taxpayers of this province?

Hon Mr Cooke: What I do know is that the kind of superficial analysis that the member is presenting is simply incorrect. From a first look at this, she's adding everything into what she calls administrative. Pre-employment training, for example, which we provide, you're throwing into the administrative category, which is absolutely wrong. There has to be pre-employment training in order to get people into the workplace.

All I know is that we're approaching 50,000 jobs created under this program. All I know is that we're approaching $200 million in saved or voided welfare costs as a result of this program. All I know is that in another jurisdiction, New Brunswick, where they've tried to provide training programs to get people off social assistance and into the workplace, they're spending between $60,000 and $100,000 per job. That is the kind of examples.

This is a cost-efficient program that is helping thousands of people in the province, no matter how you try to spin it in the opposite direction.

Mrs Cunningham: Mr Minister, everything you talked about is part of the cost of training people for these jobs, so the pre-training you're talking about is part of the job. It is a training job. Don't use that as an excuse. We're talking about administrative costs.

There are a lot of things wrong with your Jobs Ontario Training scheme. It's fallen far short of your own goals, and you know that. There are widespread allegations of fraud and abuse throughout the program. Many believe the scheme simply throws money at employers.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mrs Cunningham: Mr Speaker, I don't think I should have to put up with that crap; I really don't.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. Would the member for Durham East please come to order.

The member has a valid concern about the interjections. I have a valid concern about the unparliamentary language. I would ask that the government members allow the member to pose her question and I would ask the member to withdraw the unparliamentary language and continue with her question.

Mrs Cunningham: Most reluctantly, I will withdraw if you personally feel it's unparliamentary. I think it was a compliment to some of the language that I've had to listen to. I really want you to know that.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the member place her question, please.

Mrs Cunningham: I can't; I'm not going to.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for London North.

Mrs Cunningham: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The minister should know that in spite of his objections there are all kinds of allegations of fraud and abuse. He knows about it; he's investigating these things himself. Many believe the scheme simply throws money at employers who would have created these jobs anyway. That's very important, because then the 35% is more important than anything.

According to the Kitchener-Waterloo Record of April 13, it's even possible for a social assistance recipient to refuse an offer of work from an employer under Jobs Ontario without consequence. I'll send that over to the minister as well.

But these serious flaws, all of them, pale in comparison to its administrative cost, which is, in spite of this kind of language from the minister, 35 cents on the dollar. It can only be described as scandalously high.

Minister, given this latest and most serious disclosure, will you admit that the Jobs Ontario Training jig is up and kill the scheme once and for all?

Hon Mr Cooke: I'll just repeat that the member is entirely wrong. When I look at her sheet, the average training subsidy --

Mrs Cunningham: The sheet was provided by your staff.

Hon Mr Cooke: Now, look, Mr Speaker, she asked our side to be quiet when she was speaking and now she can't keep quiet while I'm trying to answer.

Mrs Cunningham: You're right.

Hon Mr Cooke: The average training subsidy per job, according to the release that the Tories put out, is $7,000. Then she goes on to say that it's a cost of $10,500 per job and therefore the $3,500 must be administrative costs. She's wrong. There is pre-employment training, which is a major and significant component that is not part of the $7,000. The $7,000 is what goes to the employer.

I know that the member talks to my deputy quite often and she seems to be able to trust my deputy. Perhaps she should go spend some time and have the program properly explained to her and get a briefing, so that we can show her clearly that she is totally inaccurate and Tory research has failed again, just as they did on their propaganda called the American Revolution.

1440

FINANCIAL PROCEDURES

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Finance and it has to do with the financial situation in the budget and the Provincial Auditor's comments.

The minister will know that historically the construction spending in this province on our schools and hospitals and sewers and water was reported as an expenditure each year in the deficit. The government has moved to a new way of handling reporting these expenditures and has now got the school boards and the hospitals and the municipalities borrowing the money and the province committing to repaying 100% of that money.

What it means is that five years from now the province will owe $8 billion to these municipalities and these school boards. That's how much the loans will be. They will not be reported as expenditures in the provincial numbers, they will not be shown on the books as part of our budgetary deficit, but the province will owe $8 billion, more than the debt of most of the provinces in this country.

My question is this: The auditor said this is wrong. What possible justification does the province have for running up $8 billion of debt on someone else's books?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): The member chooses to characterize it in a certain way with which I'd like to part company. What is happening is that we are indeed capitalizing or amortizing the cost of these major investments over a longer period of time rather than all up front.

That is the way that it has been done. We didn't invent this way of showing capital expenditures; it has been done in the private sector for years and years and years. It seems to me that when the province is making major investments in the infrastructure of this province that will be investments for competitive purposes and for the quality of life in this province for many years to come, it makes sense to amortize the payment of those expenditures over a period of time.

I'm not sure the member is aware of this, but every year there will be payments made on the principal and interest of those loans. Every year that will be part of the operating expenditures that will be shown in the budget. There's nothing unusual about that. As a matter of fact, I think it's common sense. Other jurisdictions do it and I think it should have been done this way a long time ago in the province of Ontario.

Mr Phillips: The auditor doesn't agree with the minister. The auditor has said you must change the way you're reporting these numbers. The auditor is demanding that. It's one of the reasons why the auditor has indicated that he has severe reservations about the way the books are reported. There is no doubt that in five years we will have hidden debt of $8 billion and in 10 years hidden debt of $14 billion. There's no question about that.

I'll follow up with some specifics from the budget. In the last three years, the minister will know, the cumulative reported deficit was $30 billion. That's in the last three years. But you have actually gone out and borrowed $37 billion. You have actually borrowed $7 billion more than your reported deficits. The minister is shaking his head, but that is the case.

If the budget truly does reflect the financial situation in the province, why is it that the province has had to borrow $7 billion more money than its reported accumulated deficits over the last three years?

Hon Mr Laughren: I guess it's because the member for Scarborough-Agincourt wants to hark back to a different era. I don't know. But it seems to me that when you read the budget, first of all, there's absolutely nothing hidden, and I don't think he does a service to anyone, to the auditor, to himself or to me, when he talks about hidden deficits or hidden debts. There is no such thing as a hidden deficit or a hidden debt. It's all in the budget; it's crystal clear.

As far as the auditor is concerned, I have said to him, in writing and in person, that when the financial statements of this province are brought forward at the end of September this year, as they are in every year, they will comply precisely with what he has requested us to do.

I agree with the auditor on the financial statements of the province, but I would say to the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, to be perfectly clear, that a budget is a government document that lays out the intentions of the government and how it will do that. It is not an audited set of books. The budget never has been and, I suspect, never will be.

The financial statements of the province are the audited financial statements and it is with those statements we've said to the auditor, "We will comply precisely as you request." There has never been a dispute over that except sometimes, I think, in your mind.

PENSION FUNDS

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): My question is to the Chair of Management Board and it concerns the sweetheart pension deal that has been arranged with OPSEU.

In March of last year your ministry assured the non-union members that you would not raid their pension plan. You told the non-union members at that time that, if the plan was split, there would be a valuation that would be performed and that you would consult with the non-union members and mutually agree upon who would perform the valuation. Thirdly, you indicated to them that, prior to doing it, you would receive the consent of the Pension Commission of Ontario.

Minister, I feel that you have violated each one of those assurances that you gave to the non-union members, to the OPP and the non-union members. Would you confirm that that is true and in fact that you sold the non-union members down the river to achieve an extra $350 million to fudge the deficit and to get back into the good graces of OPSEU?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I thank the member for his question, although I would suggest that the member is a bit misled by others in terms of the way he has focused his question.

Firstly, he raised the question about the valuation of the plan. The valuation has been done and has been tabled, the member should know, with the pension commission.

Secondly, the discussions that we've had, both with OPSEU and with other recognized bargaining agents, and the consultations that we've had with those non-bargaining unit persons who are also involved in the public sector plan have made them aware of the valuations and the numbers and the actuarial opinions around the package that was negotiated with OPSEU.

It is my view and it is the view of all of the actuaries who have made formal comment to date, and that includes far more than our own, that the package that was negotiated with OPSEU is a fair one, that the agreement to split the plan was done on a fair basis. From our perspective, those other partners are still at the table, for the most part, with us in discussions around how to handle the rest of the plan.

Mr David Johnson: Part of the question was that you agreed to mutually find and agree upon someone to do the valuation. You haven't addressed that. My understanding is that there was no mutual agreement on who did the valuation, and indeed the non-union members feel that they've been shortchanged to the tune of at least $200 million.

If that's true, this is very shameful and shabby treatment of long-term employees of this provincial government. If somebody with the name of Conrad Black had attempted this kind of manoeuvre, you would be the very first to stand up and bitterly complain about it, but now it's good public policy.

Mr Minister, the problem is that the non-union members' plan has the responsibility for all the current retirees, number one. Number two, the non-members' plan reinvestment rate will be about one third that of OPSEU's.

1450

What I'm going to ask you today is, can you assure all of us that the non-union-members' plan, the OPP's, will not have to incur a heavier contribution rate after 1996, because they're very concerned that the contribution rate is going to go up as a result of your agreement with OPSEU, and can you assure us that the taxpayer --

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

Mr David Johnson: -- is not going to have to pick up the tab for this sweetheart deal?

Hon Mr Charlton: There are three pieces in the member's question that need very carefully to be understood by the member.

First of all, the member has confirmed in his supplementary question that he doesn't understand the process or the issue that's been put to him. The valuation was not done by the government or by the actuaries for OPSEU; the valuation has been done and always has been done by the actuaries for the Ontario Pension Board, and that's the way the process is set out in legislation in this province. So the valuation was not done by the government.

Secondly, with reference to the member's preamble on the imbalance that he sees in the splitting of the plan, all of the actuaries that have reviewed the documents in the valuation done by the actuaries for the Ontario Pension Board and the way that we've used that valuation to split the plan agree that both of the plans are fundamentally viable and will be into the future, that there are no problems with the fairness in terms of the way that we've split the plan. It has been done in a fair and equitable fashion.

FOREST INDUSTRY

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. Minister, I understand that last Friday you were speaking to the people in the community of Sudbury in regard to some plans that you and this government have in regard to forestry policy. I want to bring to you some of the concerns that I've heard within the forestry community.

In the riding of Cochrane South, as you know, forestry plays a very, very significant role in the economy of my region, as it does in yours. You would know, for example, that companies like Abitibi in Iroquois Falls have undergone tremendous change within the industry because of the commodity prices. Newsprint has been low over the past number of years and that company, and many others in pulp and paper have really had to struggle to try to keep their heads above water.

You would also know, quite candidly, that the number of seedling contracts that have gone out from the MNR over the past number of years has been going down because of dwindling funds of the ministry because of a lack of revenue within the treasury of Ontario. Places like Energreen Enterprises in Ramore, Lafleur Gardens in Timmins, and the Millsons have really had to cut back on the amount of work that they're doing within the forests, and that has not only meant hardship for those companies but it also has brought into question some of the difficulty that we have in regard to reforestation.

The question I have is that when the industry is going through such tremendous change as we've seen over the past years because of what's happened in the economy --

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

Mr Bisson: -- and if the Minister of Natural Resources goes into a community to make a statement, many people would get nervous. I would ask the minister if he can clarify to my constituents and the people of Ontario exactly what he's talking about when he's talking about sustainable forestry development.

Hon Howard Hampton (Minister of Natural Resources): The reality is that the forest products industry is going through a period of great change. That's acknowledged everywhere. For example, on the US west coast, over 58 plywood mills have closed down in the last 10 years and a number of sawmills have closed down. Everyone recognizes there are a number of stresses out there. As well, there are pressures from the environmental side to look at our forestry practices more carefully than ever before.

Through our sustainable forestry policy, what we've tried to put together are some opportunities for people across northern and central Ontario to take advantage of markets that are beginning to open, an opportunity to restructure some of the industry, and as well we've tried to look at some of the environmental issues that are out there.

Just recently, the class timber EA reported and it set down a number of terms and conditions and made some recommendations. In my view, the Ministry of Natural Resources is already meeting many of those requirements. We've already started many of the things which the class timber EA sets out, but there are a number of other things that we have to do from here. What we're trying to do is communicate to all the people in northern and central Ontario this need for an environmental balance and a need to take advantage of new economic opportunities.

Mr Bisson: I'm obviously interested in what you have to talk about in regard to new opportunities in the sector because you would know that the company Malette OSB in Timmins has an application now before the Ministry of Natural Resources in order to secure new timber that would become open within our area.

The minister was there back in February, meeting with the people at Malette's. You did a tour with workers at Malette who demonstrated not only the viability but the need of that expansion at that mill, supported by the Timmins Economic Development Corp, the chamber of commerce, the labour council, the mayor of the community and others.

There was supposed to be an announcement on this particular issue back in April. I was expecting it in May some time. I'm just wondering if the minister can declare his hand a little bit at this point and let us know when we can hear some of the good news that we'll hopefully be hearing in the community of Timmins regarding the Malette OSB expansion.

Hon Mr Hampton: It is true that traditionally across northern and central Ontario, we've harvested the coniferous forests -- jack pine, spruce, white pine, red pine -- and we've left behind the hardwood species, principally white birch and poplar. Now, due to changes in market conditions and some new technology, we're able to utilize the poplar and white birch species.

Some of the 58 plywood mills that have closed in the United States have created a real market opening for manufactured wood products and there are a number of companies, both Ontario companies and Canadian companies, that are interested in investing in northern Ontario. We are working with those companies.

We announced a new hardwood specialty mill in Thunder Bay on Monday that will account for approximately 189 new jobs. We estimate that we will see four or five, and possibly more, mills that will deal with these kinds of manufactured wood products, and negotiations are proceeding at this time with a number of proponents.

AGRICULTURAL LABOUR POLICY

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): My question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. In the past few months, I've been speaking to groups of farmers from Northumberland, Norfolk, Middlesex and Quinte and one question seems to keep coming up. They are asking, "Whose idea was it to bring in Bill 91?" Minister, I would like you to answer that question. Who in the agrifood industry and farming community asked for Bill 91, the farm labour bill, and why do you as Agriculture minister feel that it is needed?

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): I think it's important to get it on the record as to why we're doing this. When Bill 40 was brought in, in terms of modernizing the Labour Relations Act in this province, it was noted at that time that agriculture was treated differently in Ontario than it was in most other parts of Canada. In fact, there's only one other province, I believe, at this point in time where agriculture is exempted from labour laws. There was an attempt to bring agriculture under a similar umbrella when it comes to labour relations.

At the same time, it was noted, because of the farm communities' input, that agriculture was somewhat different and needed to be looked at differently. We made a commitment at that time, when we were doing labour relations with Bill 40, that we would look at some separate legislation that would deal with the specifics of agriculture. Farm workers would be allowed to organize, but it would be done in a different fashion than it is in the manufacturing sector. We made a commitment at that time to bring forward legislation that would do that and we are going to do that.

Mrs Fawcett: It's an interesting answer, because you didn't really say who asked for it in the farm community. I was really wanting to get that kind of answer. Who in the farm community asked for Bill 91?

Minister, you are aware, because I believe you were a former teacher, of the government brochures that explain how laws are made. There's that little lightbulb, an idea. An idea for a law has to come and it has to come from somebody somewhere. For Bill 91 there had to have been an idea from someone, somewhere. Farmers say it's not their idea; every farmer I've talked to. In fact, they are calling the office, "This thing is not our idea." Therefore, it's got to be somebody, and really, I didn't hear you say, so maybe you don't know where this originated.

1500

My supplementary to you is, why don't you just ask your cabinet colleague the Minister of Labour to withdraw Bill 91 and put the agricultural exemption clause back into the Ontario Labour Relations Act, or is there some kind of deal here that we just don't know anything about?

Hon Mr Buchanan: The member, I believe, is reporting concerns that she has heard from the farm sector and that's fair game. There is another side to this equation, though, and it's the farm workers who are, in some cases, working on farms in large numbers. They're working in operations, in situations which most of us would not consider really as farms. There are a few operations in this province, four or five in fact, which employ over 100 people, and those aren't really family farms, and those are the kinds of operations this new legislation is expected to include.

The member should note the fact that there is another sector of people involved here, and that's the farm workers. Those people who run around and make claims about the family farm should take note of the fact that if there is a very large commercial operation that employs 50 or 100 people competing with the family farm, this bill will at least entitle the workers to get a reasonable wage through collective bargaining, so that in fact the family farmer can compete with the large commercial operations, which will have to pay a fair, decent wage.

VICTIM FINE SURCHARGE

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): My question is to the Attorney General. You may be aware, or at least Hansard will confirm, that in June 1989 I raised with the then Attorney General of the day, the Liberal government Attorney General, Ian Scott, about the creation of a provincial victims' fine surcharge for Ontario, since many provinces were seeing this as an opportunity to expand services to victims.

Madam Minister, you'd also be aware that in October 1992 on the Focus Ontario show, your government's Attorney General Howard Hampton indicated -- I won't quote the article that reports it, but he was establishing a special provincial fund to collect fines from criminals.

Minister, in London, Ontario, in June 1993 you announced that you were in fact creating a provincial victims' fine surcharge and I quote from your speech, "That the legislation establishing the provincial fine surcharge will be introduced this fall," which would place it in 1993.

Minister, that was about a year ago. Could you please tell the House how much revenue you have raised from a provincial victims' fine surcharge for crime victims in the province of Ontario?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): The member is well aware that the legislation has not yet been introduced. It will be introduced today and we expect that it will have the results we had announced last June and in the budget of last year.

Mr Jackson: Minister, I received a letter from you; it's about the sixth letter I've received from your ministry with you as the minister, trying to track down the federal victims' fine surcharge numbers.

What has come out of a disturbing letter that I received from you is that in 1990-91, when your government assumed office, revenues were about $500,000, a little better than $500,000, and that the last complete year we've collected, or we were eligible to receive, in 1992-93, only $12,000. By your own admission, under your own signature, you indicate that this decline was due to the absence of the creation of a dedicated fund and the absence of a clear policy statement from the provincial government on how to handle these funds.

My question, Minister, is simply this: Given the fact that every province in Canada except Ontario has cooperated with the federal government up until this year to create this fund, and secondly, given that we're one of the last provinces to create a provincial fund, will the minister not admit in this House that probably a more appropriate priority for her government and her ministry in this spring session would be to complete as quickly as possible the legislation to create a victims' provincial fine surcharge infrastructure for crime victims rather than, say, some of the other priorities which you plan to table either today or later this week around additional spousal benefits?

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

Mr Jackson: Could I ask you, Minister, would you not make this a priority for your ministry and for your government in the interests of victims in Ontario?

Hon Mrs Boyd: The two issues are by no means mutually exclusive. I have said to the member that the legislation will be introduced by the Treasurer today. It is a budget measure. It will confirm the move that we have made to set aside a special account to account for the dollars that come in, in terms of both the federal and the new provincial fine surcharge. It is a priority, and we do fully expect to see it operational in this term. That is the action that we will be taking. It has no relationship to any other legislation that may or may not be introduced.

SUMMER EXPERIENCE WAGE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Minister, as you are aware, a large portion of Wentworth North is rural and at this time of year many of the young people in rural areas are looking for jobs. I know that you have recently announced a wage assistance program that's supposed to be of great benefit to both farmers and young people in rural Ontario. However, I am being told that many of these young people must still look to towns and cities for employment when they would prefer to remain close to home and work on local farms. Why is this, Mr Minister? Is the program deficient when it comes to creating jobs, or are Ontarians simply not aware of the composition of this program?

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): The member is quite right. I think it was about a week ago that we announced the summer Experience wage assistance program for youth. It's part of the Jobs Ontario Youth funding that's available. This year, for the agricultural sector and for youth in rural Ontario, we were able to receive $969,000, which is actually almost a doubling of last year's allotment that we received.

This is a program that allows farmers to receive a wage assistance allotment for hiring youth, and I think this is important to provide opportunities for youth in rural areas as well. We know that farmers in the summertime, in harvest season, have opportunities to employ youth, and this will allow them to do so with a program that's quite modest in terms of the amount of money but will provide young people the opportunity to get experience working on a farm.

Mr Abel: I appreciate the comments made by the minister, but I think there's a very important factor that Ontarians should be made aware of, and that is, how can farmers and students alike apply for this program?

Hon Mr Buchanan: For young people who are interested, or indeed for farmers, because we certainly would like farmers to explore the opportunities under this program, they can contact the local office of our ministry or they can contact their local agriculture employment services office, which is also in the phone book, because it's important for farmers to look at this program.

I might add one point which I think is important. Last year, because we had a little less than $500,000, we just made this program available for horticultural farmers, who have a need to hire a lot of people. This year, we've opened the program up so it's available to all farmers across the province, in southern and northern Ontario. So people who are aware of this program and think they may not qualify should take note of the fact that all farmers are eligible and all young people too. We are quite willing to have people from the cities come to the country and work on a farm.

1510

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mr Charles Beer (York-Mackenzie): My question is to the Minister of Finance, sometimes known as the Treasurer. Given the lateness in question period, I hope you'll pardon me if I try to weave a couple of threads together. I know that the Treasurer's been away and so he is in particularly good form.

My question deals with the social contract. Minister, at the time the social contract discussions were completed, it was agreed that there were going to have to be continuing sectoral negotiations, discussions in the key areas such as education, municipal government, health and others. I think there were eight all told.

There have been concerns expressed by a number of people that these negotiations are not in all instances going very well. It is also said -- indeed, you set out in your budget -- that you're somewhere around $600 million short of your targets on the savings from the social contract, so I would think that trying to get those negotiations completed and have all the details worked out and finalized would be very important to you.

Specifically, in the education sector there is concern that the arbitration process is not working very well and that there may be arbitrations going on well beyond the end of the social contract period, April 1, 1996.

My question to the Minister of Finance: Can you give us an update on how you believe the sectoral negotiations are proceeding? Will they be completed by the end of this calendar year? In particular, are you concerned about what is happening in the educational sector and are you going to take steps to make sure all of the outstanding issues are decided upon before April 1, 1996?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I appreciate the question, which is an important one, dealing with the sectoral negotiations. I certainly would hope and anticipate that by the time the Social Contract Act has expired on April 1, 1996, those issues will be resolved. It would be strange indeed for that not to have happened by the time the act expires.

If there are particular problems in any given sector, I would be more than pleased to look into them personally. I know there are delays and there are problems from time to time. It's a very complicated thing to do, to have a Social Contract Act that applies to about 900,000 public servants in the province of Ontario, so I'm not surprised there's the odd glitch in the system. But I would be prepared to inquire into the specific problems raised by the member opposite.

PETITIONS

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we want you to know that we are strenuously objecting to your decision on the firearms acquisition certificate course and examination; and

"Whereas you should have followed the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters' advice and grandfathered those of us who have already taken safety courses and/or hunted for years -- we are not unsafe and we are not criminals; and

"Whereas we should not have to take the time or pay the costs of another course or examination and we should not have to learn about classes of firearms that we have no desire to own;

"We, the undersigned, petition Premier Bob Rae, Solicitor General David Christopherson and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"Change your plans, grandfather responsible firearms owners and hunters and only require future first-time gun purchasers to take the new federal firearms safety course or examination."

Mr Speaker, I have attached my name to that petition as well.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): It's hard to be seen with all these people standing in the way around here.

This is an important petition and it is signed by people from Markham, Unionville, Maple. If more people had time to sign, they would, because people are very concerned about the same-sex issue. I am pleased to attach my name to it.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas traditional family values" --

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): Here it is.

Mr Cousens: You know, if you don't have those values, then that's another thing.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Order, please. The member for Markham.

Mr Cousens: "Whereas traditional family values that recognize marriage as a union between a man and a woman are under attack by Liberal MPP Tim Murphy in his private member's bill and supported by the Liberal leader, Lyn McLeod; and

"Whereas this bill would compromise the whole understanding of marriage; and

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

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

"Whereas this bill" --

Interjection.

Mr Cousens: I'm sorry. Mr Speaker, I ask for that to be withdrawn. That is not right for someone to start calling me that in this House. I challenge this. Mr Speaker, I was just called a hypocrite by that member over there and I will not tolerate that.

The Acting Speaker: Order. There are many, many conversations. The Speaker did not hear the interjection. If someone has something to withdraw, please do it now.

Mr Cousens: Mrs Coppen called me a hypocrite.

Hon Shirley Coppen (Minister without Portfolio in Culture, Tourism and Recreation): I withdraw it.

Mr Cousens: If that's the way they're going to win the battle, by calling people names rather than dealing with the issues, there's a battle to confront in the province of Ontario, and I'll be fighting it.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Markham, we're on petitions.

Mr Cousens: "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 the families in Ontario."

I affix my name to this bill.

TOBACCO PACKAGING

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): "Whereas more than 13,000 Ontarians die each year from tobacco use; and

"Whereas Bill 119, Ontario's tobacco strategy legislation, is currently being considered by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario; and

"Whereas Bill 119 contains the provision that the government of Ontario reserves the right to regulate the labelling, colouring, lettering, script, size of writing or markings and other decorative elements of cigarette packaging; and

"Whereas independent studies have proven that tobacco packaging is a contributing factor leading to the use of tobacco products by young people; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario has expressed its desire to work multilaterally with the federal government and the other provinces rather than act on its own to implement plain packaging of tobacco products; and

"Whereas the existing free flow of goods across interprovincial boundaries makes a national plain packaging strategy the most efficient method of protecting the Canadian public;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, hereby petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"That the government of Ontario continue to work with and pressure the government of Canada to introduce and enforce legislation calling for plain packaging of tobacco products at the national level."

I have signed my name to this petition.

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): I have a petition signed by a number of people, including constituents of mine such as Edward Love, Penny Thompson and Bruce Roberts, to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario in support of plain packaging of tobacco products. It talks about Bill 119. I affix my signature in support of the petition.

Mr John Sola (Mississauga East): I also have a petition in support of plain packaging identical to the phraseology that was just used. I just want to table it.

NATIVE HUNTING AND FISHING

Mr Chris Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): I have a petition signed by dozens of people from Ontario. It's to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas in 1923 seven Ontario bands signed the Williams Treaty, which guaranteed native people would fish and hunt according to provincial and federal conservation laws like everyone else; and

"Whereas the bands were paid the 1993 equivalent of $20 million; and

"Whereas the treaty was upheld by Ontario's highest court last year; and

"Whereas Bob Rae is not enforcing existing laws which prohibit native peoples from hunting and fishing out of season; and

"Whereas this will put at risk an already pressured part of Ontario's natural environment,

"We, the undersigned, adamantly demand that the government honour the principles of fish and wildlife conservation to respect our native and non-native ancestors and respect the Williams Treaty."

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): I have a petition signed by many hundreds of residents of Ontario, people from Toronto, North York, Mississauga, Guelph, Tilbury, Grimsby, Caledon East, Clarksburg, Georgetown, Acton; indeed, I could go on and on. They're all friends of the Niagara Escarpment.

"We, the friends of the Niagara Escarpment, wholeheartedly support Noel Duignan's private member's Bill 62, An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act in respect of the Niagara Escarpment."

As you can already figure out, Mr Speaker, I gladly affix my signature to the petition.

1520

GAMBLING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has traditionally had a commitment to family life and quality of life for all the citizens of Ontario; and

"Whereas families are made more emotionally and economically vulnerable by the operation of various gaming and gambling ventures; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario has had a historical concern for the poor in society, who are particularly at risk each time the practice of gambling is expanded; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario has in the past vociferously opposed the raising of moneys for the state through gambling; and

"Whereas the citizens of Ontario have not been consulted regarding the introduction of legalized gambling casinos despite the fact that such a decision is a significant change of government policy and was never part of the mandate given to the government by the people of Ontario,

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

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establishing gambling casinos by regulation and that appropriate legislation be introduced into the assembly along with a process which includes significant opportunities for public consultation and full public hearings as a means of allowing the citizens of Ontario to express themselves on this new and questionable initiative."

I affix my signature to this petition as I am in full agreement with it.

CAPITAL FUNDING FOR SCHOOLS

Ms Zanana L. Akande (St Andrew-St Patrick): "Whereas Loretto College school, a secondary school within the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Separate School Board, is presently forced to divide its staff, students and resources between two inadequate facilities, some 1.5 kilometres apart, and to require said staff and students to commute between these two facilities, sometimes as frequently as three times a day; and

"Whereas Loretto College school has provided excellent education opportunities for young women, despite obstacles, in downtown Toronto since 1915; and

"Whereas Loretto College school is now ranked number one on the capital expenditure forecast submitted to the Ministry of Education for the province of Ontario by the Metropolitan Separate School Board,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to introduce a bill giving the Metropolitan Separate School Board a capital grant for the purchase of land and for the building of a new secondary school facility for Loretto College school, thereby ensuring the continued provision of quality education to the future leaders of our province."

It is signed by students as well as parents and community leaders, and I affix my signature.

GAMBLING

Mr Charles Beer (York-Mackenzie): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has traditionally had a commitment to family life and quality of life for all the citizens of Ontario; and

"Whereas families are made more emotionally and economically vulnerable by the operation of various gaming and gambling ventures; and

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has had a historical concern for the poor in society, who are particularly at risk each time the practice of gambling is expanded; and

"Whereas the New Democratic Party has in the past vociferously opposed the raising of moneys for the state through gambling; and

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

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos by regulation and that appropriate legislation be introduced into the assembly along with a process which includes significant opportunities for public consultation and full public hearings as a means of allowing the citizens of Ontario to express themselves on this new and questionable initiative."

This petition is signed by several hundred representatives from the province, and I affix my signature to it.

EMERGENCY SERVICES

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition from Middlesex county constituents who utilize emergency services at Four Counties General Hospital in Newbury. Unlike some members who talk about Newbury, I have been there. Approximately 16,000 people depend upon the services of Four Counties General Hospital, and they respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly to call upon the Ministry of Health and the Ontario Medical Association to resolve the issue of 24-hour emergency medical coverage in rural emergency departments across the province and to ensure that rural residents have the adequate emergency care to which they are most certainly entitled.

I have signed my name to this petition.

SALE OF AMMUNITION

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario from a number of residents of Ontario. It reads as follows:

"Whereas it is imperative that we make our streets safe for law-abiding citizens; and

"Whereas any person in Ontario can freely purchase ammunition even though they do not hold a valid permit to own a firearm; and

"Whereas crimes of violence where firearms are used have risen at an alarming rate; and

"Whereas we must do everything within our power to prevent illegal firearms from being used for criminal purposes;

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

"To immediately pass Liberal Bob Chiarelli's private member's bill, Bill 151, to prohibit the sale of ammunition to any person who does not hold a valid firearms acquisition certificate or Ontario Outdoors Card."

I affix my signature to this, as I agree with it.

MOTORCYCLE AND SNOWMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we, the undersigned, are of the opinion that private insurance companies are exploiting Ontario motorcyclists and snowmobile operators by charging excessive rates for coverage or by outright refusing to provide coverage; and

"Whereas we, the undersigned, understand that those insurance companies that do specialize in motorcycle insurance will only insure riders with four or more years of riding experience or are outright refusing to insure riders who drive certain models of supersport bikes; and

"Whereas we, the undersigned, believe this situation will cost hundreds of jobs at dealerships and in the motorcycle industry and is contrary to the rights of motorcyclists and snowmobile operators;

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

"That the government of Ontario should study the feasibility of launching public motorcycle and snowmobile insurance."

I will affix my signature, Mr Speaker.

TOBACCO PACKAGING

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I have a petition signed by several of my constituents from places like Pembroke, Petawawa and Beachburg, which reads in part:

"Whereas more than 13,000 Ontarians die each year from tobacco use; and

"Whereas Bill 119, Ontario's tobacco strategy legislation, is currently being considered by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, hereby do petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas we want you to know that we are strenuously objecting to your decision on the firearms acquisition certificate course and examination; and

"Whereas you should have followed the OFAH advice and grandfathered those of us who have already taken safety courses and/or hunted for years -- we are not unsafe and we are not criminals; and

"Whereas we should not have to take the time or pay the costs of another course or examination and we should not have to learn about classes of firearms that we have no desire to own;

"We, the undersigned, petition Premier Bob Rae, Solicitor General David Christopherson and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"Change your plans, grandfather responsible firearms owners and hunters and only require future first-time gun purchasers to take the new federal firearms safety course or examination."

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr Beer from the standing committee on social development presented the committee's report on dialysis treatment in Ontario and moved the adoption of its recommendations.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Does the member wish to make a brief statement?

Mr Charles Beer (York-Mackenzie): Mr Speaker, I move the adjournment of the debate.

The Acting Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

1530

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Ms Haeck 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 Pr90, An Act to revive Wordz Process Corporation Ltd.

Bill Pr96, An Act to revive The Hamilton and Region Arts Council.

Your committee begs to report the following bill, as amended:

Bill Pr53, An Act to revive The Canneto Society Inc.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TOWN OF PICTON ACT, 1994

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

Bill Pr112, An Act respecting the Town of Picton.

COUNTY OF BRUCE ACT, 1994

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

Bill Pr115, An Act respecting the County of Bruce.

BUDGET MEASURES ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 SUR LES MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES

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

Bill 160, An Act to amend certain Acts to provide for certain Measures referred to in the 1993 Budget and for other Measures referred to in the 1994 Budget and to make amendments to the Health Insurance Act respecting the Collection and Disclosure of Personal Information / Projet de loi 160, Loi modifiant des lois pour prévoir certaines mesures mentionnées dans le budget de 1993 et d'autres mesures mentionnées dans le budget de 1994 et modifiant la Loi sur l'assurance-santé en ce qui concerne la collecte et la divulgation de renseignements personnels.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare the motion carried.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): Very briefly, the Budget Measures Act, 1994, includes a number of amendments to existing acts, and initiatives to implement proposals in the 1994 Ontario budget. Let me briefly highlight some of the key measures in this act.

Our amendments to the Employer Health Tax Act will provide an important incentive for employers to hire.

Through the Ontario Public Service Employees Union Pension Act, 1994, we will establish a separate pension plan for union members.

Our access-to-capital plan will accomplish two goals: (1) making it easier for small and medium-sized businesses and co-ops to grow, thrive and create jobs, and (2) increasing investment opportunities for loan and trust companies and labour-sponsored investment funds.

REVENUE AND LIQUOR LICENCE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT DIVERSES LOIS FISCALES ET LA LOI SUR LES PERMIS D'ALCOOL

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

Bill 161, An Act to amend various Taxation Statutes administered by the Minister of Finance and to amend the Liquor Licence Act / Projet de loi 161, Loi modifiant diverses lois fiscales appliquées par le ministre des Finances et modifiant la Loi sur les permis d'alcool.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare the motion carried.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): This Revenue and Liquor Licence Statute Law Amendment Act puts into effect proposals contained in the government's 1993 budget.

A major part of this bill was originally introduced in November 1993 as Bill 127. This bill also contains amendments to the Liquor Licence Act to combat the smuggling of alcohol. The amendments will increase maximum fines, create a new offence for the illegal possession of liquor, including smuggled liquor, and strengthen investigation powers.

Other amendments include a reduction in tobacco taxes, announced earlier this year, and a change to the Fuel Tax Act to cancel the refund of tax paid on clear fuel for off-road unlicensed use.

The bill also formalizes this government's intention to join the international fuel tax agreement, or IFTA, in January 1996.

PLANNING AND MUNICIPAL STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE L'AMÉNAGEMENT DU TERRITOIRE ET LES MUNICIPALITÉS

On motion by Mr Philip, the following bill was introduced for first reading:

Bill 163, An Act to revise the Ontario Planning and Development Act and the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, to amend the Planning Act and the Municipal Act and to amend other statutes related to planning and municipal matters / Projet de loi 163, Loi révisant la Loi sur la planification et l'aménagement du territoire de l'Ontario, la Loi sur les conflits d'intérêts municipaux, et modifiant la Loi sur l'aménagement du territoire et à la Loi sur les municipalités et modifiant d'autres lois touchant des questions relatives à l'aménagement et aux municipalités.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare the motion carried.

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I made a lengthy statement earlier today, so I'll be brief. I hereby introduce for first reading a bill to amend several acts, among them the Planning Act, the Municipal Act, the Ontario Municipal Board Act, the Ontario Planning and Development Act, and to create a local government disclosure of interest act.

Today's legislation sets the government's initiatives to reform and streamline the planning and development system, to give municipalities greater authority and accountability, and to provide better environment protection on land use matters.

CITY OF TORONTO ACT, 1994

On motion by Ms Akande, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill Pr79, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

1540

WORKERS' COMPENSATION AND OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL ET LA LOI SUR LA SANTÉ ET LA SÉCURITÉ AU TRAVAIL

On motion by Mr Mackenzie, the following bill was introduced for first reading:

Bill 165, An Act to amend the Workers' Compensation Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Act / Projet de loi 165, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les accidents du travail et la Loi sur la santé et la sécurité au travail.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare the motion carried.

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): This is clear indication that we intend to move on an issue that the other two parties have not done in 15 or 20 years.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

AGRICULTURAL LABOUR RELATIONS ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL DANS L'AGRICULTURE

Mr Mackenzie moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 91, An Act respecting Labour Relations in the Agricultural Industry / Projet de loi 91, Loi concernant les relations de travail dans l'industrie agricole.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Mr Mackenzie has moved second reading of Bill 91. Would the honourable minister have some opening comments?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): The development of this bill has been an exercise in consultation and consensus involving the government, the industry and its workers over the last four years. All parties agree it is time for a system of labour relations in the province's agricultural sector.

Members may recall that the bill was drafted on the basis of a consensus among a task force of key labour and farm groups. This task force was formed by the government in recognition of the unique characteristics of the agricultural sector.

The original bill, introduced last July, not only prohibited the right to strike or lockout, but it has a provision ensuring that collective agreements could not prevent family members from working on the farm. The bill also included a unique provision setting up a labour-management committee to advise the government of labour relations reforms and educational programs for this important sector.

Over the past 10 months, the farm industry and labour groups have given further consideration to Bill 91. Their representatives on the newly established Agricultural Labour Management Advisory Committee, ALMAC, have been looking at ways to amend and improve the bill. They have made a number of recommendations which the government is going to incorporate into the bill.

The most important of these recommendations include a clear understanding that the Agricultural Labour Relations Act is separate and distinct from the Ontario Labour Relations Act; amending the preamble to recognize the distinctive features of the agricultural sector; the creation of an expert agricultural division of the Ontario Labour Relations Board to adjudicate disputes in the agricultural sector; and an extension of the review period of the dispute settlement mechanism to five years from three.

I am pleased to advise this House that in a letter dated April 15, 1994, the Labour Issues Coordinating Committee, which represents more than 35 agricultural groups, strongly supported the ALMAC report:

"ALMAC's recommendations build upon the work of the previous agricultural labour relations task forces and, if successfully translated into legislative form, would establish a satisfactorily separate and effective labour relations framework for the agricultural industry."

Bill 91 is now ready for second reading. It will give farm workers rights and opportunities that their counterparts in several other provinces have enjoyed for years, and it will do so in a way that is agreeable to all parties. Workers gain rights and benefits that have been long denied, farm owners are protected against work stoppages, and there will be virtually no impact on the historical independence and character of the family farm.

I want to congratulate and thank the task force and ALMAC members for all the work they have put into fashioning a labour relations package that is reasonable and workable, and I urge this House to give its speedy approval to this important bill.

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I am pleased to participate in this debate. The Agriculture minister has said that legislation currently before the House, Bill 91, will, and I quote, "make sure that there are not animals left untended or food rotting in the fields." This is a direct excerpt from the Financial Post, dated March 23, 1994.

I agree that those two purposes are worthwhile and laudable. However, the majority of people, farmers and otherwise, including myself, do not believe that to be the full intent of Bill 91. In my travels, I cannot find anyone supporting this bill except the Minister of Labour.

To start, the full title of the bill is An Act respecting Labour Relations in the Agriculture Industry. Traditionally, agriculture has been exempt from the Labour Relations Act -- that is, until the union-fest came to roost. Now the province's 18,000 year-round employees, and perhaps somewhere down the road its 14,000 seasonal workers, stand to be unionized by this NDP government.

Farmers want strong organizations, and they do have, with community involvement. They do not want Bill 91. If we as consumers and farmers have managed to exist so long without this legislation, we should ask, why is it necessary now, and what do farmers have to say about it?

Tom Corbett, executive director of Ontarians for Responsible Government Coalition, has said: "Who wants the legislation? The farmers don't want it. The farm workers don't want it. It's an attempt by Bob Rae to appease unions he has already alienated."

Ian McRae, a grain and beef farmer in the Woodstock area, has been quoted as saying: "We will be forced to pay wages we can't afford. It will put the prices of our products up and make us uncompetitive."

I believe Vince Speziali of Bruce county said, "Basically, what it amounts to is, the union hall is going to dictate what farmers can do and can't do," when they already have weather conditions and competitors to deal with.

The member for Oxford has apparently said that Bill 91 will recognize the rights of farm workers to collective bargaining. Well, that is the real purpose of the bill. It is about unionizing, not the safety of animals and food safety.

1550

The member for Oxford apparently also said that Bill 91 will have a minimal impact on the family farm.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Good member he is, too.

Mr Cleary: I see I've got an audience over there -- a few; three or four.

I say, wake up. You can't alter the foundation of agriculture and not expect change. I can't believe the difference in the attitudes of this member for Oxford, this NDP member, and the former member for Oxford. The former member for Oxford was concerned about his farmers and his agricultural people.

The member for Huron, who also serves as a parliamentary assistant to the Agriculture minister, is quoted as saying, "The flap may be overblown because Bill 91 is intended mainly for corporate agriculture workers and an advisory panel with farm groups on it is helping legislators iron out some areas of concern."

Perhaps the member for Huron also needs a wake-up call. Is he aware that this very committee wrote to the Labour minister to indicate its disappointment that "Bill 91 failed to translate the committee's consensus on a number of critical points"?

Right now, we are waiting for additional input from the committee as well as other agricultural organizations on the NDP's recent attempt to appease unions and farmers. I am not certain if they are satisfied with the motions made by the Labour minister last week.

I do know, however, that Joe Colasanti told a Windsor Star reporter, "Bob Rae thinks he's going to make farmers' lives better." Can you believe it? He says, "That's baloney," and I agree. "These people are going to be out of a job."

Mr Bisson: Do you know baloney comes from farms?

Mr Cleary: Some of your people don't know that.

In the same article, cash cropper Don Ferguson said: "It's just going to eliminate jobs. Larger farms won't be able to afford the higher wages. They will have to bring in machines to do the work."

Another Essex area farmer said: "We'll have to guarantee labourers their pay, but who's going to guarantee our pay? This bill is going to discourage people from going into farming." I agree. We sure have that problem right now, with the falling prices, the weather conditions and now your labour legislation.

On that note, I was told last month by an agricultural marketing board, which wished to remain nameless, that it would like to construct a new processing plant here in Ontario, but due to NDP regulations and legislation, it does not want to proceed with plans in this province. They said very clearly they would like to proceed with this plant but they were looking at the United States and then would return the finished product to Ontario.

To me, this screams volumes. We have an Ontario-based marketing board eager to construct a plant in the United States to process commodities grown here in Ontario, simply because it is afraid of the NDP government and its job-killing and restrictive labour legislation agenda.

Down my way, the president of the Seaway Valley Farmers Energy Co-op, Bud Atkins, told me that he thinks, "Farmers cannot afford labour legislation and that if Bill 91 goes through as is, there will be a lot less people working on farms." Williamstown cash cropper Robert Smith said, "Unionizing the farm is not the answer."

On the other side of the fence, some farmers do admit that while Bill 91 is full of holes, it is not entirely without merit. They acknowledge that employees deserve rights too, but at the same time these very people have said that labour relations have to work both ways and be positive for both the employer and the employee.

I am afraid, however, that Bill 91 will not be good for farmers. There's already plenty of evidence this government is not interested in agricultural and rural Ontario. The most recent and glaring illustration has to be the 1994-95 provincial budget, which saw the NDP slash funding to agriculture once again.

Essentially, Premier Bob Rae and Finance Minister Laughren stole another $34 million from the farmers. The budget reveals that the NDP plans to spend $34 million less on rural initiatives in this fiscal year, and it reduced funding by $31 million last year. A two-year cutback of $65 million is offensive, particularly as it cannot be explained away as an overall government cutback.

What's worse, many people have suggested the $65-million figure is actually much higher, but with the NDP creative accounting method it is difficult to unearth an absolutely correct figure. Over all, I believe the agriculture budget has been reduced by more than $80 million --

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): Say it again and say it's not so.

Mr Cleary: That is $80 million since the Liberals were in office.

Interestingly enough, however, while the NDP hasn't any more money for rural Ontario, it increased spending on its own Management Board of Cabinet, government administration, by $17 million. Can you believe that? The problem is that we only have four or five NDP members in the House at this time to listen to this. So much for the gospel on restraint.

Throughout the budget, Finance Minister Laughren did not say any of the words central to our provincial economy such as "farms," "agriculture" or "rural Ontario." Instead we heard many references to subways, highways and urban centres. The government seems to think the province revolves around Toronto.

Even with the release of estimates, we have no idea where the Agriculture minister and the Minister of Finance or Premier Bob Rae intend to make the cuts. All we know is that another $34 million have been slashed and farmers can expect to feel more pain.

Also, earlier this year the Agriculture and Food minister broadened the mandate of the ministry to include Rural Affairs. It is incredible. He supposedly intends to take on more responsibility with less money. In itself, the new division will be consuming part of the existing and shrinking Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

On May 11 a news release revealed that the minister will be hiring yet another assistant deputy minister. I can't help but wonder how many more civil servants will be hired to work for this new administration. Hopefully, we'll be able to watch the magic being weaved over at 801 Bay Street as the minister accommodates more farmers with less money. I fear, however, that what we might really see is an exercise in hiring additional staff in Toronto, repainting the ministry signs and ordering new letterhead.

1600

Another example that cuts home to my riding is the government's outright refusal to consider several rural initiatives that many are concerned about involving livestock and farm exhibitions. Time and time again I have implored the government to consider these private investor proposals which would reopen provincial parks that have been lying dormant. Farmers wanted to invest money and create a small zoo, but then again they were up against more labour legislation problems and have gotten discouraged. These proposals would benefit rural Ontario and tourism, but this government refuses to allow private enterprise an opportunity to improve our economy and to create jobs.

The government's track record on labour legislation has been miserable. There is not a business person in this province who is not familiar with this NDP government's Bill 40, which provides unions with more power and limits the ability of business to survive in the face of labour disputes.

I fear it is exactly this type of legislation that we find under Bill 91. It is an extension of Bill 40 on to the farmers. Just as I was opposed to Bill 40 as a general labour relations act, I am also opposed to Bill 91. The fact that the Labour minister is shouldering Bill 91 and not the Agriculture minister is quick evidence that Bill 91 is watered-down Bill 40 labour relations for farmers.

Farmers are used to strong organizations for their community, but they do not want Bill 91. Clearly, the major thrust and purpose of Bill 91 is to allow unionization and all of its trappings on to the family farm.

I am not certain why the NDP feels a need to unionize the farm, but the facts and the legislation are clear, and I find it disturbing. Is the Minister of Labour as well as the Minister of Agriculture not aware that agriculture is a time- and seasonal-conscious industry? Crops do not stop growing and animals do not stop eating because of a labour dispute, either on or off the farm. Everyone knows that work stoppages can quickly ruin entire crops, hurt livestock and ruin entire family operations -- everyone except this Labour minister, that is, and perhaps even the Minister of Agriculture, who is allowing the legislation to run haphazardly through our farm fields.

Since introducing Bill 91, the Labour minister said, "I don't admit to be any expert at all in terms of farm products, farm production and farm operations."

Well, Minister, you need not have made this confession. Introducing Bill 91 in itself reveals your ignorance of the agriculture industry.

Bill 91 is a direct attack on the traditional farm in Ontario. The key word that this government seems to be missing is "family." They don't understand what a family is. Farm operations often rely on aunts and uncles, children, nieces and nephews, mothers- and fathers-in-law, husbands and wives, and probably neighbours who help out. Unfortunately, the Labour minister sees these people not as family members but as a bargaining unit, which is totally wrong. Farmers want a strong organization, not Bill 91.

The first draft of Bill 91, introduced last July 29, was an affront to farmers and the Agricultural Labour Relations Task Force that supplied the minister with input and directions on what agriculture needs in terms of labour legislation. The first draft was completely unacceptable.

Since then our leader, Lyn McLeod, our caucus colleagues and I have called on the Labour minister as well as the Agriculture minister to demand that the bill either be totally rewritten or have massive amendments.

Just four days ago, I received copies of a few motions that the minister says he will eventually add to this flawed Bill 91. My caucus has reviewed those amendments and, while some are positive, we are not convinced that they will meet the needs of the farming community. We have talked to many people in the last few days, and none of them seem to be satisfied.

Frankly, the Bill 91 before us today is the exact same Bill 91 that was brought before us last July. The problems that existed with the bill then are the very same problems with us today.

Even though the minister may have floated a couple of motions and suggested that he will add them to Bill 91, this has not yet been done. In fact, many concerned parties say that the minister released the motions last week simply to calm opposition and divert attention from the offensive provisions of the bill.

But to use an old cliché, "Talk is cheap." The Minister of Labour and the Minister of Agriculture and Food -- and Rural Affairs, I must put in -- and even the Premier may have all talked about making a commitment to agriculture, but they have failed to actually demonstrate that commitment.

Again, I point to the 1993, 1994 and 1995 budgets as clear evidence that the NDP government does not care about rural Ontario. I wonder about the Common Sense Revolution, if they care about rural Ontario too when they talk about all the boundary changes that they will do and make larger rural areas. That's where our agricultural communities are.

At the very best, Bill 91 can be described as a framework upon which to work and improve. But it would seem that this government would be better to focus on many other problems they created for our economy, for small business and even for farmers before they proceed with this legislation. They should be concentrating on fixing the broken things. This government would have a full-time job.

I realize that some of the labour legislation may benefit some farmers and may even assist some farm operations. Nevertheless, this particular piece of legislation will not be beneficial to the farmers. Bill 91 will add more regulations to an already overregulated industry that is barely getting by economically. I heard one of the ministers stand in the House yesterday and say they were cutting through red tape. This will not assist in that way.

1610

In my opinion, we should return to a clean, clear, complete exemption for agriculture from the Labour Relations Act. However, if farmers, farm groups and the Labour Issues Coordinating Committee are truly convinced that the province needs some form of Agricultural Labour Relations Act, then I would be willing to work towards that end.

They say this will not affect the family farm. This is so far from the truth, because many of our repair shops, our fertilizer dealers and our suppliers will be affected by this legislation. If they're affected, the family farm is affected in the way they deliver the needs to and from the farm.

We have many cash crop people who are very concerned about this. They only have a certain length of time to harvest their fruit and their vegetables, and I can see a lot of disasters happening if this legislation is passed.

Today my colleague the member for Northumberland asked the minister a question in the House. I listened very carefully, but I never heard an answer when he was asked, "Who asked for this legislation?" I think it's very important that we find out who asked for this legislation, who wanted it and how they're going to handle it once it's in place.

This bill before us right now, however, is not acceptable to me. It is not acceptable to the farm community. If someone had told me many years ago that agriculture would be unionized in the 1990s, I would have said that was impossible, and here we are, standing here today. Something has worked so well for so many years and gone through so many challenging times, and yet this NDP government has brought this bill before the House. I know many of the NDP members across the floor. I'm sure their farmers and their agricultural communities have the same concerns we do.

We've heard about weather conditions. We've heard drought, we've heard wet weather, we've heard everything, and then to throw this legislation on top of that is, I think, unacceptable. It is unfair to the agricultural community.

Anyway, my mind is made up and my colleague's mind is made up. We thought we might have a chance today when the minister was asked a question. If we had gotten a half-decent answer out of him, we might have considered some of this, but he skirted the issue. We are very disappointed and we will not be supporting the bill.

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): Mr Speaker, I understand that we should have asked at the beginning, before the speeches started, that the time be split between the two co-critics for Agriculture.

The Acting Speaker: Do we have agreement to split the time with the co-critics for Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs? Agreed. You have an agreement.

Interjection.

Mrs Fawcett: The time, sir. The time will be split.

I want to first congratulate my co-critic for his fine speech and fine thoughts on Bill 91, the farm labour bill.

I would like to open my remarks today by quoting Mr Jim Tunney, a lifetime dairy farmer from my riding of Northumberland. One week ago today, Mr Tunney was at a public meeting held in my riding where our leader, Lyn McLeod, and approximately 25 local residents and I sat at a round table discussion to discuss Bill 91, An Act respecting Labour Relations in the Agriculture Industry. Mr Tunney's question was very profound, very straightforward, and one that certainly bears repeating. He asked, "Who in the farming community requested this bill?"

That is a question for which I have been able to find no answer. Certainly, as my colleague said, when I asked the question of the minister, it would almost seem that he didn't have an answer either. It seems to be other than farm-driven, if we could just say that much about it.

We certainly know why this bill is before us today. It is here because the NDP government, in its previous attempts to kill jobs in Ontario, amended the Ontario Labour Relations Act under Bill 40. One of those changes was to remove the long-standing agricultural exemption. Of course, when they did that, all those involved in the agrifood business, including family farms, had absolutely no protection whatsoever.

Holding this over the farmers' heads, the Minister of Labour said he would set up a task force upon whose recommendations he would draft legislation to protect the agrifood industry. Of course, if they didn't come forward with something, there would be no exemption at all.

Mr Tunney asks, "Who in the farming community requested this bill?" The simple answer is that nobody in the farming community requested the bill. But they are extremely worried that if they don't support or even show some concern for Bill 91 -- they don't want to support Bill 91. They don't want it; they don't think they need it; they just want their old exemption back in the Labour Relations Act. But they are really concerned that it's the worst of a horrible situation and that they therefore have to kind of look at it.

The bill really is totally driven by the NDP government's ideological bent that would see it try and unionize the family farm and, by so doing, jeopardize -- really, really jeopardize -- every farming operation in this province.

Another participant at that forum was Ron Knight of Knight's Appleden, a large producer and exporter of apples in Northumberland county. He was most upset with this legislation and wonders how his operation can compete against the giant United Food and Commercial Workers International Union should they put on an organizing drive at his operation. He wonders if the NDP government had any idea what this legislation could do to his family's operation. He runs a good operation; he is a fair employer. He knows that if he doesn't treat his workers fairly, they'll be gone. He needs for his operation good people, so he treats them well.

1620

I really believe that this legislation isn't for farmers; this is only to somehow feed somebody in Labour's ego. It's almost 1940s legislation in the 1990s.

It's a known fact that in jurisdictions across Canada, the right of farm employees to organize and collectively bargain has not been widely used. Even those jurisdictions that have this legislation don't use it. The proportion of the total agricultural workforce that is unionized nationally is only 4.7%. Obviously, farm workers do not see the need for this right, and certainly we in this party do not believe it is necessary.

Bill 91 should be withdrawn and the agricultural exemption restored in the Labour Relations Act. The NDP government really, I believe, doesn't have any idea what this or in some ways any other piece of legislation does to rural communities or how it affects family farms.

A good example of this is what I witnessed last year with the Employment Equity Act and its particular ramifications to apple growers in our area and other areas around Ontario. Last fall, when I was sitting on the committee studying Bill 79, the Employment Equity Act, I put forward an amendment that would give farmers an exemption for the seasonal offshore labour they use. The government members failed to even comprehend the situation in the Georgian Bay area, for instance, where over 800 such workers are sent to them through a federal arrangement. They failed to realize that the apple grower has no say in who is sent.

After the committee, I spoke to the Minister of Ag and Food, who seemed totally unaware of the ramifications. His response was: "I think we can handle that in the regulations. We'll do something in the regulations. Keep in touch with my PA, Paul Klopp, the member for Huron. I think he will be handling that." When I spoke to that member the next day, his response was more or less the same: "Yes, I think we're going to handle that. We'll look after that. The regulations will look after that, so just stay calm and everything will be okay."

Bill 79 came in and then went. I haven't seen any regulations. I don't know whether there are any regulations. We certainly haven't been made aware of any regulations to address the seasonal workers who come in from offshore. I still haven't seen a regulation. It's so typical of this government. Yet the minister stands today and promotes this Bill 91, saying: "We've got these amendments and we're going to address all those problems. Just trust us, just put your faith in us. When you see these amendments, everything's going to be looked after."

It's hard to take to heart what the minister says. They don't really understand rural Ontario and, quite frankly, I wonder if they care. I hope they do, but I have to wonder if they really care. Their ideological bent on issues, especially labour issues, precludes the family farm in rural communities.

When it comes to government policy, we in Northumberland county, like I'm sure many people in rural communities right across Ontario, get the distinct impression from Bob Rae's NDP government, and I've said this before, that the Toronto tail is always wagging the Ontario dog. They fail to realize that every decision they make, every program they initiate, every policy they decree, can and does affect rural communities and farm families.

There appears to be no one at the cabinet table or, I wonder sometimes, indeed in the NDP caucus who really is there for rural Ontario and is asking the important questions for rural Ontario, questions like: Is this legislation really going to work in areas where public transportation doesn't exist, for instance? Can it work where there's little or no infrastructure? Will it work where the delivery of services depends solely on the willingness of volunteers?

Here again, in this labour bill as a sort of attachment -- so far it's just an attachment to the main Bill 40. We're promised it's going to be separated. I really hope it is, although I wish they'd withdraw it. Is this really necessary in rural Ontario?

We feel that in an environment of declining primary resource prices, declining manufacturing employment and diminishing provincial financial resources for services, rural communities are becoming justifiably more critical of how government policy impacts their areas. It is incumbent on us, the legislators, to develop and present rural policy that addresses the broadening range of needs of rural communities.

In fact, the rapidly changing nature of rural communities puts a premium on rural policy development, and I continue to believe that rural areas are demanding a part of the policy. They need a special part of any policy that really treats their needs. General policy doesn't any longer fit. As my leader, Lyn McLeod, continues to say, one size doesn't fit all. In the future, I strongly believe policy should and must have a rural component.

We need to think about rural Ontario in health, we need to think about a rural component in economic development policy, a rural component in the planning policy -- we've got announcements today by the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and I hope he really was looking outside the parameters of Metro Toronto and to the rural areas -- a rural component in child care policy, and so it goes on.

Rural communities will not be, nor should they be, content to sit back and wait for someone in Queen's Park to deliver this policy. They're going to want an active voice in its development and implementation, and this will require a far more proactive policy for rural Ontario than has been exemplified by this NDP government so far.

But far from consulting with rural Ontario, I wonder if the NDP ministers even talk to one another. Did the Minister of Labour really consult with the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs? Even better, had the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs told the Minister of Labour about the structure of the agricultural labour market, together with the sensitivities of the sector, like perishability -- foods rot, and they need to be dealt with when they're ready -- and animal welfare, as animals must be cared for every day, and low incomes and global competition, another factor, he would know agriculture deserves, in fact cries out for, a different treatment in the labour relations context.

Is anybody in your government talking to each other? Is there anyone at the cabinet table for rural Ontario?

But the Minister of Labour didn't even have to talk to his colleagues, which I'm assuming he didn't. All he had to do was read the two reports and the background studies prepared by his Task Force on Agricultural Labour Relations. There was a comprehensive study done, and the background studies were excellent, by this task force on labour relations.

1630

There is no evidence, when you look at the bill that was drafted, that he had done that. However, the public is becoming far too familiar with these NDP tactics of co-opting the stakeholders by pretending to consult and then just slamming down legislation which only reflects their own ideological bent. If the stakeholders cry foul, just tell them you will cover it in the regulations and throughout the process hold the ever-threatening government stick to their heads. You just cannot continue to do that with the province's second-leading industry. There will be revolts in the streets, and in fact I think we have seen signs of that already.

The realities are that the ongoing structural change in Ontario agriculture has had a profound impact on rural Ontario. The rationalization of agriculture, which can be attributed to a wide number of factors, including high interests rates in the 1980s, low commodity prices, increasing input costs, trade issues and falling market share, has affected the economic and social fabric of many rural communities. Now these attempts to unionize the family farm only further erode the social fabric in rural Ontario and are really in direct conflict with the farmers I talk to.

As I've said before, and despite these current trends, Ontario still has the largest and most diversified agricultural industry in Canada. Ontario is the largest crop-producing province, based on cash receipts, and it is the second-largest producer of livestock and livestock products. This doesn't mean that the NDP government can sink its teeth into these industries and extract the union dues. The farmers cannot bear the added burden of union costs, and certainly the consumer has made it known loud and clear that they're not about to tolerate any price increases.

The vast majority of farms employ fewer than five employees. A substantial portion of these employees are seasonal. The seasonality of employment in agriculture, as well as the prominence of casual and offshore labour, suggests that the composition of the appropriate agricultural bargaining unit is a significant one, and I think the key word here is "appropriate." It's not something that should be dealt with later in regulations, as this bill would suggest, or even amendments. We are promised amendments that are going to make everybody happy. Boy, I hope it's true.

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): They're going to be there.

Mrs Fawcett: The minister is saying that they're going to be there. I hope so. I have them, but I think there are a few missing. Interestingly, when we tried to get hold of some of the farm organizations, they weren't even sure that they were happy with them yet, because of course they hadn't had time to go over them with a fine-tooth comb. But no doubt we will be hearing whether or not these amendments are going to do the trick.

I don't think these family farms really should be expected to battle giant union organizing drives put on by the United Food and Commercial Workers, which has far more resources and money. It would really be the giant union swallowing the tiny family farm.

But perhaps the most significant thing about this piece of legislation is not what is in it, but what isn't in it yet. Here I am referring to a comprehensive and flexible definition of agriculture, and I notice that there is an attempt to define "agriculture" in these proposed amendments that, hopefully, will be put forward some time later in committee.

They've certainly tried to cover, and hopefully they have covered, all the parameters of agriculture. Someone asked me, and I hope there will be an answer to this question, is deer farming included in "livestock"? There didn't seem to be a reference to that, and there are deer farmers out there who will be very concerned about that.

The NDP will tell you that it they have this definition for agriculture, and if we just look at that and vote for these amendments, everything in the bill will be rectified. As far as I'm concerned, so far these are just more NDP promises of what it will do when this bill gets to committee.

I don't need to tell anybody in this House or indeed in our province what NDP promises mean. In a lot of cases, they mean absolutely nothing. Just ask the students in our province, who were promised the elimination of tuition fees and now have seen them increase 42% under this NDP government. Ask the union leaders of the province, who have seen their right to collective bargaining vanish with the implementation of Bob Rae's social contract. Ask even the previous NDP supporter Dennis Drainville, who has seen this government institute casino gambling, once something very much against anything they would ever think of. I could go on and on with the litany of broken promises and false hopes that Bob Rae's NDP government has raised.

If I were to judge the NDP government's commitment to agriculture, you only have to look at the last three budgets. Over the last three years, funding for the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, and now Rural Affairs, has dropped. My figures in adding it up, especially using the estimates that came this week -- it's pretty close to a whopping $100 million it has dropped by over the three years. This is a disgrace, for something as important as agriculture, the second-leading industry in our province, that this is what this government considers. They drop their funding by $100 million.

What kind of message does that send out to Ontario's second-leading industry that is responsible for one in five jobs in Ontario? We have these wonderful promises of all the jobs that are going to be created, yet nothing is being done to help agriculture and all the jobs that are related to agriculture.

It's interesting that in the estimates book, it says, "The purpose of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs is to enhance the ability of the agriculture and food industry to effectively provide a viable and sustainable environment for the provision of competitive quality products and services."

I wonder what Bill 91 has to do with that purpose of Agriculture. I wish I could understand how Bill 91 is going to assist this government in seeing the purpose it has stated here come to fruition. It just doesn't make sense to me, where there are so many other areas they could be addressing, like research and development in agriculture, like the programs to help farmers.

Farmers don't want handouts. They just need help at a certain time, to get them over humps before they realize their crops or whatever, and there are so many ways this government might have brought forward legislation to assist farmers. I think they've missed a real golden opportunity here in this session, because if this is the only bill that's coming forward from Agriculture in this spring session, then it really concerns me. I think it just sends out the wrong signal to the agricultural community.

1640

At the same time that this government has increased overall spending, including double-digit increases to the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Citizenship, this particular bill, as it stands right now, is in itself evidence of how the NDP government has failed to listen to the agrifood community. It would have been, I think, just as easy to stabilize the funding to Agriculture if not even raise it a little, rather than some of the ministries that did seem to find favour in this particular budget we just were given.

I think when the government first started talking about its labour reforms after taking office, it made clear that it intended to remove the traditional protections family farmers had from labour disputes. The NDP planned to simply eliminate the agriculture exemption from the OLRA and subject farmers to the same provisions as all other businesses were to face. However, thank goodness, the farm groups across the province made it loud and clear to the Minister of Labour that this would seriously jeopardize and hurt the agricultural industry, and so, in January 1992, the Minister of Labour agreed to an agricultural labour task force to quell the growing protest in the farm community.

This task force was given the mandate to study the unique nature of agriculture in relation to labour reform. The task force was comprised of three representatives of farm employers, two representatives from organized labour, one representative of farm workers and two staff from the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Agriculture and Food who acted as the co-chairs.

This, to me, was a good task force, well represented, all parties, all the stakeholders there. At the time, the minister even said, "We want the task force to look at a wide variety of options, particularly the inclusion under the OLRA of factory-like agricultural operations, but certainly not the family farm."

The NDP led farmers to believe that the report of the task force would be used as input into the changes planned under Bill 40. Unfortunately, the Minister of Labour went ahead and introduced Bill 40 before the task force report was finished. In fact, the final work of the task force, including its specific recommendations for agriculture, was not released until the fall of 1992.

With Bill 40, the NDP removed the agricultural exemption that had been there for years to protect the farmers, and this was removed from the OLRA, removing all protections for farmers. This action was nothing less than a threat designed to intimidate farm groups into agreeing to the reforms under the work of the task force. Farmers were now dependent on the NDP bringing in additional legislation to protect them.

The task force ended up recommending a number of specific measures designed to protect the agricultural industry and the family farm, such as preventing strike action, separate legislation instead of amendments to the OLRA and exempting family members from collective bargaining. Many individuals and farm groups worked long and hard to ensure that the task force provided a reasonable framework of recommendations in the face of the NDP ultimatums for reform and in the face of the reality that the exemption for agriculture was removed under Bill 40.

I want to emphasize my support for the difficult work done by farm leaders in the work of the task force. Although there were only farm representatives on the task force, farm leaders across the province worked through the Labour Issues Coordinating Committee to ensure that the farm task force members had input from right across the industry.

Those working on the issue did not have an easy task, to be sure. Faced with the reality that the NDP would not budge from its ideological agenda to bring farm workers under the Labour Relations Act, farm leaders across the province were successful in drafting recommendations that met the NDP's demands and yet gave that important protection to the family farm.

What is unfortunate is that the NDP would put the farmers into this kind of defensive position in the first place. What is unfortunate too is that at a time when agriculture is facing serious financial problems, when farmers are struggling to survive, the main priority of the NDP was to bring farmers under the OLRA. The NDP's agenda did nothing to help the real problems of farmers.

After months of delay, the government finally brought forward its promised implementation of the labour task force's recommendations under Bill 91. These were brought in just last summer, just before the House recessed.

Unfortunately, Bill 91 is not what the task force recommended. One wonders, why didn't the minister at that time recognize the hard work done by the task force? Why, all of a sudden now, is he promising, "Oh well, we're going to make the amendments"? Why didn't he just do it when the bill came out?

Mr Cleary: Promises, promises.

Mrs Fawcett: I know, I know. They make these promises. If we had to have this bill at all, then why didn't they do it right in the first place?

Farm groups, under the continuing work of the Labour Issues Coordinating Committee, sent the bill out for a detailed legal review and found 11 major areas where Bill 91 fails to live up to the spirit and work of the task force recommendations.

On November 9, 1993, Grant Smith of the Ontario Milk Marketing Board and chair of the Labour Issues Coordinating Committee sent a letter to the Minister of Labour which reads in part as follows:

"The Labour Issues Coordinating Committee was extremely disappointed to find that Bill 91 failed to translate into statutory form the consensus developed by the Agricultural Labour Relations Task Force on a number of critical points."

When we first asked the Minister of Labour to explain this last fall, he denied that the bill differed from the task force report and said the legislation was supported by all the involved farm groups.

Since that time, the tune has been changed, and the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the Christian Farmers Federation, the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers' Association and other commodity groups have tried to get the NDP to understand that Bill 91 is not what they expected, is not what they wanted and is fatally flawed.

At the beginning of this session we put the issue to the Minister of Labour again. This time the minister promised he would fix what he sees as some "minor housekeeping" issues in Bill 91. Well, maybe he thinks 11 problems, 11 recommendations, are just "minor housekeeping," but I think there were real serious flaws and certainly the farm community would agree.

Today the minister is definitely trying to tell us that all is well, and we can trust the amendments that he is proposing and this is going to fix all the worries of those in the farm community.

Mr Cleary: They didn't understand their questions.

Mrs Fawcett: But no, they didn't seem to understand the question that I asked today. Either that, or maybe they understood it all too well and didn't have an answer, or the answer that they wanted to give as to whose idea this whole thing is.

1650

The minister wonders why the opposition doesn't trust his handling of the issue. The reason is that the trust was broken when the farmers saw Bill 91. We have learned that the minister's words can't be trusted and therefore we need to see specific amendments that fix the structural flaws in this bill, if indeed we must go through with it. I can tell you that we in the Liberal caucus will indeed have specific amendments when this bill reaches the committee stage, if and when the government does bring it forward.

It's interesting when you look at the recommendations. I might just take time to put some of these on the record because I really believe that these recommendations are very important. Every one of them is important, and I am only hoping that the amendments address all of the concerns in here.

The first recommendation is the failure to create a sufficiently separate statutory framework. Now, the minister did mention, and I believe I heard him correctly when he said that it is going to be separate, but I guess seeing is believing and I will wait to really see this amendment put forward in committee and then see if indeed this is what the farm community wants.

The task force recommended that the creation of a separate statute for the agricultural sector, to be called the agriculture labour relations act, is necessary. The task force noted the unique characteristics of the agricultural industry, including "seasonality, climate sensitivity, time sensitivity, supply management and the need for maintenance of continuous processes to ensure the survival of animals and produce."

Because of this, the task force said agriculture deserves a "distinct regulatory framework for the sector because it, in effect, creates a different kind of labour relations system."

However, Bill 91 creates no new legislation. It simply amends the existing Labour Relations Act which covers all other employers in the province. The problem is that, where agriculture provisions are silent or are not actually in conflict with the Labour Relations Act, the Labour Relations Act provisions will prevail. This does little to give consideration to the special characteristics of agriculture, as desired by the task force.

In the ministry news release, Bill 91 is described as a "new act." This was obviously a smokescreen to hide the NDP's broken promise.

The second recommendation is the failure to create a sufficiently separate administrative body. The task force recommended that a special agriculture labour relations board be created to review issues and disputes and which would recognize the unique nature of agriculture.

However, Bill 91 sends agriculture issues to the existing Ontario Labour Relations Board, covering all employers. I am sure they are fine people, I am sure they are knowledgeable people, but are they knowledgeable about agriculture? We need someone on that group who understands the uniqueness of agriculture.

The legislation prescribes setting up an agricultural division of the labour relations board, and I hope that the minister has taken this to heart. Bill 91 does not even ensure that the labour relations board panel dealing with agricultural issues be composed from the farming industry.

Number 3 was the failure to emphasize the unique nature of agriculture. The task force recommended that the legislation should recognize the unique nature of agriculture in the preamble. The preamble of Bill 91 says only that there are "certain unique characteristics" to agriculture. It does specify what these characteristics may be, but we would like it to really be more specific. We want it to mention climatic conditions, seasonal variations and the perishability of produce and livestock. Those really spell out the uniqueness of agriculture so that there is no mistake, because sometimes in disputes and things, these things can get lost. The intent is lost if it is not there in black and white.

Number 4 was the failure to prescribe a comprehensive and flexible definition of "agriculture." In reading over the amendments, I see, and I said this before, that there has been an attempt to define agriculture. I'm happy to see that and I really hope this is going to cover everything and be something that the farm community is happy about.

Number 5 was the failure to prohibit strikes. The task force recognized that any work stoppages in the agricultural industry would be catastrophic and only agreed to extending collective bargaining if there was an absolute restriction on the right to strike. Although Bill 91 says, "No employee shall strike or threaten a strike," there are no provisions to prevent this from happening by prescribing a penalty against strike action.

Most legislation contains specific penalties for contravening important provisions. Bill 91 does not. It may be days before an illegal strike action is resolved, with no compensation to the farmer and no penalty for those involved in a work stoppage. We know that the perishability of crops and the need to have animals looked after daily is most important.

Even work slowdowns are of real concern, because when the crop is ready, sometimes it has to be overtime work to get the crop out of the field and into the markets or into the processing plants immediately. The consumer demands and will not buy unless the quality is there, and anyone involved with farming knows that the quality is a tricky thing to maintain in produce. That certainly is a real concern that we hope will be addressed.

Number 6 is the failure to provide an adequate dispute resolution system. The task force recommended a carefully structured 120-day process of negotiation, mediation and arbitration to resolve disputes. The minister did make mention of that today, and I do hope, when I get a chance to really analyse the amendments, that it is what the task force asked for.

Bill 91 makes some changes to the recommended process, including following the generic Labour Relations Act role of an arbitrator who can review, discuss and mediate a broad range of issues instead of the recommended "selector" position, which would simply decide between final offers. Farmers are concerned that mediation leads too often to compromise-based wage increases, a process many farmers can't afford to participate in.

Number 7 is the failure to implement specialized services and education support. The task force recommended a number of provisions designed to help the industry cope with the new labour responsibilities. These included the establishment of a labour-management advisory committee to monitor the implementation of the legislation and to provide education and training on labour issues. Bill 91, however, only provides discretion for the minister to appoint a committee to advise the minister, not the industry. So I hope something there will be changed to address the industry's concerns.

1700

Number 8 was the failure to exempt family members, and this one really received some thought and real discussion in the farm community. The task force recommended that the legislation contain specific provisions to exempt farm family members from being subject to collective agreements. Bill 91 only provides an exemption for the immediate family, defined as a spouse, child, sibling or parent. Especially now, many family farms, where groups have gone together to make the whole operation viable, involve extended families like cousins, aunts and uncles and in-laws. Bill 91 does not exempt these family workers from having to participate in collective bargaining and union membership.

Number 9 was failure to exclude seasonal workers. The task force recommended separate regulations be developed to cover seasonal workers at a later time. The task force defined "seasonal workers" to include any workers employed for less than the entire year. Bill 91 makes it unclear as to whether certain workers will be classified as seasonal or part-time. There's a big difference there. While seasonal workers' ability to organize would be delayed until some future date, part-time workers would be allowed to participate in the union organizations of other full-time employees. So there could be some confusion there. I know certainly in my riding we have a lot of seasonal workers in the fall when crops are being harvested.

Number 10 is failure to exempt some share-growers. The task force recommended that share-growers be exempted from the legislation. While Bill 91 provides a general exemption of share-growers, it does allow a process to protest whether a share-grower is an employee and thereby to demand that they be included under the legislation. I hope we can really define this and get something there that will appease everyone.

Number 11 is failure to specify appropriate access to farm property during a labour dispute. The task force recommended that access to farm properties for organizing purposes be limited to protect the health and sanitary conditions of the livestock or produce at the farm operation. This recognizes that many farms have disease-control procedures which restrict access to certain areas to control disease. Bill 91 talks about health and safety provisions in a manner which seems to refer to employees, not to livestock and crops. We certainly hope this is an area that has been carefully looked at in these amendments when this bill goes to committee, because again it could be catastrophic to lose a whole herd or to lose crops and so on just because, due to a dispute, people are not allowed access to the farm.

As we think about all of those recommendations the task force made, which in Bill 91 as it stands now were not really addressed, let us hope that in this time that has elapsed since Bill 91 had first reading, the minister and his staff, in conjunction with the Minister of Agriculture, have really looked very, very carefully at the farm needs and the whole issue.

Number one, of course, with us is whether it's needed or not, but it would seem that it's going to go forward. Let us hope the amendments the minister is promising will really go forward and address all of the concerns that have been put forward by the task force.

I have to come back to the round table discussion I attended last Wednesday with my leader. Farmers there are still very bewildered. They really do not see the need for this legislation, but they know that if this bill doesn't go forward, they need the farm part of the Labour Relations Act, the exemption for the farmers, put back in. But if that's not going to happen, then they say, "I guess we have to make sure that somehow we can get 91 to reflect the farm community."

I know farmers always attempt to treat their workers fairly. I think they realize that it is important for them to have good workers, people who know what they're doing and they realize that those people have to be paid a reasonable wage if they're going to keep them.

I'm sure the member for Huron, if he has to hire somebody on his farm, knows he can't hire just anybody. He has to get somebody who knows what they're doing; otherwise it could be a disastrous loss for him. Times are tough enough in the farming community.

I have a suggestion; I want to put it forward for sure because certainly as Bill 91 is right now, as my colleague has stated, we in our caucus will be voting against this bill because we do not feel it is necessary. We really want the best for our farmers and for our farm community. We don't feel that the minister has really addressed the problems. Rather than waving his amendments around, rather than altering the priority list to satisfy farmers so you can go to the polls this August, rather than trying to amend this fatally flawed piece of legislation, you really can have a very easy solution: Make one amendment to the Labour Relations Act that would restore the traditional agricultural exemption. This is what the farmers and the agrifood industry truly want and it is truly what they deserve.

I wish both ministers, the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs and the Minister of Labour, would really think seriously about that amendment rather than this Bill 91.

Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): To the Liberal Party: It reminded me of the stable funding legislation. I think you just took out the words "stable funding" and put in these words. I think they were proven somewhat wrong; that is working very well.

The fact of the matter is, the labour issue has been around for many governments, and some people have said to me that we really need to get this addressed because many times the farm organizations have been accused in this province wrongly, I would suggest, about labour issues.

Many people have said, "Bravo; your government has taken it on." In fact, the minister said very clearly at the beginning when he was talking about the original Bill 40 that he asked the farm community to come together and they did reach a consensus to move on as long as it's separate legislation, as long as their rights are going to be looked at openly. That was a commitment that was made and that commitment has been followed through.

1710

I can honestly say that we have worked very hard with the farm community, with labour and the farm businesses, and in fact the people who have been on the committee that worked on this were farm people who really had a vested interest in this. It wasn't like a farmer like Paul Klopp, who farms by himself, and his family, which is what they're trying to allude to that this is going to attack, which is wrong. It was people who are in the apple industry and who are in the tobacco industry and who have a lot of employees. They were the ones who came forth with recommendations.

Everyone knows that when the first bill is read there are usually lots of amendments. To have only 11 amendments, proposals to change, is, to me, quite good. Then the Minister of Labour went on with those farmers and that farm committee and has worked with those amendments. Because of process, I understand, they're not officially tabled until second reading is complete. That's fine. We know that. The farm community knows that.

This bill is about offering some rights. A farmer told me the other day: "This is like our opportunity to have supply management. It doesn't mean I'm going to have supply management, but there's a right for me to have a right." This is all what this bill is about: a right.

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): I am pleased to comment on the participation of my colleagues from the Liberal Party. The member for Northumberland mentioned something to the effect that when the Liberal leader and she herself met with some people last week, the people they met with were quite confused.

Maybe I can explain that, because I think the Liberal Party at one point said that labour reform was on its agenda had it stayed in power. Maybe the time that this government brought it in wasn't quite the right time, but indeed labour reform -- they didn't say whether they were going to exempt agriculture, except when this bill was initially brought in the Liberal Party was kind of waffling on it. They didn't say they would repeal it. I thought we were quite clear on the fact that it's an addendum to Bill 40. If the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario ever came to power, Bill 40 and Bill 91, which are effectively twins, would be repealed; completely repealed. There are no ifs, ands or buts.

So I think I understand a bit why the people in Northumberland had some problem in accepting just the confusion a bit, because I remember that the Liberal Labour critic when the bill was initially brought in -- and we'd discussed it before -- was questioning a number of things, but at no point did he say he was going to oppose it or support it.

I know the Liberals brought in their own private day of opposition and it surrounded this because they were trying at that point to make the very point that we had made initially. I've noticed that the Liberal Party quite recently is saying, "Me too," to a lot of things that have come forth from task forces from the Progressive Conservative Party, and I understand that because we've been out there listening to the people and we indeed put forth what the people suggested to us. I think I understand.

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): I listened with interest to both members from the Liberal caucus who ventured into the fray around this bill, but I have to concur with the member from Huron: This is not a surprise to anyone here. This has been something that's been long discussed in this place.

What does concern me, however, and what I felt I should remark upon, particularly to the member for Cornwall, is that in his remarks he ignores, I believe, some of the very important initiatives that the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs has undertaken across this province.

If I may refer again to a question put forward by the member for Wentworth North just this afternoon to the minister with regard to youth employment, at least 1,000 young people will be employed across this province through funding from OMAF. In his own region, as a result of funding from this government, we're talking about corn producers who are going to be able to see their produce made into ethanol. We're talking about a recent announcement in my own riding on what we had talked about for some years, conservation easement, something they probably had the opportunity to do but didn't do. It's called the Niagara tender fruit lands program. That's over $18 million that this ministry is putting for the use of farmers in my area, to protect agricultural land, to make sure those farmers are able to continue to farm, something I'm sorry the member did not mention, as he should have.

I know the minister, in my discussions on behalf of farmers in my own area, has looked at the issues of safety nets and negotiating with the federal government, so I wish he would remark on those issues when he responds.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): The member's time has expired. We have time for one more question or comment.

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): In response to my colleagues from Cornwall and Northumberland, they mentioned about the background studies. One of the things that's quite clear in here, when they're talking about where this legislation came from, is right at the very beginning where it states that right now in Canada, the only province that is excluded after we do this legislation will be Alberta. So this didn't come out of the blue. Even in the United States, where there is no federal jurisdiction under labour relations, half the states have taken it upon themselves to bring in some form of agricultural labour relations. So this didn't just come out of the blue; this is being done everywhere. It just seems like Ontario has been hesitant and has held back and now we're finally catching up.

As for the amendments which have been handed out to my colleagues from all of the caucuses, there are 26 amendments. While some of them are just housekeeping ones, most of them are very substantive and do answer the 11 or 12 questions that have been raised by the task force. I think once we get into committee of the whole or committee, whichever we decide to do, you'll find that these will all be put forward by the government and they'll address most of the problems.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Northumberland or the member for Cornwall has two minutes to respond.

Mr Cleary: I would like to thank members on all sides of the House for their comments. I think there may be a bit of a misunderstanding. What the member for S-D-G & East Grenville mentioned about the former Liberal's labour agenda, I seem to have missed that part of it. I don't recall anything, and my colleague from Northumberland says the same.

I would just like to comment on what the member for St Catharines-Brock had said, that we as the Liberal Party are very concerned about the cutbacks that the Ministry of Agriculture is facing and we're concerned about where that money is going: into other boards and commissions of this government. We feel that agriculture and rural Ontario need to have more say in the rural areas. We don't need any more say here in Toronto on some of the issues.

I know some of the members had mentioned about the 20-some amendments. We're concerned about those amendments, because I don't think they address the issues that we would like addressed. The other thing we're concerned about is the family farm and what relatives are allowed to work on that family farm.

These are issues that I hope we can deal with when it goes to committee.

Mr Villeneuve: I too relish the opportunity of participating in the debate this afternoon. It's a debate that I thought and hoped would not come to pass, because Bill 91 and agriculture have to this point been exempt from any labour laws, and I think that's the way it should be. However, this government saw fit to bring in some major labour reforms known as Bill 40, and this is simply an addendum or an add-on to Bill 40, called Bill 91.

There will be some 25 amendments, I believe, and some of those amendments are striking out areas that are within the bill. I appreciate that. It's too bad they didn't strike out the entire bill. That would have been a lot more reasonable.

1720

I'll read you one amendment. It's the very first one and it's in the preamble. It goes like this: "It is in the public interest to extend collective bargaining rights to employees and employers in the agriculture and horticulture industries."

I don't know who coined that one, but I have to totally disagree. It is not in the public interest. Quite obviously, someone has seen fit to include a preamble. Where they would get the notion that it is in the public interest to extend collective bargaining rights to employees and employers in the agriculture and horticulture industries is scary.

Agriculture and food, my colleagues in the Liberal Party say, is the second-most-important industry in Ontario. I have to differ with them. I always have. It is the most important industry anywhere in Ontario. We're all consumers of the product. We export it. We export it by the millions of dollars. It is the most important. We can do without our cars and we can do without our televisions, but we won't go very long without food. Some of us maybe partake of that good thing too much, but that's beside the point.

I've been in this Legislature now for 10 years and Mike Harris and my party have been saying, "Look, we don't need this." There used to be a Liberal member who sat here; he came from Owen Sound. He had a great saying. It goes like this, and it's not unparliamentary because it's been said in here before: "You can take a horse to drink but you can't make him water." Well, this is what we've got with this government here. They are bound and determined to bring upon agriculture something that's not needed, and to bring a preamble that says it's in the public interest. I don't understand that.

The second paragraph makes a little more sense; however, if the first paragraph wasn't there, we wouldn't have this bill. It says: "However, the agriculture and horticulture industries have certain unique characteristics that must be considered in extending those rights. Those unique characteristics include seasonal production, climate sensitivity, time sensitivity, the perishable nature of agricultural and horticultural products, and the need for maintenance of continuous processes to ensure the care and survival of animal and plant life."

They're opposing statements. One of them says it's in the public interest to extend collective bargaining to what's been described below. It makes no sense, because collective bargaining is a major, major problem at times, whenever we have opinions that do not agree. So I have great problems with that.

The other problem I have is that we now have the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs -- and I agree with that; that's the way it should be. However, we have the Minister of Natural Resources telling us what a farmer is, we now have the Minister of Labour telling us what a farmer is, and we will probably have a number of other ministers telling us what in their opinion a farmer is. Yet where is the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs in all this? They have a designation of what a farmer is, what a farmer traditionally has been. We have ministries that are not involved in agriculture, food production or rural affairs telling us who we are or what we should be. That doesn't make sense.

Again, it states here that it's in the public interest to extend collective bargaining rights to employees and employers in agriculture. I don't know where they got this.

There's a package of 25 amendments. When a bill comes to this Legislature -- and I think Bill 105, which wound up being Bill 42, is a prime example. Bill 105, which was stable funding, was unworkable. It was put together by a group of bureaucrats who really didn't understand agriculture at all. The minister did the right thing: He withdrew Bill 105 and replaced it with Bill 102.

We're bordering on the same kind of situation here, where we have 25 major amendments to a piece of legislation that is in second reading. To have that many amendments effectively changes the whole context, the whole gist of the bill. I would say to the Minister of Labour and to the Minister of Agriculture primarily that indeed this should be considered and maybe we should rewrite this bill again, because you're wiping out entire sections here. "The government recommends voting against section 10 of the bill." Period. That's an amendment. That was a section that was put in there. There's a whole bunch of these. "The government recommends voting against section 8 of the bill." Doesn't that give you an inkling that there's a major problem? "The government recommends voting against section 6 of the bill."

The Ontario Progressive Conservative Party says, "Let's not go around taking little chunks and pieces out of it; let's just do away with Bill 91 altogether, solve the problem, rip it up." However, I don't think it'll happen, because this government is bound and bent on its social agenda, and the food-producing sector is going to be unionized one way or another. Again I repeat that we as a party, should we ever have the privilege of being the government of this province at some future time, would repeal both Bills 40 and 91 without equivocation.

Ontario agriculture is not accepting this bill willingly. It's being forced on our food production sector, which has been under attack for 10 years, but particularly since this urban-oriented government came to Queen's Park in 1990. I'm going to quote some figures that my friends across the way may not like, but they're accurate. I double-checked them.

The Ministry of Agriculture and Food has, since 1990, suffered an 18% reduction in the actual funding, based on total government funding available. At the same time, government spending went up by 6%. So you reduce one ministry by 18% and you increase your overall spending by 6%. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that Agriculture and Food is not a very high priority of this government at this time. It's fairly simple.

We're down to 82% of what the funding was, based on the total government spending in 1990. But what's even more disturbing is that many of the good programs that had been part of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs over a number of years have been allowed to run out and have not been replaced -- the land stewardship program, as an example. That was an excellent program. An NDP government which had always prided itself on being very, very high on land stewardship, which is conservation, which is environmentally friendly, let that program run out. They froze the farm tax rebate. Taxes are going up, yet the farm tax rebate has been frozen. The beef improvement program was eliminated. The dairy inspection branch of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs has been cut by two thirds.

The other thing that worries me: I come from that area south of Ottawa, and Ottawa has a National Hockey League team. We're proud of them even if they don't win very many games. What can I tell you?

Mr Cooper: Except against Montreal.

Mr Villeneuve: Montreal's a little better, but then of course they're not there either right now. However, that's beside the point.

What got me very disturbed was that this government spent several million dollars fighting the location of the projected Ottawa Palladium. Several million dollars were spent to try to prevent private developers from going to the west end of Ottawa and putting up a hockey arena. That money was coming from the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

I have a great problem when I see areas in eastern Ontario -- and I'm pretty biased towards eastern Ontario, but there are areas where the land is not that good. It's not class 1, 2, 3 or 4 agricultural land. We see applications for severances. We see many commonsense things that are being requested.

Interjection: What's the reason they're being requested?

Mr Villeneuve: They're being requested because it fits in good with the rural municipalities. They need the increased tax assessment, Madam Speaker. You would understand that, I'm sure.

1730

However, we find in many instances the municipality agrees that --

Mr Klopp: What's this got to do with Bill 91?

Mr Villeneuve: It's all to do with Bill 91. It's all government regulation and it's directly and indirectly involving the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, Bill 91, which should be under the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. It's in the wrong ministry to start with, but that's neither here nor there. The parliamentary assistant from Kitchener-Wilmot I'm sure will take note of some of the things that are said and for the rest of their period in government would attempt to meet the requirements of Ontario's agriculture, food and rural areas.

I go back to taking moneys from a ministry that's been cut 18%, yet they're spending several million dollars fighting a development for their ideology, political correctness. I hope someone comments on that when this is over. These are the problems that I find very difficult.

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs has now decided it needs $5,000 or $6,000 for any sort of a development out in rural Ontario. I know this has nothing to do with this bill, but these are things that are being imposed on the people who live in that portion of Ontario called rural Ontario and it's a problem. It's a major problem.

We will insist that when this bill reaches the committee stage, and I certainly hope it will go to the committee stage, I say to the parliamentary assistant and he --

Mr Cooper: It has to, for the amendments.

Mr Villeneuve: Very good, and hopefully it will be after going out to rural Ontario and getting the ear of the good folks who are out on the land today trying to finish up the seeding. As it hopefully will, the government majority will not steamroller over the committee and say, "Look, we want it this way."

Let's allow some input, hopefully for the short duration that Bill 91 will be law here in the province of Ontario. Bill 91 only pretends to recognize the unique aspects of agriculture. It will still come under the Ministry of Labour, which is the wrong ministry, which knows very little about agriculture and, in most instances, is incapable of understanding the major problems that occur out in rural Ontario.

I want to mention this to the parliamentary assistant, because he's a very good friend of mine; he's a very approachable fellow. These are apprenticeships that are not necessarily involved with agriculture, but I've had employers who've sent their employees on an apprenticeship program. Do you know the first thing they teach these apprentices? All of their rights and benefits; nothing to do with the work they're supposed to be apprenticing, but what the employer owes the employees. That's the first thing they teach them and sometimes they even stretch. These people come back; hopefully, they've acquired some knowledge about mechanical work, or whatever, but they sure are well indoctrinated on their rights and what the employer owes them.

To me, that's got the horse at the wrong end of the cart, but that's what's happening. I hope the parliamentary assistant looks into that. Yes, they need to know that, but not the first thing they learn when they go into an apprenticeship training program.

I want to go back a few years when my friends from the Liberal Party were the government. They gave a good deal of lipservice to agriculture, but the real truth was that they had the man from Huron, Jack Riddell, as their minister for a number of years. You know what happened to him? He went out to Regina one day on business to do with the government of Ontario and representing Ontario agriculture. He got a phone call from the then Premier, Mr Peterson, who said: "Jack, you're not a bad fellow but you're no longer the minister. You'll have to turn over your portfolio to your deputy minister who is with you, and you don't represent Ontario agriculture any more."

I had a little difficulty accepting that. We were not of the same political beliefs, but I thought that was a rather shabby way for a government and a Premier to treat the Minister of Agriculture. He replaced his Minister of Agriculture at that time with another minister, the member for Timiskaming, who was elected, believe it or not, as a socialist back in 1985 and then, for whatever reason, went across the floor and became the Liberal Minister of Agriculture and Food, which was a very interesting scenario.

Mr Bisson: We used to joke that he was a Liberal.

Mr Villeneuve: My friend the member for Cochrane South says they used to joke that he was a Liberal. It turned out that wasn't a joke at all.

I want to touch on some other problems that we touched on -- I didn't have a lot of time -- during private members' hour last week. It has to do with what's very annoying and, to me, very alarming. It came out of Farm and Country. As I mentioned at that time, it's not the political rhetoric that we sometimes get in here, and let's face it, those are the realities of life. The heading under "Crops" says, "Labour Laws Derail Vital Grain Arteries."

This has to do with Bill 40, and Bill 91 is part of Bill 40. It has to do with successor rights on short-run rail lines. I think there's a travesty in the making here. If these rail lines wind up being closed down, rural Ontario and agriculture will suffer. At the same time as the agricultural budget is now less than 1% -- many people in rural Ontario seem to think that the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs has a tremendously large budget, but the operating budget for the ministry is 0.97%; that's how important this ministry is right now. But on the rail lines, crop prices will fall as farmers become captive of local grain markets, and plants for new ethanol production facilities may well go by the wayside. We may not even be able to build those if we don't have the short rail lines that right now provide good, inexpensive methods of moving grain to the main lines, to the water terminals and to the United States.

Farm groups think their best hope lies in convincing the pro-labour provincial NDP government to scrap a piece of its toughest labour legislation. It goes without saying. As we debated the merits and otherwise of Bill 40, the labour law, in this very chamber, we heard minister after minister tell us, "The province of Quebec has labour laws in place very similar to Bill 40, and it creates no problem at all."

Indeed the province of Quebec -- and I certainly am not one who agrees with a lot of the things that happen there -- developed a provincial railway act. I want to touch on it just a little, because two of the Canadian provinces that have those are Quebec and Nova Scotia. They've developed their own provincial railways act.

The Quebec railway act was implemented in December last year because some short-run rail lines in the province have been purchased by the private sector, and they were not going to be purchased by the private sector if successor rights stayed in place. It was fairly simple. To circumvent that, they amended their labour laws to allow short rail lines to operate without having the rather difficult situation of successor rights.

We have in the riding I represent the same problem with some very fine waterfront property along Lake St Francis and along Lake St Lawrence. We have some parks that have been closed down and are not being leased back to the private sector simply because of this famous problem with successor rights.

The Acting Speaker: Could I ask the member to return to Bill 91, please?

Mr Villeneuve: Bill 91 and Bill 40 are all part of it. It's successor rights. This is the problem that other provinces have recognized, the area of concern that affects the economy, affects jobs. Yet we're taking Agriculture, which has less than 1% of the provincial budget, and we're imposing labour laws.

The initial amendment that I read says, "It is in the public interest to extend collective bargaining rights to employees and employers in the agriculture and horticulture industries." I don't know where they get that "It is in the public interest." It is not in the public interest unless they want to drive farmers right off the land. If it's in the public interest, you would not keep on reducing the amount of the budget for Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs and yet impose more demands on financial requirements and on labour laws.

1740

Bill 91, if the need for such legislation can ever be proven -- and I personally don't think it can -- has to be completely separated from the Ministry of Labour. I do not think Ministry of Labour officials have the wherewithal to deal with the problems they will be faced with in rural Ontario, in food production areas.

I can go back to the city of Cornwall, which had a settlement imposed through binding arbitration on their firemen, who could not go on strike. And this is what we're talking about here: binding arbitration. They got a retroactive increase in salary of some 13%. The city of Cornwall couldn't afford it, but the binding arbitration deal came down, I believe in 1991, and created havoc within the financial structure of a city that was struggling.

There's been no study of the impact of this bill on Ontario's food security or our ability to compete with other jurisdictions. This is becoming more and more important. We have to be competitive in a very competitive world. We have the free trade agreement, we have the North American free trade agreement, we have the wherewithal to be competitive, but we've got to let business do it, not stand in its way. We do not know how many jobs this particular legislation will cost or how many farms it will drive out of business or how many enterprises will put off expansion, but we do know from speaking to the rural agricultural community that it will be mechanizing more and more. They have no choice, because this type of labour law is forcing them into it. It is one of two decisions: "We either mechanize or we sell out."

This government has seen fit in its expenditure control plan to shut down two agricultural colleges, along with a number of other program cuts, such as the tobacco adjustment, the agricultural investment strategy and the Farm-Start program. I can tell you, the Farm-Start program was welcomed by the young people in rural Ontario who were taking up agriculture and taking up farming. Right now, there is no program whatever to assist to bring new blood into the agricultural field, into the food production field. Bill 91 will certain see to it that it continues that way.

I believe the Minister of Municipal Affairs made a statement today on the Sewell report. This again, in my opinion, is additional intervention, rules, regulations and roadblocks that will be in the way of agricultural food producers.

The designation of wetlands: If there is anything that has roused the ire of rural Ontario, it's the designation of some of their land into class 1 and class 2 wetlands with the owners not realizing what was happening. Once these lands, and they are privately owned, are designated as wetlands, there's no compensation, and what occurs is that it limits drastically the use of the lands. It's my understanding that to cut a tree on what is designated as class 1 or 2 wetland, you have to get permission from some higher authority. Property rights are being eroded completely.

When we're in the production of food, I can tell you, if there's a dispute between a farmer and his staff, it's not about to be settled through amiable, nice ways. When the crop is ready, the rush is on, and there are negotiations that occur at that time under very major stress and strain. If this government thinks that because there is labour legislation covering agriculture and food production, all those settlements will be done in a very friendly and amiable way, I believe it has a rude awakening coming.

The consultations the government has talked about are the kinds of consultations that one has when there's a gun held to one's head. That's basically what we've been told: "If you don't put in special legislation for agriculture, then Bill 40 kicks in," and Bill 40 would be an absolute travesty to the food production sector.

This softens Bill 40 a little, but it's an addendum to Bill 40. It's a separate bill, but it is an addendum based on Bill 40, and you refer to Bill 40 for most of what's in Bill 91. Bill 91 has the exclusions and some softening of Bill 40 for the food production sector. I'm glad that the parliamentary assistant is nodding in the affirmative and very much paying attention.

The representatives from the agricultural community who have taken part in the process should be congratulated, because they went to the table, quite reluctantly but with no choice -- they had to go -- or Bill 40 would have been theirs to have to work with and under. These people were told that there would be legislation because the NDP wanted it, and that the government felt through the goodness of its heart that indeed producers of food were different.

Yet in this very first amendment -- and I couldn't get over it when I saw it, and it was as big as life -- "it is in the public interest to extend collective bargaining rights to employees and employers in the agricultural and horticultural industries." I can't accept that and I won't accept it, but the government has a majority here and if they say it I guess we have to accept it, but it certainly is not my perception of agriculture and food production.

The government's special-interest groups wanted it. The deal was made in the back room and it was a take it or leave it: "If you don't want to work under Bill 40, you'd better accept Bill 91."

Ontario agriculture was never asked to look into the need for such legislation in the first place. They were told that the legislation would come and that they would be consulted, and they have been; I give the government credit for that. Yet the legislation still comes from the upper echelons, and with 25 amendments, I think we should redraft the bill under a new number. Time is not of essence on this one. There is no hurry to put this one through, and I tell you that with full agreement of I believe everybody on this side.

This bill creates more regulations and more red tape, when the government should be cutting regulations and certainly cutting red tape.

I want to touch on a document recently produced by the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, called the Common Sense Revolution. It has no cuts to agriculture, regardless of what anyone says, and I have perused it very carefully. As a matter of fact, I have had some say in its production. Agriculture has already suffered an 18% reduction in the last three years. We have no cuts to agriculture, and in the opinion of this party, agriculture is the number one industry in the province. It's not number two, as the Liberals say; it's number one.

I believe the government really thought this legislation and red tape was important to appease its union friends. Somehow or other, we've noticed that since the social contract -- Madam Speaker, you may have noticed it too -- they've gone out of their way to be pleasant to their union folks, and I suppose I understand that, because they are their real sympathizers. However, I think they have a long way to go to get back the support they had prior to the social contract. I know this legislation does not have any bearing on the social contract or what have you, but Bill 91 does create a situation where agriculture has to work in a kind of vacuum.

1750

Do you know of any other industry that buys retail and sells wholesale? Well, that's agriculture. You buy at the retail level, and when you sell -- you're the basic producer -- you're selling at the very lowest price. When you hear the farm-gate price of any commodity, by the time you get it on the shelf at the food store or wherever, you have in many instances tripled or quadrupled the value of the basic elements, the basic commodity at the farm gate. From then on, it's all the way up and the farmer has very little say, except for those who have marketing boards. Yet marketing boards have been using the kind of formula that has been accepted, and it returns a return on the investment. But for those who are not under supply management, there is no return on the investment unless they are able to go to the marketplace for it. I want everyone here to realize that agriculture is the only industry where you buy retail and you sell wholesale. This government has basically overlooked the real situation, where farmers have very little say, outside of those in supply management, about what their product is going to fetch on the market.

The government believes that farmers and business can absorb an ever-increasing burden of government interference, regulation and costs, and that you pass it on. Agriculture cannot pass on costs. They have to go to the market for what that bushel of apples, that bushel of corn, that bushel of grain will sell for. They have to go to the market, and if the market will not pay, they're left with it. What do you do with it? You do what you want with it, but it will perish, so there's a problem. When the tomatoes are ready on the vine, you've got to go get them, you've got to bring them in and you've got to put them to market. That's the way it is. That's the nature of the business.

That's why, whenever I go back to the very first amendment and it says, "It is in the public interest to extend collective bargaining" to agriculture, it doesn't add up and it doesn't make sense. This government is living in a dream world, Alice in Wonderland. Of course, if they live in this dreamland long enough and repeat it to themselves long enough, they start believing it.

Mr David Winninger (London South): And you're the Mad Hatter, I guess.

Mr Villeneuve: No, I don't believe so at all. You're referring probably to someone within your own caucus.

It is living in this urban dreamland that has created this kind of illusion. Look at the agricultural budget, and I touched on that a while ago: down a little more than 18% in three years, and yet total government spending is up in those same three years by more than 6%.

There's a real message there. You cannot continue imposing on agriculture these costs and these road barriers and expect that it will be able to continue as the number one industry in this province. It certainly tells you that the government does not understand the importance of the food production sector.

I have a great deal of respect for my friend the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, but he is a very lonely voice at that cabinet table. I have wished I could be there to help him from time to time. I'm quite sure that the parliamentary assistant here from Kitchener-Wilmot -- he's a big boy -- might be able to help him a little too. However, I'm not sure this is going to work, because we are dealing with very limited government dollars.

I've said it many times: an 18% cut in three years to the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. If every other ministry in this government had gone through the same reduction, we would have no deficit. We would be balancing the budget, and we might even have some surplus. However, that is not the case.

Interjection: And we'd be putting lots of people out of work.

Mr Villeneuve: As a matter of fact, it might just create a lot of jobs if you stopped interfering with them.

If overall government spending had only been cut by half of what agriculture suffered, we would be dealing with a $3-billion to $4-billion deficit instead of being, as the Fraser Institute has said, the most indebted society per capita in North America. That is a very alarming situation. We still have some control on the spending, and we had better take those controls and do something about it before we lose the control and someone else tells us we have to do it. Bill 91 is not helping that situation at all.

Last year, Ontario became Canada's main food-exporting province. We exported $3.6 billion worth of agricultural and food commodities in processed, semi-processed and raw form. Our exports increased by $1.2 billion last year. What is most interesting is something that NDP thinking, or even the previous government, Liberal thinking, does not allow. Of that $1.2-billion increase, almost all of it, $1 billion, was due to increased exports where? To the United States of America, partly, if not fully, because of a free trade agreement, where we have taken down some of the barriers. Yet I still hear some of my colleagues on the government side finding fault with the free trade agreement. We cannot isolate ourselves. We are an exporting country and we can produce food here. Give us the opportunity of selling it.

Mr Winninger: We can lose jobs too.

Mr Villeneuve: The member for London South says, "We can lose jobs." Bill 91 is a job killer. Bill 40 is a job killer.

NDP thinking says: "This is impossible. We have to live in a protected world." The Minister of Labour says: "It's impossible. We've got to protect the workers in the agricultural sector." David Peterson and even the Liberal leader also say it's impossible. It was good to see that they had changed their tune to some degree, but as I told you when I started this participation in the debate, the Liberals are saying a lot of "Me too" these days. It's "Me too" to some of the studies that were done by the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario. There's a lot of "Me too" over there. I would like the government to say "Me too" on Bill 91, and let's get rid of it.

It's surprising that the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs was allowed to put out a short, factual news release about a number of things which particularly refers to a $3.6-billion increase in our exports totally, with more than $1.2 billion going to the United States. I know the minister, and he's here with us right now, would not be one to try to misrepresent the facts. The facts are there, and I give him credit. He put them forth and that's the way it should be. But Bill 91 will not help that situation.

The NDP are doing their best to make us less competitive, and I'm not quite sure what its reasons are. Surely we have enough difficulty living in this very cold climate, with a frost-free period, at least in my area, from May 15 to September 15. That's pretty short. To get your crops produced and mature in that short period, you've got to do things that are right and you've got to be competitive.

The time is getting short, Madam Speaker. The NDP is trying to tell the public of Ontario that Bill 91 is good for them. The preamble -- and I'll close this part of the debate by repeating it -- I can't agree with. It says, and I want the minister to hear this, "It is in the public interest to extend collective bargaining rights to employees and employers in the agriculture and horticulture industries." That is absolutely not correct. I do not think you would have 2% of the farmers who would agree to that, Mr Minister, but it's in the preamble and it's an amendment to Bill 91.

Madam Speaker, I believe the time has come to call this House a day for today.

The Acting Speaker: It being almost 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 am.

The House adjourned at 1800.

18 mai 1994