Journal des débats 1994-mai-30 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): In 1990, the last year of the Liberal government, Ontario enjoyed an AAA credit rating. Since that time there have been three downgrades, and on Friday, Moody's, the last of the credit agencies to react to this government's budget, downgraded the province of Ontario rating to AA3.

Credit ratings are not like rating movies. They're not abstract. They have a direct and high cost to those who want to purchase government of Ontario bonds. First of all, some investors are precluded from investing if the credit rating is below a certain level. The other repercussion, of course, is that the downgrade costs about 0.75% on all new borrowed money as a result of the three downgrades of this government's ratings. This means that the annual cost of borrowing has increased by $150 million since 1990.

This is a very serious indictment of the government's fiscal and economic policies. This downgrade confirms that the rating agencies have not been fooled by the stratagem of having off-book debt, and unless the province gets its fiscal house in order, we will see more serious repercussions, to the detriment of all citizens of Ontario.

VICTORIA COUNTY

Mr Chris Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): Later this afternoon I will be introducing a private bill on behalf of the county of Victoria, Bill Pr106, An Act respecting the County of Victoria, which will result in a change in the composition of the county council and the voting authority of council members.

The passage of this private bill will enable county government to perform its duties more efficiently while at the same time generating significant economic savings to the taxpayers of the county. It will also allow council to better fulfil the obligations imposed upon it pursuant to the Municipal Act and other pieces of legislation applicable to municipal governments.

I commend the members of council for their foresight in limiting the current size and expected growth of its membership. The proposal that is being brought before the Legislature today strikes a balance between equality of representation and the financial limitations faced by every level of government in Ontario.

Perhaps the most important thing this bill does is that it sends a message to all of Ontario that Victoria county is open for business. Our local politicians are taking the lead in reducing bureaucracy, cutting red tape and limiting the size and growth of government. Their actions indicate that they are acting in the best interests of the community to increase opportunities and bring hope to the hard-working people of our area.

I respectfully request that every member of this House support the speedy ratification of this legislation so that the proposed changes may be implemented in time for this fall's municipal elections.

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): The Oak Ridges moraine is the predominant land mass that runs from the east to the west through the top of the greater Toronto area, including parts of Peel, York and Durham regions. Similar to the Niagara Escarpment, the moraine represents a beautiful, unique and environmentally sensitive landscape. It contains a significant natural habitat, kettle lakes, groundwater aquifers and significant sand and gravel deposits.

But the Oak Ridges moraine is threatened by urban sprawl and increasingly dangerous development pressures. The protection and management of the moraine is of great concern to this government, as well as to all the people in this central part of Ontario. In an effort to continue public consultation and discussion for the protection and management of the Oak Ridges moraine, a technical working committee and a citizens' advisory committee have proposed a long-term strategy discussion paper. The purpose of the discussion paper is to allow all interested parties to work together to develop a plan for the future that meets the human, economic and ecological needs within the greater Toronto area.

I am very pleased to inform the Legislature that the beginning of these consultations is in progress. I wish the members of these committees well in all their efforts.

The Oak Ridges moraine is an important part of Ontario's natural heritage and deserves the recognition and the attention that it's getting. There is a lot of documentation out there, and I would encourage people to seek that information.

TEACHERS OF THE YEAR

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): This past Friday the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, along with the Toronto Sun, recognized 10 outstanding people from across this province. They paid tribute to the 10 1994 teachers of the year.

Eight of these award winners were from the Toronto area, but more importantly, two were from outside the Toronto area, from northern Ontario, an area of the province which hosts some of the greatest teachers in the province and possibly the world. The 10 finalists were chosen from 1,400 nominations, which became 50 finalists and then our 10 teachers of the year.

My nomination was one of the first to come from the north in the nine years that this contest has been running. I saw Mr Bert Oussoren, my former high school teacher, the person who encouraged me to return to school, my student teacher supervisor, then my colleague when I became a teacher, to truly deserve the recognition of Teacher of the Year.

He, along with the nine others chosen, was honoured at a most impressive ceremony at OISE this past Friday. As well, they were the guests of the Toronto Blue Jays on Saturday, where they were individually saluted for their accomplishments.

I cannot say enough about the effort put into this contest by Dr Joyce Neskar Simmons and the Toronto Sun, along with the administration and staff at OISE, including Dr Arthur Kruger. They truly put on a fine weekend to recognize these teachers who are on the front line of this profession.

I, along with the other nominators, would like to thank these organizations for allowing us to recognize those teachers who had an impact on our lives. They were truly an impressive group to be with during this past weekend.

1340

DIABETES FUND-RAISING EVENT

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): The odds are 1 in 20 that a person will develop diabetes, a disease that might lead to blindness, nerve damage, amputation, hearing loss or kidney disease. While diabetes can be controlled with insulin, there is unfortunately yet no cure. That is why it is so important to raise money for diabetes research.

On Saturday, I had an opportunity to assist with fund-raising for diabetes research in Canada by participating as a celebrity passenger in the fourth annual Flame of Hope Trail Ride and Carriage Drive '94, at the farm of Ted and Valorie Clarke near Elmira. This ride has grown in leaps and bounds from the first ride, which raised $15,000 with 55 riders, to this year's coup of over $60,000 with about 300 riders and 19 carriages.

The name of the ride is derived from the Canadian Diabetes Association's Flame of Hope, which burns in Sir Frederick Banting Square in London. This flame will only be extinguished when a cure for diabetes is found.

The event on Saturday was non-competitive, and it provided families as well as young and seasoned riders with the opportunity for a pleasurable experience at a leisurely pace, at the same time raising money for diabetes research.

I would like to congratulate the ride chairman, Laura Martin, Ted and Valorie Clarke and all the members of the Elmira branch of the Canadian Diabetes Association for organizing this highly successful fund-raising event.

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I rise today to inform the members of the Legislature of the Waterloo region family and children's services' 100th anniversary, which was recognized at their annual meeting held April 28. The Kitchener-Waterloo Philharmonic Children's Choir opened the meeting. The foundation is a charitable corporation and provides lasting help to those who need it most, our children, giving our kids a better chance.

The annual meeting was a time to look at the history of family and children's services in our community. This was presented as a skit and was quite enlightening and enjoyable. We should all take the time to acknowledge and thank those individuals and organizations that contribute so much to our communities and our family life.

In 1894, when the family and children's services was originally formed by Rev R.C. Miller, with the assistance and contribution of various families in the community, including John Motz, L.J. Brightout, E.W.B. Snyder and the Lakner family, these individuals helped to lay the groundwork for the organization as it exists today. Now the activities and contributions are broader and more wide-ranging and now have a staff of over 150.

Also at the meeting was a presentation of the centennial year logo designed by Krista Berdan. Foundation bursary awards were presented to Dianne Ferreira, older youth; Debbie MacMillian, adult; Dustin Sampson, youth. Four individuals shared with us their experience, thoughts and ideas for family and children's services through their own experiences. Thank you to Roger Vokey, Cynthia Hawkins, Dustin Sampson and Elizabeth Izaak. Recognition was given to retiring board member Helen Wheeler.

To all of the individuals and their families I have already mentioned, and to Peter Ringrose and the staff and support groups of the Waterloo region family and children's services, we say thank you for your contributions to our community.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): Over 19 months ago, the leader of the Liberal Party, Lyn McLeod, stood in the House and raised concerns about the operation of the air ambulance system in Ontario.

She did so, and you will recall this, Mr Speaker, after the tragic incident involving a young Sault Ste Marie boy, who was 15 years old, following a car accident. The boy needed to be transferred from the Sault to Sudbury on an immediate basis, but unfortunately that emergency transfer took over seven hours. Doctors in Sudbury admitted that the boy's life may have been saved had he been transferred more quickly.

Some seven months later, after many requests from my leader, the government finally agreed to conduct a review of the air ambulance system. That review, which was completed in March of this year but not released to the public until late last week, concludes that gaps and duplications exist in the system, including guidelines that are unclear, inconsistent, not communicated and not enforced. The report recommended that an external provincial utilization review be conducted of the air ambulance service to obtain more information.

What was the purpose of the air ambulance review in the first place if not to address these very issues? Hasn't an external review already been conducted? After 19 months of waiting, surely now is the time for action.

Once again, the Minister of Health is shirking her responsibility rather than taking the specific action that's required to resolve these absolutely unacceptable problems in the air ambulance system.

BICENTENNIAL OF BASTARD AND SOUTH BURGESS TOWNSHIP

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): Earlier this year, a township in my riding of Leeds-Grenville received a great deal of media attention because of a controversy surrounding its name: Bastard and South Burgess. Some residents felt that Bastard was an inappropriate name, but after diligent research the name Bastard was proven to have clear historical significance and the name will remain. Residents have even produced pins, one of which I'm wearing, that state "Proud to be a Bastard."

In any event, the media attention should have been directed to the wonderful people of this area and their rich history as they celebrate their 200th anniversary. The Bastard and South Burgess bicentennial is truly special. A book of the area's early history has been written and an original song has been commissioned along with a bicentennial flag. There's even a special wooden coin known as a Bastard Buck that's been minted as a souvenir. Best of all, women in the township have crafted the township's first chain of office out of needlepoint.

The current Premier, Mr Rae, and his family have been long-time summer residents of the township. Although I frequently disagree with many of his government's initiatives, we're proud to have him as a resident and a legitimate Bastard.

On behalf of the township reeve, Howard French, and all township residents, I encourage members and other Ontarians at some point this year to join with these wonderful people and help them celebrate their 200th birthday.

NATIONAL ACCESS AWARENESS WEEK

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): This week is being specially recognized as National Access Awareness Week so that we may recognize and celebrate the achievements of persons with disabilities in communities throughout the country.

National Access Awareness Week was conceived by Rick Hansen as a means of removing barriers so that people with disabilities would have a better opportunity to participate in the social and economic activities of community life.

This week in Cochrane North the communities of Kapuskasing and Hearst are participating fully in National Access Awareness Week. Not only has the Kapuskasing Action Centre made this special week a tradition; it has turned it into a year-round effort.

A coalition of individuals and a variety of disability groups and organizations has pooled its efforts to bring to Kapuskasing a new understanding of the need for persons with disabilities to have full access to employment, recreation, housing, transportation and education.

While the committee works all year round, it has made plans to participate in National Access Awareness Week by holding awareness days at the Model City Mall on June 3 and 4. Participants will promote awareness through the use of videos and literature concerning disability issues. The event is meant to create understanding through information.

Hearst has taken a different approach, called Face to Face. Various organizations throughout the community, like the post office, the day care centre and Sam's Garage, will have an employee spend a few hours each day showing persons with disabilities how their facility operates. At the end of the week, there will be a mass and a brunch held at the church. Certificates will be awarded to those who have contributed to the integration of people throughout the community.

I want to commend all those involved in National Access Awareness Week, for it is through these types of partnerships and commitments that our goal of removing barriers to accessibility can be achieved.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I invite all members to join me in welcoming the 18th group of pages to serve in this third session of the 35th Parliament: Laura Benard, Kitchener-Wilmot; Hugh Boyd, Sarnia; Jamie Capper, Leeds-Grenville; Janine Carr, Port Arthur; Mark Chapeskie, S-D-G & East Grenville; Brooke Duval, Halton North; Elizabeth Elias, Willowdale; David Giansante, Etobicoke-Humber; Luke Griffin, Scarborough North; Kathryn Harris, Downsview; Elizabeth Hawkrigg, Wentworth North; Mary Jamieson, St George-St David; Paul Kerr, York East; Jason Lee, Muskoka-Georgian Bay; Kingson Lim, Carleton; Christopher Mar, York Centre; Patrick Marks, Dufferin-Peel; Johanna Martin, Grey-Owen Sound; Laura Ritchie, Cochrane South; Andrew Smith, Nipissing; Sarah Stephens, Oxford; Matthew Stepura, High Park-Swansea; Ciaran Stevenson, Durham-York; and Jenny Yip, Markham. Please welcome our latest group of pages.

1350

MEMBERS' PRIVILEGES

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): On Tuesday, May 3, 1994, the member for Halton Centre (Mrs Sullivan) informed the House that instructions she and other members had received from the Ministry of the Attorney General tended to place restrictions on when a member could contact the office of the family support plan on his or her constituents' behalf. According to the member, these instructions violated members' privileges.

I have reviewed the documents at length that the member provided to me, as well as our practices and precedents and the relevant parliamentary authorities, and I find that a prima facie case has not been made out. However, I thank the member for Halton Centre for bringing her concerns to the attention of myself and of the House.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

METROPOLITAN TORONTO HOUSING AUTHORITY / COMMISSION DE LOGEMENT DE LA COMMUNAUTÉ URBAINE DE TORONTO

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): Today I'm ordering a full-scale review of the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority and its operations. Over the next three to four months, an independent firm will assess the strengths and weaknesses of MTHA's operations. The firm will make specific recommendations for short-term action to address problems and deficiencies we're already aware of and will also develop recommendations for the long-term restructuring of MTHA.

For many years now, the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority has been home to the individuals and families of the Toronto community who have the greatest need of housing assistance. The housing authority is Canada's largest landlord, with 1,200 employees managing its 33,000 rent-geared-to-income units.

MTHA is a large, complex organization with the difficult mandate of providing decent, affordable housing for more than 125,000 people, and MTHA has had its share of problems along the way. But in the past few years there's been a lot of change at MTHA. Business practices have improved and residents are getting more involved in local decision-making. Now it's time for us to take stock of what we've accomplished and the work that lies ahead. This is the time to act.

We want Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority to have a solid foundation to work from. We're overhauling MTHA so it will be able to respond to the changing needs of its residents and employees and use taxpayer dollars effectively.

We want MTHA to run more efficiently so its residents, staff and board members can turn their attention to the issues that all communities struggle with, issues like safety and security, racism, and community involvement in decision-making.

Nous examinerons le fonctionnement de la CLCUT dans son ensemble : ses activités, sa responsabilisation, les priorités qu'elle doit établir et le rôle que devraient jouer son conseil d'administration, le personnel et les résidents pour en faire un meilleur milieu de vie et de travail.

The review, which will provide short- and long-term direction for MTHA, will focus on five key areas: the extent of organizational change and restructuring required at MTHA; improving its management and administrative systems -- for example, in areas such as purchasing and human resources management; assessing MTHA's effectiveness in setting priorities and delivering programs; examining how MTHA responds to the changing needs of its residents; and finally, reviewing employment equity and anti-racism issues.

I'm pleased to announce that Mr Ronald Hikel from KPMG Peat Marwick Thorne is undertaking the review. This company has an impressive record in organizational change, administrative efficiency, and employment equity and racism issues. Mr Hikel will work closely with the MTHA board of directors and its staff during this process of change. Mr Hikel will issue monthly reports to the Deputy Minister of Housing and to me.

These reports will be shared with the chair and general manager of MTHA and the chair of the Ontario Housing Corp and will allow the government to monitor the review. At the end of the review, our consultant will issue a final report to the ministry, which will give us a detailed assessment of the work that lies ahead.

In addition to the comprehensive review I am announcing today, members will recall that we have retained a consultant, Eloise Burke, in connection with the hiring process for the position of director of equity at MTHA.

Ms Burke is reviewing current human resource policies and procedures at MTHA and clarifying the roles and relationships of the board, chair and general manager in recruiting practices. She has solid experience in project management, organizational reviews and human resource management. Ms Burke's work, which will be completed by July, will be a significant aspect of our larger review of MTHA.

A wider employment equity and anti-racism review started in December 1993 at MTHA and it will position MTHA to fulfil its obligations under the Employment Equity Act and to provide educational opportunities to implement equitable employment practices.

To conclude, Peat Marwick Thorne will assist in immediate steps to improve MTHA's operations and provide options for a long-term restructuring.

Members will recognize it took decades for MTHA to take the shape it has today, and to expect a transformation overnight is unrealistic. However, we do expect to see some immediate and tangible results. We are committed to the long-term restructuring of MTHA and this review will provide us with the framework for that work.

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I stand up with a great deal of curiosity about the announcement today. It was very curious to find out that here comes another crisis management performance coming to you courtesy of a government in crisis.

It took, I think, a series of allegations in newspapers, as reported in the popular press across Ontario, not just in the Metro Toronto area, of the recent problems associated with MTHA and its operations, and as we find out about these problems as they emerge and have emerged over the last number of months, the minister realizes she's got a problem on her hands. So how does she respond? By today coming to the House and saying, "We're going to have a review of MTHA."

Fair enough. I think everyone would agree with a review. However, Minister, the response does not measure up to the problems that are occurring at MTHA and have occurred over the recent past.

The problem I have specifically with this announcement is that it does not recognize that there are a number of problems that have occurred over the recent past, and the minister has not reassured the public or this House that the review will undertake to get to the bottom of those problems that have occurred over the recent past. Nothing is mentioned in her statement regarding those problems, and I suspect that this is an attempt to move forward from today on, forgetting what has occurred over the recent past.

1400

There's a great deal of concern with that, because if the minister is saying to us today that she does not recognize that there were problems, or if she's saying that from now on we're going to forget about what happened in the recent past, then I would say to her that what we're talking about are theoretical probabilities about the future and what they will do from now on.

I think the public has to be reassured, Madam Minister, that there is in fact an MTHA that is operating with a regard for value for money. That has not been the case in the recent past, and I would say to her that she has to reassure the public that there is the kind of confidence in the management of MTHA that there was in the past. And I would say to the minister that there are problems that are associated with --

Interjection.

Mr Cordiano: Well, some of the problems that have come to light are problems that go back a long way. But I would say to her that some of the allegations are more particular, more specific.

At the end of the day, as I say, we welcome a review, but I'm concerned that this review will not include broad public consultation as well. I think it's fine to have an internal review and to have outside auditors come in and look to what is going on at the MTHA with value for money in mind, I hope. That's an expression we have not heard mentioned here, but as I look at her list, I would assume that at the end of the day value for money is uppermost in the auditors' minds, those who will be coming in.

But I would like to insist that the minister include broader public consultation. If what we're talking about is a complete overhaul of the MTHA and its operations, then I would say to the minister, I would implore her, to include the public. If in fact we're talking about a whole new set of directions that the MTHA will be going on, it has to include the community at large, because the MTHA does not live in isolation from those communities. Those communities are very much affected by MTHA projects throughout Metro Toronto, and I would hope and I would ask that she include the broader public in a consultative process, which I see lacking in her announcement today -- very much so.

At the end of the day, the review will be completed. I'm glad to see that there are outside auditors who have been called in. But I would also ask the minister to allow the opposition members the opportunity to review those bimonthly reports and to have a copy of the final report when it is completed and to make those reports public so that everyone has a say in what new directions you might take.

Again, this fails in terms of public input and public consultation. So this is certainly not one of those efforts that I would agree with if it doesn't include public consultation.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): We in the third party believe that the problems with respect to the MTHA go far beyond an audit. Our concerns have certainly been legitimized, we believe, by the auditor in reports outlined in the last couple of years. I certainly don't have to remind the minister that one of the audit reports said, on page 9:

"In the last two years, there have been several embezzlement cases in rent collection. The employees involved were able to take home and cash the money orders or cheques received from residents. This could be because of weak internal procedures."

We also don't have to go very far to realize during the audit report that "Project 80 anti-corruption squad police joint task force are looking at tender irregularities that may involve criminal wrongdoing."

I might add at this point what I think happened is, the minister went to the phone book to look up "police" and she stopped at Peat Marwick and decided that an audit by an accounting firm was a more appropriate approach to take than ferreting out the irregularities, ferreting out the criminal wrongdoing.

We would like to be very clear on this issue: We have some very real concerns with respect to MTHA. We believe that wrongdoings are taking place and have been taking place for the past number of years.

During the last few weeks, we, by the questioning of our member for Mississauga South, have directly put it to the minister with respect to some of the concerns that we saw at Houselink and other audited reports that have called for very dramatic action and in fact police investigation. Each time the minister said that the member was overreacting and taking these things out of context.

Today, coming forward with a recommendation that we hire an auditing firm to review the procedures seems to be at least a tacit acceptance that there are some very real problems. But the real concern and the real issue is still not addressed, and that issue is: Is the law being broken at MTHA, who was involved, who knew about it, and how can we be sure that these people are not there still and will not work there in the future?

The next point that I would like to make is that there are some people who work within MTHA who should step aside during this audited process. We believe that the general manager, Patricia O'Connell, who has been involved in working at MTHA for a significant number of years and has been there during these irregularities, should step aside during this investigation.

Hon Ms Gigantes: Wrong, wrong. Get your facts right.

Mr Stockwell: The minister says, "Get your facts right." I ask her directly: How long has Patricia --

Hon Ms Gigantes: A year.

Mr Stockwell: At least a year. Okay, then I will correct the record and say she has been there a year. During this year, audited statements have come out condemning the practices at MTHA, and there have not been significant steps to rectify these concerns.

I say to the minister that these are the kind of concerns that must be addressed, but they don't get addressed through an audit by an accounting firm. These are not problems with respect to a company's profitability not being as high one year as the last; this is in respect to a procedural concern with respect to procuring goods and services. We're talking about embezzlement. We're talking about preferred treatment to suppliers. We're talking about audited statements that suggest moneys of the government have been inappropriately spent and cannot be traced. This is not a job for Peat Marwick; this is a job for the police, and the police should be in there investigating.

Why did this minister not stand in her place and tell this Legislature that Project 80 was taking a look into this program? Why did you not stand here and tell us that Project 80 was investigating the embezzlement, the tendering irregularities and the criminal wrongdoing? Why is it you could not have stood and told this Legislature about those things? Those are important announcements that need to be made as well.

No, what we have is a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. We've got an auditing firm going in and looking at some concerns with respect to reporting functions and some concerns with respect to the operation of the MTHA.

I don't know what this minister is saying when she says, "The MTHA has been operating like this for a number of years." When this party was in power, we didn't have concerns with respect to irregularities, tendering practices and those kinds of things. This came to light with you in power.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Stockwell: We didn't have audited statements about Houselink. We didn't have concerns about spending money inappropriately. When will you accept the fact that you are the government? You should deal with this issue, and we say the police should be called in and the concern should be rectified.

1410

ORAL QUESTIONS

MINISTERS' COMMENTS

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My first question is to the Minister of Finance. Minister, last week your colleague the Minister of Economic Development and Trade, in quite an expansive interview with the Toronto Star, indicated that your government was at work on a detailed action plan in the event that Ontario businesses, particularly, would be confronted with doing business in a sovereign Quebec. The minister indicated in that interview that she was at work on this detailed action plan in the event that Quebec should separate from the Canadian federation and that she was working on that plan with her colleagues Premier Rae and Finance Minister Laughren.

Three weeks ago, you told the Ottawa Citizen editorial board -- and I say this very seriously because your colleague, in my view, has committed a very serious mistake. On Saturday of this past weekend the Ottawa Citizen reminded its readers that three weeks before Ms Lankin's comments to the Star, Ontario's Finance Minister Laughren said -- let me quote from a part of the Ottawa Citizen editorial of Saturday, May 28, 1994.

"Three weeks ago, Finance Minister Floyd Laughren told the Citizen editorial board that formal government planning for Quebec separation would be" -- quoting you directly -- "'very foolish.' Noting that even studying the matter is to concede to the eventuality, Laughren said Ontario would only examine the prospect in earnest if the Parti québécois wins the election and proceeds with a referendum on separation."

My question to you, Minister of Finance, is, who speaks for the government of Ontario? Were you speaking on behalf of the government when you told the Ottawa Citizen editorial board what it reported in its pages of last Saturday or was Ms Lankin speaking for your government when she said what she was reported to have said to the Toronto Star last Thursday and Friday?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): Yes, I did indeed --

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Don't you guys ever talk to one another about what the policy of the government is?

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): Where's your leader, Greg?

Mr Sorbara: Where's yours?

Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you.

Hon Mr Laughren: I understand. The member for York Centre knows a lot about government disarray from when he was there himself.

Mr Sorbara: Good comeback, Floyd. Now answer the question.

Hon Mr Laughren: If you'll stop yapping, I will try to answer the question.

I too read the article in one of the Toronto tabloids -- I think it was the Toronto Star; I think you're correct -- in which the minister was quoted as saying certain things. I of course was not present at the interview and I don't know to what extent the article reflected the actual interview; I have no way of knowing that.

I simply wanted to assure the member for Renfrew North that we are not interested in speculating on an event that may or may not happen. For heaven's sake, there has not yet been even a provincial election in Quebec, so I certainly am not part of any team to look into any eventuality that might flow as a result of that provincial election.

Mr Conway: A supplementary on a very serious and delicate question: The Minister of Economic Development was quite clear in her quotes in the Star article. She is quoted directly as talking about a detailed action plan. She goes on at some length indicating that she, her Premier and her Finance minister are working on a detailed plan in the event that Quebec should secede from the Canadian federation. The article couldn't be clearer.

Is the Treasurer, on behalf of his government, not concerned that the only people cheering these ill-considered, untimely and inappropriate words from his colleague the Minister of Economic Development are the Parti québécois in Quebec, who are saying these days that Ms Lankin is a breath of fresh air? They're telling their compatriots in Quebec, "See, Ms Lankin indicates that all the other federalist rhetoric is to be ignored."

Does the Minister of Finance for Ontario not worry that the only people cheering Ms Lankin's --

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

Mr Conway: Is the Minister of Finance not concerned that the only people cheering Ms Lankin's comments of last week are the Parti québécois in our neighbouring province?

Hon Mr Laughren: I think before we get carried away with just how much was involved in this particular issue, I seem to recall that Minister Lankin issued a statement of clarification following the day that article was published in which she indicated that that was not the intention she wished to convey and that she regretted if that was indeed the case. I believe the member for Renfrew North is putting too much credence into the way in which the story was written and conveyed.

I would simply say to the member for Renfrew North that we are not anticipating the separation of Quebec. We would hardly be doing that. It would be so highly speculative as certainly to be counterproductive at this time.

Mr Conway: The Minister of Economic Development made a serious mistake. Her comments were inappropriate, unhelpful and very untimely. I want to be clear in my final supplementary --

Hon Mike Farnan (Minister without Portfolio in Education and Training): You are ignoring --

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Conway: I have the minister's reported remarks in my hand and I read from the direct quotes.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Would the member for Cambridge please come to order.

Mr Conway: As a final supplementary, let me say to the Minister of Finance that I believe the people of Ontario wholeheartedly support the views that he, Floyd Laughren, articulated to the Ottawa Citizen editorial board. It is my view, and certainly the view of my colleagues, that the Finance minister for this province was absolutely on the mark when he said what he was quoted as having said to the Ottawa Citizen editorial board some two or three weeks ago.

My question to the Finance minister is simply this: Will he give the Legislature and the people of Ontario this undertaking, that his view, his approach, his attitude is the one that will characterize the approach of the Ontario New Democratic government and that we will hear no more of the kind of inappropriate and unhelpful comments that were offered on behalf of his government by his colleague the mistaken Minister of Economic Development?

Hon Mr Laughren: I would have thought that the statement of clarification issued by the Minister of Economic Development and Trade would have provided some reassurance to the member for Renfrew North. I know that as a member of the Liberal caucus, he regards writing in the Toronto Star as gospel. However, I think it would be perhaps more prudent to take into consideration not just the story but also the statement of clarification that was issued by the Minister of Economic Development and Trade.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Conway: She said what she said, and she can't retract that you were working on a detailed action plan.

The Speaker: Does the member have a second question?

ONTARIO HYDRO PROJECTS

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): A second question, to the Minister of Environment and Energy, responsible as he is for Ontario Hydro, and it concerns the foreign policy of Chairman Maurice Strong at Ontario Hydro.

About the foreign policy of Chairman Strong, there have been a number of questions in this Legislature and across the province with respect to one particular initiative outside of the country, a potential purchase of part of the rain forest in Costa Rica.

My question, though, today to the minister responsible for Ontario Hydro is simply this: Can the minister confirm that in fact Ontario Hydro is looking at a total of 18 projects, one of which is the Costa Rican rain forest project? Can the minister confirm that in fact Ontario Hydro is looking at 18 potential international projects?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): The member is well aware, since a briefing was arranged for him by Ontario Hydro, that Ontario Hydro commissioned a study on sustainable development, and one of the recommendations of that consultant's report was that Ontario Hydro evaluate I believe 16 international projects related to environmental protection, and that that's where it's at.

There was a consultant's report brought forward, and the officials at Ontario Hydro are studying the sustainable development report. No decisions have been made and there has not as yet been any discussion of the detail of the projects by the Ontario Hydro board.

1420

Mr Conway: Supplementary to the minister: I really don't care a great deal about what the consultants are up to and what the international lawyers are up to. I'm really interested to know what the minister knows, because this is a new government, this is a new Hydro, this is a new day.

I have received in the break period a list from Hydro. I'm sure the minister has the same list because it was copied to him. This list indicates that there are 18 projects that are potential projects for this new Ontario Hydro. I'm just going to cite a couple of these potential international projects.

We have a sustainable agricultural project somewhere in South America, we have the potential of creating a forest somewhere on the Russian steppes, we have a potential reforestation project somewhere in eastern Washington state, we have the possibility of a forest preservation project using managed fire suppression in an unidentified North American country, and the list goes on.

My question to the minister is simply this: Has he had an opportunity to look carefully at this list? Can he give us any indication as to how far advanced some of these particular projects are and whether or not any Ontario Hydro money has been invested in any of these projects at this point?

Hon Mr Wildman: The member was correct in identifying these as potential projects, not as projects. Yes, I have reviewed the list and I believe that Ontario Hydro management is reviewing the list. Most of them are matters related to the problem of global warming and greenhouse gases.

As the member will know, corporations throughout the world and utilities around the world, not just Ontario Hydro, are concerned about CO₂ emissions and how we should ensure that we deal with the question of global warming. These are simply proposals that have not gone forward and to my knowledge have not entailed any significant investments by Ontario Hydro.

Mr Conway: It is a very interesting list and it bespeaks a very creative foreign policy by our provincial electrical utility. Inquiring minds in Scarborough, in Northumberland, in Nickel Belt and certainly in Algoma will want to know, for example, what benefits will accrue to the Ontario utility from a forest preservation project.

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Ask Jim Bradley.

Mr Conway: I repeat, if I can just have the attention of my colleagues, because this is a utility with a $35-billion debt, and inquiring minds are going to want to know why, for example, at this juncture --

Interjections.

Mr Conway: Can you restrain them?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member for Renfrew North.

Mr Conway: Inquiring minds across Ontario will want to know what domestic benefits there will be to Ontario Hydro ratepayers and Ontario taxpayers from, for example, a coal-bed methane capture somewhere in Central America, or what benefits will accrue from a plantation forestry for indigenous land owners in an unidentified OECD country.

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

Mr Conway: Minister, you're responsible. Given all of the domestic pressures that face the Ontario utility at the moment, can you indicate whether or not you have asked for a briefing from Chairman Mo on exactly how far he intends to go with this foreign policy, particularly at Ontario Hydro International?

Hon Mr Wildman: Surely the member knows enough about the environment to know there is domestic benefit to all of us as human beings if we deal with global warming.

Surely he also understands that to have a proposal made on sustainable development which has not been considered by the board but which sets forward a number of proposals for dealing with greenhouse gas emissions is something that we all should be concerned about, in Canada, North America and around the world. We should all be contributing what we can to assisting with the whole question of global warming.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): My question is for the Minister of Labour. As you know, the full impact of Bill 40 is slowly being felt. You are no doubt aware of the controversy that has been sparked by the letter which was sent by the members of Local 112 of the CAW, who are currently engaged in strike action against their employer, Toromont, offering Toromont's customers cut-rate service during the labour dispute.

As you know, under Bill 40 employers are forbidden to use replacement workers to do the work of striking employees during a labour dispute, yet apparently unions are under no prohibition. Indeed, in this scenario it appears the union has become an employer.

Do you not agree that it is unfair for a striking union to offer replacement workers to its employer's customers during a strike, and can you explain why the labour laws that you have enacted allow for this injustice?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): The labour legislation that was passed by this government, Bill 40, has been remarkably successful to date. It has resulted in additional workers being organized in the province of Ontario. It has also resulted in faster settlement of disputes. It has resulted in workers, for example, who normally would be out of work for a year or two years if they tried to organize a plant being back within 48 hours. I think the general consensus is that the legislation has not been, as the member across the way says, a failure, but has been a success in the province of Ontario.

Mrs Witmer: Mr Minister, you have failed to answer the question I asked because you don't know, and I will tell you again: The full impact of Bill 40 is slowly being felt, and we all know we're not going to see the full impact until all existing collective agreements expire and are renegotiated.

I ask you again to address the question. Recognize that Bill 40 did destroy the delicate balance between the rights of unions and the rights of employees and employers. In fact, that's why our party is committed to repealing Bill 40.

You deny that your law is biased towards unions, yet today I've given you a clear example of how one-sided your legislation is. Either your labour laws don't allow this action of the CAW, in which case you must take action to prosecute the union, or if they do, you must introduce legislation amending the Labour Relations Act to prevent such abuses.

Which is it? Will you prosecute the union, or will you amend the law?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I'm surprised the member across the way would say there has been an imbalance as a result of the legislation. What the legislation has done is simply made it apparent that we now have a balanced labour law in the province of Ontario.

Mrs Witmer: Minister, you are still not responding to the question because obviously you don't know the answer.

Your Bill 40 created this injustice. The fact is that if you allow CAW Local 112 to get away with this, unions across this province in the future are going to be able to hold their employers to ransom, because they can undercut them and undermine them during a labour dispute.

Hon Mike Farnan (Minister without Portfolio in Education and Training): You are going to undermine workers.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Cambridge is out of order.

Mrs Witmer: If you allow the union to continue this practice, you are giving unions the ability to continue to work and to make money during a labour dispute, a right which you are denying to their employers.

Interjection.

The Speaker: I ask the member for Cambridge to come to order.

1430

Mrs Witmer: Getting back to the Toromont situation, which is of importance to people in this province because of the negative impact that's being felt by Bill 40 each day, I want to remind you that two employers were hauled on the carpet by the Ontario Labour Relations Board for the illegal use of replacement workers. It's obvious that your ministry is interested in intervening against employers. I ask you again -- one more time you have a chance to answer the question -- what have you done to discourage other unions from copying CAW Local 112's actions? What are you going to do to restore balance in this province in the area of labour-management relations?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: What we've done with the legislation is bring balance that didn't exist before in Ontario in terms of labour relations. I am absolutely certain that the responsible people, both the local and the company involved, will work out the details there.

I might point out to the member across the way that while she is raising a question here in terms of the work that's being done, workers have always had the right to go and get a job while they were on strike if they should so desire.

LEGAL AID

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Attorney General. Ontario's legal aid bill has doubled in the past five years, to $260 million annually. The majority of that tab is picked up by the taxpayers of Ontario through your ministry. As the minister responsible for legal aid in Ontario, do you believe it is appropriate for Ontario taxpayers, who have already in many cases paid for legal defences and appeals, to also foot the bill for convicted criminals to fight deportation orders? Do you think that's fair?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): I believe I've answered the third party on this issue before. We are required under the Legal Aid Act to provide the coverage that is agreed to by the Ontario legal aid plan. The Ministry of the Attorney General is a partner in that with the Law Society of Upper Canada, and every single issue that comes up needs to be agreed upon by the legal aid plan committee and then confirmed by the Law Society of Upper Canada.

All issues involved with legal aid are currently under review because of the real financial crunch the plan finds itself in, and the Ontario legal aid plan is looking at all the current areas of eligibility. I would say to the member that it would be inappropriate for me to try to influence in any way the decision of that group, which is seriously considering a whole series of measures, by making a statement on one piece or another.

Mr Harris: I didn't ask you for an opinion on one case or another. You represent the taxpayers paying the lion's share of this, and not only is it appropriate for you to give your opinion, it is inappropriate for you not to give your opinion while it's under review. This is absolute nonsense, as you are the one charged with reporting to the taxpayers on $260 million.

According to an article in the Toronto Sun yesterday, a man convicted of murdering his wife is using legal aid to fight his deportation order. The article also cites six other deportation cases which are being heard inside penal institutions because the prisoners are too dangerous to be transported to courthouses for the hearings.

If legal aid costs continue to escalate, we won't be able to offer assistance to those who legitimately need access to the system but cannot afford it. I am asking you, do you agree with a system that funds deportation orders, after we've already funded defences for convicted murderers? If you do not agree with it in general, not specific cases, will you stand in this House today and say so and give direction to that review committee that's reviewing legal aid?

Hon Mrs Boyd: No, I will not, because if I were to do so, both opposition parties would probably accuse me of trying to influence unduly the decision of the group that is at arm's length from the Ministry of the Attorney General and which has been charged with making these decisions.

Mr Harris: I did not ask you to comment on the individual cases. You tell me it's under review. Where is the Ontario taxpayer represented in this review, since we fund the lion's share? Let me, without hesitation, in the Legislature and outside, serve notice that should I be in charge a year from now, we will change legal aid and we will not pay for convicted killers to fight deportation orders. We will insist on those changes, because we're paying the lion's share.

Let me ask you as well about an issue I raised last week concerning legal aid and dealing with the Young Offenders Act, which is currently under review. We would like your opinion, the government's opinion --

Interjections.

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

Mr Harris: -- on whether legal aid should be funding 16- and 17-year-olds whose parents can well afford to pay, using the same criteria everybody else has to use when they apply for legal aid. Do you agree that taxpayers should be funding those cases, and if not, will you today speak up to the federal government, which is reviewing the Young Offenders Act?

Hon Mrs Boyd: We have certainly raised the issue of amending the Young Offenders Act to permit the Ontario legal aid plan to apply its eligibility fully.

The current Young Offenders Act, under section 11, talks about the right of young offenders to have legal opinions, and subsection 11(8) is very important for people to keep in mind:

"In any case where it appears to a youth court judge or a justice that the interests of the young person and his parents are in conflict or that it would be in the best interest of the young person to be represented by his own counsel, the judge or the justice may ensure that the young person is represented by counsel independent of his parents."

We would want to see a situation where a young person's eligibility for legal assistance would not be coloured by the willingness of his or her parents to support where there is a conflict of interest, because that would be contrary to the young person's rights. But what we are saying is that yes, as part of the year-long review, which we support, that the federal government is going through, we do want a look at how legal aid applies to young offenders.

EMERGENCY SERVICES

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): To the Minister of Health: On April 6, April 12, and May 18, we have asked you several times why you have been unable to assist small community hospitals to meet the needs of staffing for emergency departments. You keep talking and talking about committees and task forces and other things.

I want the Minister of Health to tell us all, now that we have a resolution from the meeting of the association of small hospitals, now that we have a letter from the Ontario Medical Association saying it wants to come together without reservation, without precondition, to discuss this issue, first, what has she been doing up till now, as they weren't meeting with her, and second, what does she now plan to do so that those people in outlying areas in this province can have good, high-quality, well-attended emergency rooms?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): As I've said in the House many times, this is a long-standing issue and one that we believe needs to be addressed. As part of our negotiations with the Ontario Medical Association last year, we did address it. We addressed it by setting up a committee of the OMA, the ministry and the Ontario Hospital Association.

As I have also said to the House, I profoundly regretted when last February the Ontario Medical Association withdrew from that committee. I'm delighted today to be able to share with the House that the member for Bruce is correct: The Ontario Medical Association has agreed to come back to those discussions. I have accepted and welcomed that return, and I look forward to continuing those discussions just as soon as a meeting of the tripartite committee can be convened.

1440

Mr Elston: The reason I asked the question is not to congratulate her reconvening a meeting, because she told this House on several occasions that the meetings were coming to a successful conclusion and that there would be a solution in place. Since she has told us that, we've had more problems in Red Lake, we've had problems in Exeter, we've had problems in Wingham and Goderich. They are spreading to Kincardine and Hanover like a cancer spreading across this province. The emergency rooms are under terrible circumstances and we are losing physicians to staff the theatres of emergency care in our areas.

I want this minister to guarantee us today that there will not be any more problems in emergency room staffing in the province of Ontario, because she will make sure that she picks up her responsibility and makes it a fact of life that high-quality care will be available in our emergency rooms.

Hon Mrs Grier: The member asks me to pick up my responsibilities. His definition of that is picking up the complete tab, which is what his government was able to do in the 1980s.

Our government negotiated an agreement with the Ontario Medical Association to pay the doctors of this province $3.8 billion a year for the 20,000 physicians of this province.

Interjection.

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

Hon Mrs Grier: Within that, there is an imbalance in what is paid in an emergency room to what is paid elsewhere, because not enough people go to the emergency rooms in small hospitals to make it worth the while of doctors who are paid on a fee-for-service basis to be there.

This is an argument about money. I am now delighted that the Ontario Medical Association is prepared to come back and discuss how we can better distribute parts of that $3.8 billion so that doctors will be compensated for being on standby and being in emergency rooms.

Let me further say to the member, in response to one of the comments in his preamble, that I'm delighted that the doctors in Red Lake have agreed to resume their services while our discussions continue. We are solving the problem.

ONTARIO'S CREDIT RATING

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Minister of Finance. On May 10, the Minister of Economic Development and Trade in your absence said: "If there is a downgrade in the credit rating, there are additional costs in the costs of interest that are attached to that. I'm sure that Finance has the numbers...." This was your Minister of Economic Development who said that, Treasurer.

As your colleague says you know the answer, can you tell me in this House exactly how much last Friday's downgrade by Moody's, on top of the three previous ones, will cost Ontario taxpayers?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): There is no question that as a jurisdiction moves from an AAA credit rating down to an AA or an AA- or whatever level it moves down to --

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Who cares?

Hon Mr Laughren: The Liberals may not care. I do care very much about the level of prosperity.

The amount a jurisdiction pays for its credit goes up as the credit rating drops. There's no question about that, in my view. What is much more difficult to be specific about is that in a situation such as we were faced with in the last couple of weeks, where Moody's simply dropped its credit rating down to the level the other major bond rating agency was at, it is felt by our Finance officials that basically that level of rating was already built into the amount at which people will buy Ontario bonds. So it's my sense that that specific downgrade by Moody's, joining Standard and Poor's at that level, did not have a measurable effect on the cost of borrowing.

Mr Harris: Minister, you've had four downgrades in four years. The Fraser Institute lists Ontario's debt-to-GDP ratio among the 64 worst in the world, somewhere between Burundi and Morocco. The Toronto-Dominion Bank estimated last week that Ontario's per capita deficit is $804, the highest in Canada. Something is wrong.

Part of what is wrong is that for every dollar you grab in revenue -- and that is substantial after 63 tax hikes over the last 10 years -- you spend $1.20. You just tabled a budget that calls for an increase of $25 billion in new debt over the next three years. Can you explain, when the consequences are so devastating, why you didn't tackle spending in your recent budget?

Hon Mr Laughren: I would part company with the last comment made by the leader of the third party. I would remind him that for the last two years this government cut program spending, for the first time in over 50 years in this province, something you never did, something your predecessors never did when the Tories were in power for 42 years.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Laughren: I apologize if the facts make the leader defensive about his own record, but those are simply the facts. The facts are that you never reduced program spending in the 42 years your government was in office.

Second, I would remind the leader of the third party that this government has worked extremely hard to find the appropriate balance between getting the deficit going down and maintaining the essential services of this province, which I know you would not maintain -- you've already promised to slash them -- and at the same time getting Ontario on a sound financial footing.

SALE OF LAND

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Minister, the township of Howard has some serious concerns with regard to land sales by your ministry. Some years ago your ministry purchased parcels of agricultural land in my riding for the purpose of road construction. However, that land was not used for roads and is now being offered for sale back to the township, which of course is not an unusual situation.

But what I and the council of Howard do consider unusual is the price being asked for these parcels of land. The township of Howard had several parcels of land appraised in order to make a fair offer to the ministry. A particular parcel was appraised at $2,500. The ministry is asking $11,000. Can you tell me and the township of Howard why your ministry would ask $11,000 for a piece of land that has been appraised as worth $2,500?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): I thank the member for sharing in the concern of the township of Howard in his constituency. We have a mandate at Transportation to dispose of surplus land at market value. Simply put, the township of Howard hires an appraiser who says that this specific parcel of land is worth $2,500. The Ministry of Transportation also has appraisers. Our appraiser says it's worth $11,000. There is a discrepancy between $11,000 and $2,500.

What we factor in is the possibility of housing on the specific piece of land. That's why there is the discrepancy. We would be only willing and happy to avail ourselves of the opportunity to explain our practices to the township of Howard.

1450

Mr Hayes: Mr Minister, there are several other parcels of land in my riding, specifically, agricultural lands along the 401, originally purchased by your ministry. These parcels have been divided into smaller parcels and now are being offered for sale for housing and other purposes, even though this is completely against Howard township's zoning and official plan provisions.

This appears to be a case of big government buying large land lots for future development, not requiring the land and so dividing it and selling it back to the township as smaller lots, thereby making a much greater financial return on their original investment.

Minister, can you tell us what is the truth behind this issue?

Hon Mr Pouliot: I can assure the honourable member that this government --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I know what that's called: million-dollar jacket.

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

Hon Mr Pouliot: -- has no intention of taking advantage in any way of small municipalities. We intend to conduct our practice in accordance with municipal and provincial regulations, no more, no less than that. We've been consistent and most reasonable.

Again, by way of conclusion, we will invite the township of Howard to meet with our officials to seek and find a middle ground that will be satisfactory to both the municipality and the province of Ontario.

FERRY SERVICE FEES

Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): My question is also to the Minister of Transportation, and it's another case where he has taken advantage of some people, in eastern Ontario.

Minister, last Friday the people of Wolfe Island won their court case against the NDP plans to impose new ferry service fees. The judge ruled that the NDP has no legislative authority to implement fees under the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act. We have been telling the minister for months that these fees do not make economic sense. Now the courts have said that these fees are indeed illegal.

In my area, the Ministry of Transportation was intending to begin collecting fares on the Glenora ferry service this Wednesday. Given the court ruling, does the minister still intend to collect fares starting in June on the Glenora ferry services and the Wolfe Island ferry?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): I have been advised by counsel that we are seeking leave to appeal the decision. Regarding the June 1 --

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): You're supposed to advise counsel.

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

Interjection.

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

Hon Mr Pouliot: The member for York Centre has a tendency to go into some sort of pique which is unbecoming of decorum and good manners in this House.

But back to the question, more importantly indeed, the June 1 decision vis-à-vis ferry fees at both Glenora and Wolfe Island are under review.

Mr O'Neil: Might I tell the minister, first of all, that the local residents in Glenora and Wolfe Island have documented how the government's plans for new fees for the local ferry service will hurt local businesses, will cost jobs and then lower the province's income tax and sales tax revenues. Also, you're aware that so far the NDP has spent approximately $80,000 on new ticket machines for the Glenora ferry, and I might mention to you, Minister, that we're told that these machines are not accessible to the physically handicapped. Now the NDP government plans to spend thousands of dollars more in court costs to fight the court's ruling.

Minister, you were warned back in the fall, when your NDP member asked for a review of this decision and was told by the Legislative advisory people that these fees were not constitutionally or legally right, and still you went ahead with them.

Minister, will you give us a commitment today that you will not proceed with these fees until a proper economic study is done as to the effects these fees will cause?

Hon Mr Pouliot: The member is correct in voicing his concern re the physically challenged people who have some difficulties and are seeking accessibility. You know what our track record is. To some extent, it's a continuation of what previous governments have started: the Conservatives, the Liberals and now ourselves. I think collectively we've done better than previous years. There's a certain evolution.

Back to the fees: We respect the decision of the court. We will appeal the decision. In the meantime, Glenora and Wolfe Island will not be the recipient of a fee introduction as previously planned; no fee starting June 1.

AGRICULTURAL LABOUR POLICY

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): To the Minister of Labour, today we continue the second reading of Bill 91, which effectively will promote the unionization of family farms.

The preamble of this legislation reads as follows: "It is in the public interest to extend collective bargaining rights to employees and employers in the agriculture and horticulture industries." Everyone in agriculture and horticulture whom I've spoken to since Bill 91 came in is opposed to this bill. They do not see the need.

Can the minister tell the House who within agriculture requested this Bill 91, and if no one did, are you prepared to withdraw it today?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): The member knows, I'm sure, that there has been as much consultation on this piece of legislation as just about anything in this House. He also knows that there has been an approval by both labour and farm groups in terms of the legislation, that a consensus was reached, and it is the consensus and the amendments that are before the House. And no, I will not withdraw the bill.

Mr Villeneuve: That's certainly not the message I get. I live out in rural Ontario and I speak to a lot of farmers and people involved, and that is not the message I'm getting. Unlike the Liberals, who are voting against the bill but still consider this as something that can be improved in this bill, we do not see any need for this bill. There are numerous amendments to this point, amendments where it changes the overall direction of the bill and changes the real intent of the bill.

Can the minister explain why his government thinks the Ministry of Labour is more familiar with farm operations than the Ministry of Agriculture, and if indeed he's going to push it through, is he prepared to turn it over to his colleague the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: We never said we were more aware of issues than the Minister of Agriculture, but I can tell him the legislation is labour legislation and it will remain with the Ministry of Labour.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mrs Ellen MacKinnon (Lambton): My question today is directed to the Minister of Health.

As we all know, health care in this province is a serious priority for the people of Ontario. Most people understand the government's position on financial restraint and reorganization of the moneys allotted to hospitals. It is when the individual hospitals, with their reduced allocations, direct cost-savings measures at the expense of already overworked nursing staff that the patients become acutely distressed.

Madam Minister, are there directives to the hospitals that address where the cuts are made, and can you inform us how the hospital boards work together with both uniformed staff and non-uniformed staff to ensure the hospitals are adequately staffed and the patients' needs are being met first?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): Let me say to the member that, no, there are not directives to hospitals that say where cuts in their spending or changes are to be made, but there are directives that indicate how those changes are to be made, and that means in a much more open and consultative way than has ever been done in the past.

I'm very impressed by the way hospitals across the province, especially those in the member's riding, have responded to the need for restructuring over the past three years. They've changed the way in which they operate and have become much more cost-effective while still maintaining high-quality services to their patients and treating more patients than they had in the past.

They've also set up, as part of their planning for their operating budgets, a way in which they do involve the staff, the uniformed and non-uniformed, as the member characterizes them, in their discussions. We believe that's very important.

I met with a couple of hospitals just last Friday where there were representatives from the Ontario Nurses' Association and all the unions in that hospital as well as representatives of the board, meeting with me to talk about what was happening in their particular hospital. We believe that is the way to go, and as those operating budgets are developed, they are reviewed by the district health council and by the ministry so that we have the final say as to whether the changes have been appropriate ones.

1500

HOSPITAL FINANCING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question as well for the Minister of Health. It's about diabetic care in the city of St Catharines and the Niagara district as a whole.

The member visited the Niagara Peninsula on Friday and would be aware from that visit that at Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines there's a diabetes education centre, some work being done for diabetics, but there's also a problem. There's a very long waiting list to receive services for diabetics in our area. The centre, which is now connected with Hotel Dieu Hospital, was originally designed to service some 500 patients throughout the Niagara Peninsula. Today it deals with more than 3,500 and hasn't received an extra cent in funding from Queen's Park.

Would the minister inform the House today whether or not she is now prepared to fund, from the allocation which has been provided to her ministry by the Treasurer, this particular project which would be beneficial to all diabetes patients in the Niagara Peninsula?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): Let me say to the member for St Catharines that I indeed had a very interesting and instructive day on Friday in the Niagara Peninsula with my colleagues on this side of the House. I regret that the member was unable to join us. I had understood that he would be with us at the meeting of the district health council.

I had the opportunity to view the renovations that are under way in Hotel Dieu in St Catharines, funded recently by my government. I certainly recognize the expanding need for dialysis that reflects, in part because of the increasing incidence of diabetes, which sometimes leads to kidney failure.

With respect to the specifics of the program that the member raises, let me assure him that I have great confidence in the district health council in the Niagara region, one of the oldest district health councils in this province and one that has been operating with a great deal of volunteer and community support for many years. As they plan for the future of health care services in the peninsula, should they indicate the desirability and the need for the expansion that he outlines, I will certainly look at that very carefully.

Mr Bradley: I will take advantage of the supplementary to mention to the Minister of Health that the reason I did not attend the meeting was because I wasn't invited to the meeting. Even though I was shown a list of names that said I was on the invited list -- one of your members showed it to me at noon that day; he was kind enough to do so -- I was not invited to the meeting. Anyway, be that as it may, my colleagues from the peninsula will tell me all about it; they're very cooperative that way.

There is mounting evidence, according to Tanya Nixon, who is the branch coordinator for the local chapter of the Canadian Diabetes Association, that early treatment of diabetes slashes the rate of complications significantly. One of the reasons that people in our part of the province would like this to be funded as soon as possible from within your allocation is because of the complications, which can be blindness, heart and vascular disease and kidney disorders.

Would the minister give an assurance that now that the Niagara District Health Council has certainly looked favourably upon this, now that everybody appears to be moving, you will announce in the very near future the necessary funding so that diabetics in our part of the province will be able to receive appropriate service and so that we can avoid some of the longer-term complications which would be more costly to the personal lives of those people and more costly to the health care system in this province?

Hon Mrs Grier: Let me start by saying that I'm sure the district health council would want me to express regrets that the member had been unaware of the fact that I was meeting with it. I know of his involvement with them in the past and of their support for him. I can assure him that no slight was intended in what I'm was sure an oversight. But with respect to any announcement for funding that affects the member's riding, let me assure him that when any decisions are made I will make sure that there is no second oversight and that he is one of the first to be informed.

HIGHWAY TOLLS

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I have a question for the Minister of Transportation. Mr Minister, the people of eastern Ontario are glad that Highway 416 is back on the track. There is, however, speculation by this minister and other people that tolls will be placed on the new 416, as they are on the 407.

I would like to point out to the minister that there's a significant difference in that 407 parallels another provincial highway, 401, and people have a choice of taking a toll road or they have a choice of taking 401. People who now use 16 will be in a position of having to travel back country roads and wind their way up from Prescott near the 401 to the city of Ottawa.

Will the minister tell this House if it is his intention to put tolls on Highway 416 and what alternative route will be available to Ontarians who now use Highway 16?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): In terms of alternatives or alternative routes, you have Highway 15, but it's not four-lane. The member is quite right that it doesn't parallel the 401, so when he talked about tolling, as we are doing with the 407, to relieve the pressure, you don't have, clearly, the same alternative in Ottawa.

We're optimistic that we can have shovel in the ground in the fall. There are no secrets here. You're talking about $180 million for the southern section of Highway 416. You're talking about 6,000 jobs. You're talking about a new partnership which is the federal government with the equivalent of $60 million, which is one third. We can't find $120 million overnight. It simply cannot be done.

What we would do, in answer to the question, is to look at the innovation of a transportation capital corporation, perhaps give consideration to tolling for a short while until the $120-million responsibility has been paid back from the corporation to the lenders. We believe it can be done. We believe it shall be done. Six thousand jobs, with shovel in the ground, if all goes well, this fall at a reasonable cost.

Mr Sterling: Nice speech, but Highway 15 and Highway 16 are separated by some 100 kilometres. That's a great alternative for you to offer the people of eastern Ontario.

The people of eastern Ontario who, as provincial taxpayers, have paid their share of building and maintaining every other highway in Ontario, are waiting in anticipation and with some trepidation of what your stated intentions are here. The 416 was promised by this government, by previous governments before, and was taken off the books by the present government.

We look at beautiful highways like 115 and 35 going from the 401 to Peterborough, which is about the same length as 416, and that was to service about 100,000 to 150,000 people and some cottagers from Toronto, whereas Ottawa is the nation's capital with some 750,000 people in it.

Mr Minister, don't you think it's time for some consistent policy with regard to tolls on roads which do not parallel other existing provincial highways? It does not --

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): What about Highway 31?

Mr Sterling: Highway 31 is --

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

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): You'll be sorry you mentioned that one.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Sterling: Obviously the member for Algoma hasn't been in Ottawa recently.

Eastern Ontarians are wondering why the government built highways like 115 and 35 at the expense of all Ontarians and now is asking eastern Ontarians to pay for 416. Do you think it is fair that some Ontarians have paid for all the highways and then are asked, as in eastern Ontario, to pay for their own local highways?

Hon Mr Pouliot: That's a very valid point. In my humble opinion, Highway 15 is not the same alternative as Highway 401 to 407. That point was made and it was repeated and well taken.

Second point: When the member asks if it is fair to ask people who depend on Highway 416 to pay a fee supplementary to the taxes that they pay, by way of tolls, let's put things into the right perspective. The province has already spent $75 million of taxpayers' money on Highway 416, the northern section. It keeps on spending. By 1996, two years from now, we will have spent an additional $50 million. So we're up to $125 million of taxpayers' money for the 416.

What we're suggesting here is accelerating the project. There are no secrets. We cannot on the one hand address the deficit -- we have to pay the banker, so if you want the highway faster there are no secrets; there are no tales of Houdini -- you need to find the money and the way you find the money is by borrowing the money over a longer period to reflect the life of the project. You do so through tolls for a short time and you do so through a capital corporation that is financially, fiscally responsible. We intend to proceed.

1510

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I invite all members to join me in welcoming to our chamber this afternoon, and seated in the members' gallery west, Mr Ivan Tolj, member of Parliament for Croatia. He's accompanied by artists from the Croatian National Theatre. Welcome to Ontario, Canada.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I move that ballot item numbers 59 and 60 be considered in reverse order on Thursday, June 2, 1994.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

PETITIONS

TAX INCREASES

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): I have a petition here which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly:

"We, the undersigned residents of the city of Vaughan, who now avail themselves of their rights thus to present a grievance to your assembly, declare that we are overburdened with taxes. Consequently, we strongly protest against any new municipal and provincial tax increases. Instead of transferring costs to the municipalities, we urge the government to pressure the federal government to create and print the money of our country in accordance with section 91 of the Canadian Constitution (British North America Act, 1867)."

I agree with a portion of this petition, not the portion dealing with the printing of money, but notwithstanding that, I am signing and submitting this petition on behalf of my constituents.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): "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 we have no desire to own;

"We, the undersigned, petition 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."

This is signed by a number of residents of my riding and I affix my signature.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Peter North (Elgin): I have a petition here to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas Canada was founded on Judeo-Christian principles which recognize the importance of marriage and family;

"Whereas the redefinition of marital status will extend to same-sex couples the rights and benefits of marriage;

"Whereas this redefinition will further increase the likelihood that children will learn to imitate homosexual practices;

"Whereas there is evidence that there will be negative financial, societal and medical implications and effects on the community with any increase in homosexual practices, the redefinition of spouse and family status, and policies concerning adoption of children by homosexuals;

"We request that the House refrain from passing any legislation that would alter or redefine marital status."

There are some 25 signatures on that.

TOBACCO PACKAGING

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I've got a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario in support of the plain packaging of tobacco products.

"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; 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 effective method of protecting the Canadian public;

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

"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."

It's been signed by people from Unionville, Sharon, Churchill, Keswick, Newmarket, Mount Albert, Gilford and Lindsay, and I affix my name to this as well.

HEALTH INSURANCE

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I have a petition which reads as follows:

"Whereas the Ontario government has announced its intention to reduce emergency coverage for out-of-country health care on June 30, 1994;

"Whereas the citizens of Ontario are entitled to health coverage no matter where they are, with payment made on the basis of the amount that would be paid for a similar service in the province;

"Whereas the Canada Health Act entitles all Canadians to health care on an equal basis;

"Whereas this decision by the Minister of Health is in direct contravention of the Canada Health Act;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to ensure the Minister of Health follow the provisions of the Canada Health Act and prevent further erosion of our health care system in Ontario."

I've affixed my name to this petition. I agree heartily with it and commend it to the members.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, Legislative Building, Queen's Park, Toronto, Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has stated that multiservice agencies, the new single, local point of access for long-term care and support services, must purchase 90% of their homemaking and professional services from not-for-profit providers, therefore virtually eliminating use of commercial providers;

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

"We protest the action to drastically reduce the service provision by commercial providers and respectfully request that the impact of this policy decision, including a cost study, be performed before any further implementation."

These petitions were given to me at my office in London, Ontario, and they represent hundreds of signatures from all over Middlesex county, southwest Ontario and London. I have affixed my signature to it and certainly share their concerns.

HIGHWAY INTERCHANGE

Mrs Ellen MacKinnon (Lambton): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. On behalf of the township of Warwick in my riding of Lambton county, I present the following petition.

"Whereas we have concerns as to fire and emergency service in the area;

"Whereas tourism would be better serviced by improved access to the conservation authority campground and local business in the area;

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

"To install an interchange for access at Highway 402 and Highway 7."

I agree with this petition and will affix my signature to the same.

1520

KETTLE ISLAND BRIDGE

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): This is from my constituents, sent to the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has representation on JACPAT (Joint Administrative Committee on Planning and Transportation for the National Capital Region); and

"Whereas JACPAT has received a consultants' report recommending a new bridge across the Ottawa River at Kettle Island which would link up to Highway 417, a provincial highway; and

"Whereas the city and regional councils of Ottawa, representing the wishes of citizens in the Ottawa region, have passed motions rejecting any new bridge within the city of Ottawa because such a bridge and its access roads would provide no benefits to Ottawa but would instead destroy existing neighbourhoods;

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

"To reject the designation of a new bridge corridor at Kettle Island or at any other location within the city of Ottawa core."

I will affix my signature to this petition.

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): Constituents from my riding of Oakville South have asked me to table a petition which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:"

Whereas the board of education and the parents in my riding have recommended that any implementation of junior kindergarten be put on hold; and

Whereas they object very strongly to the cost of this program and find it unacceptable and irresponsible that the government would force the board of education to find the space, the teachers and the funding for this; and

Whereas there are no funds to administer the present curriculum, and facilities for the students currently enrolled in the schools are strained; and

Whereas they suffer from overcrowded classrooms, sharing of textbooks, diminishing office staff resources and loss of valuable programs; and

Whereas to implement a junior kindergarten at this time is totally unrealistic: the total capital costs have been estimated at $4.9 million and the operational cost per year would be in the neighbourhood of around $8 million;

"We, the undersigned, demand the government not force junior kindergarten on the people who don't want it."

I've affixed my signature to that as well.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I have petitions here from residents from Kitchener, Waterloo, St Agatha, Petersburg, Baden, New Hamburg, New Dundee and Wellesley to the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas we strongly believe that marriage is an important institution which is intended by the Creator to be a stable union between a man and a woman; and

"Whereas we also believe that supporting other types of unions threatens this plan,

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

"We strongly urge you to oppose any legislation which supports same-sex spousal benefits."

CASINO GAMBLING

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the issue of legalized casino gambling is a sensitive and controversial issue; and

"Whereas 'this government has said it will not put a casino anywhere there is not overwhelming support' (written statement by NDP MPP Margaret Harrington of Niagara Falls presented at the September 2, 1993, public hearings of the standing committee on finance and economic affairs regarding Bill 8); and

"Whereas we believe that the city council of Niagara Falls, Ontario, has not received a mandate to introduce casino gambling from the people of Niagara Falls at the last municipal election;

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

"We, the undersigned, who are opposed to casino gambling, request that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario not allow the city of Niagara Falls to become a candidate for a gambling casino unless there is broad-based public support for such a facility, which we are requesting to be determined through a referendum vote by the citizens of Niagara Falls."

This is signed by 100 citizens of Niagara Falls. I've affixed my signature to it and I present it to the House.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): I have a petition signed by about 450 people from across the great riding of Stormont-Dundas-Glengarry and East Grenville. It was received on May 24 from the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, and it reads as follows:

"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;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition 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."

I agree and I've signed the petition.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I have a petition from the local executive of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters in my riding of Durham East, and it says:

"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; 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" -- and there is a large amount of names from my riding -- "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 and examination."

I affix my signature to that.

GAMBLING

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I have a petition to the Parliament 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, 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

"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 establish more 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 have affixed my signature to this petition.

WRITTEN QUESTIONS

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): Mr Speaker, once again I rise on a point of order with respect to clauses 97(a), (b), (c) and (d) of the standing orders of the House.

On March 22 I placed a written question to the Minister of Health, number 483, and on March 28 I placed a question, number 487, also to the Minister of Health.

Question 483 requests information with respect to the operation of the health card fraud line, including how many cases there were and so on, how many charges have been laid. We know that this material is available because some of it had been used by the minister in public statements. None the less, there has been no written response to the information, and we feel that it is extremely important in the debate.

On the second question, number 487, the minister indicated that an interim answer was tabled on April 18 and that the final information would be available on April 22. That question is related to the spending and promise of spending of $647 million for long-term care. That information has not been forthcoming. The minister continues to discuss that in public but has provided none of the detailed information which was requested through written questions.

You will understand, Mr Speaker, that the written questions are matters that aren't of the emergency nature of the question period that we go through each day. None the less, the information that is included on the order paper is vital information in terms of dealing with the issues that face not only the House but the government and are important to the opposition. I urge you once again to look into the issues that I've raised on this and many other days.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The honourable member for Halton Centre indeed has a point of order. She has drawn it to the attention of the House, and of course the member will wish that the minister will comply with the response. The member will know that there are no sanctions when this particular order has not been followed.

1530

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Mr Hansen from the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly presented the committee's special report and moved the adoption of its recommendations.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Does the member wish to make a brief statement?

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): Yes, just to let the audience out there know what the special report is. It has to do with the deferred votes that are taken in this House. Mr Speaker, it will give you direction now on deferred votes taken the next day. I'd like to thank all the committee members for their input and the clerks and the Deputy Speaker for coming forward with ideas. It wasn't unanimously passed; there were two dissenting members on the committee.

I would like to move adjournment of the debate.

The Speaker: Mr Hansen moves adjournment of the debate. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

OAKTOWN PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LIMITED ACT, 1994

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

Bill Pr111, An Act to revive Oaktown Property Management Limited.

CITY OF OTTAWA ACT, 1994

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

Bill Pr97, An Act respecting the City of Ottawa.

CITY OF OTTAWA ACT, 1994

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

Bill Pr98, An Act respecting the City of Ottawa.

COUNTY OF VICTORIA ACT, 1994

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

Bill Pr106, An Act respecting the County of Victoria.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of 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 Speaker (Hon David Warner): The honourable member for S-D-G & East Grenville had the floor and may now resume.

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): It's always nice to get a break for a week, as we've just had, to attend some of the events that occur in our ridings. I must tell you, I had the opportunity of attending several agricultural events in the riding, and this was the main reason for my question to the Minister of Labour earlier today during question period. The question was, effectively, who asked for Bill 91? Indeed, Bill 91 was not asked for by anyone. I had the opportunity of being at the graduation of the Kemptville College of Agricultural Technology on Thursday of last week. I spoke to graduates and I spoke to their parents, I spoke to many people that day, and they're saying, "When is this bill coming in that's going to unionize the family farm?" They're very, very concerned, and concerned with just cause.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): You couldn't defend this information that had been given them, could you?

Mr Villeneuve: I simply told them that we are going to attempt to get the government to realize that indeed no one in agriculture wants Bill 91.

Interjection.

Mr Villeneuve: The member for Downsview has a problem understanding that. I don't think he has too many farms in his riding, but if he did, the message would be coming through to him.

Mr Perruzza: I'll match my output against yours any time.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The member for Downsview, you're disturbing the peace.

Mr Villeneuve: I want again to reiterate the preamble of Bill 91, and the preamble is so obviously wrong: "It is in the public interest to extend collective bargaining rights to employees and employers in the agriculture and horticulture industries." Where in the world did they get that, Mr Speaker?

I went to the Maxville Fair on the weekend, the biggest black-and-white show in Ontario, and we had farmers there from the Maritimes, from Quebec, from Ontario. An excellent Holstein show, Mr Speaker, and of course the other breeds were there, but it is primarily a black-and-white show.

We had farmers there saying: "What are you doing at Queen's Park? You're attempting to unionize. You're attempting to create a problem like what they're having in Ottawa." Blue Line Taxi's on strike right now and people aren't getting the taxi services. People are roughing up other people, intimidation goes on all the time, and we're going to extend this to agriculture? Again, the preamble makes no sense.

Now the second portion of the preamble starts with "However" -- I have to agree with the "however" portion -- "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 agriculture and horticulture products and the need for maintenance of continuous processes to ensure the care and survival of animal and plant life. That is absolutely correct. Why the first paragraph? I don't know. Why Bill 91? I don't know. No one seems to know out in rural Ontario.

Under the Ministry of Labour, of all ministries, which has very little in the way of any sort of similarity to Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs -- we now have a whole raft of ministries dictating to Agriculture. Municipal Affairs of course. MNR is now defining what a farmer is. We have the Minister of Environment and Energy very much involved in what farmers can and cannot do with their land, the practices and whatever.

Yet we have the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs budget being cut very dramatically in the last four years. Very dramatically, some 20%. Had all ministries been cut in that particular amount, we would have absolutely no deficit here in the province of Ontario at all. We would have a balanced budget; we might even have a surplus.

Mr Perruzza: Isn't that what Mike Harris wants to do?

Mr Villeneuve: That is just simply stating a few of the --

Mr Perruzza: Cutting away the food budget at 30%?

Mr Villeneuve: The member for Downsview has a problem understanding that within the revolutionary document that the Tories brought out, the Common Sense Revolution, there are no cuts to agriculture. If the member can come to us and show us even one sentence, one word that touches agriculture -- I perused that document very closely. The member for Downsview, you can keep on looking and you'll look all afternoon and all night and you won't find it. Very, very simple.

However, when I spoke to my neighbours who were at the Maxville Fair on the weekend -- and we had a successful fair in spite of some very rough weather. We had the RCMP Musical Ride on Saturday night, a very good show. But the concerns of agriculture, particularly those who are in intensive livestock production -- you are very much going to bring confrontation to the agricultural field, which does not need it at all. We've had an exemption to this point and, I must tell you, it has worked very, very well.

1540

I must go back to the graduating class at the Kemptville College of Agricultural Technology. Paul Meldrum, whom I think most farmers from eastern Ontario know as the Valley Farmer on Sunday afternoon on the television channel 13, which comes into my home, was a very interesting speaker. I know a lot of people tend to tell us that agriculture is the second most important industry in the province of Ontario. Paul Meldrum confirmed what I've said all along, that it's by far the most important.

He suggested that all of the graduating students from the Kemptville College of Agricultural Technology should be very proud to be proceeding into a career, a profession, into the production or the processing of food. How important is that? It's so important that, in my opinion, it's way ahead of many of the professions, including the legal, the accounting profession, the political profession. It's the production of food.

As Paul Meldrum told them during his address to the graduates, yes, we could, if indeed worst came to worst, take away your television, we could take away your cars, we could take away your refrigerators, we could literally take everything away for a period of one, two, three months and you'd come back and you wouldn't be much the worse for wear. Probably if they took your TV away, you might even be better off. However, if they took the food away from you or from anyone, you certainly wouldn't last 30, 60 or 90 days. That's how important agriculture is to us all. We're all consumers.

Back to Bill 91: In section 6 of Bill 91, the government recommends voting against section 6 of the bill. In section 8, the government recommends voting against section 8 of the bill. Section 10: The government recommends voting against section 10 of the bill. Section 11: The government recommends voting against section 11 of the bill. And this is a government bill.

That's why my question went to the Minister of Labour today. If indeed there are that many problems with Bill 91, why are we trying to work with a lame duck? It's not a good bill. There are major, major changes that are being recommended by the government to its own bill. If indeed we proceed, the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario will certainly have its amendments, but the first would be to totally disregard the bill. However, it doesn't look like this will happen.

I'll tell you some of the concerns I have. Section 12 states in part:

"In this section, 'family member', in reference to an employer, means" -- subject to the regulations -- "a spouse, child, sibling, parent or grandchild of (a) the employer; (b) if the employer is a partnership" -- if a partner has at least 51% of the shares in the partnership etc.

It goes on and redefines how agricultural corporations, agricultural partnerships, even loosely knit names of farm operations -- so it becomes very complicated and, in my opinion, an unnecessary maze of bureaucracy.

Bill 91 is an extension of Bill 40. Bill 40 is a bill in which, effectively, labour becomes a controller in many operations. We, the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, would rescind both Bill 40 and Bill 91. We see no need for either one. If some alterations have to be made to labour legislation, let's keep them at that exactly -- alterations.

Back to the Kemptville College of Agricultural Technology. I want to pass on a word of compliment and thanks to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs at this particular point for the $3-per-hour subsidy he will be providing to about 1,100 students in agriculture who will be working for at least six weeks on some of our farms in rural Ontario.

That was certainly a long time coming. I believe it's not a great deal of money, but certainly I've been encouraging all of my constituents to apply as soon as they can for this $3-per-hour subsidy, because it's some degree of financial support to those people who are farming out in rural Ontario.

Back to the Maxville Fair. It's kind of important, because it's right in my own backyard. I spoke to a number of farm equipment dealers who had equipment on display and they were expressing how concerned the farming community was, particularly in that there is no more startup mechanism to assist new farmers to come into the business. In prior times with prior governments, we had the beginning farmers financial package, we had Farm-Start, and they were all oriented towards getting new blood into the agricultural field, into the profession of the production of food.

There are no longer any sorts of programs to support beginning farmers in any way, shape or form. Bill 91 goes in exactly the opposite direction. Bill 91, if it does anything, will discourage a beginning farmer, a new farmer, if he or she is even considering setting up shop, because it creates a whole bureaucracy under the Ministry of Labour that will stand in the way of having agriculture be able to proceed as it always has.

It's very dependent on the weather. Livestock have to be looked after on a daily basis. You get to a situation where, yes, you can't go on strike and you can't get locked out; however, the mechanisms are in place where you will be living under tremendous strains because of the fact that this famous labour legislation is in place, when indeed a farmer and his employees would simply sit down around the kitchen table if there was a problem and come to a solution. You'll tell me, Mr Speaker, they can still do that. Of course they can still do that. Why have Bill 91? It's an absolutely needless piece of legislation interpreted by a bunch of bureaucrats.

When I last spoke in this House some 10 or 12 days ago, I spoke on graduated licences to some degree and how they will affect rural and agricultural Ontario. I attempted at that time to have the Minister of Labour and his officials look at exempting the farm-licensed vehicle, the farm pickup, the farm grain truck that would be going from field to storage area in the farm yard or to the elevator or to the processor. I was rather saddened that the ministry and ministry officials saw no need at all to exempt farm-licensed vehicles in their graduated licensing process and mechanism.

Graduated licences we believe will be a good thing. They are in the process of happening now, and I believe in the long run will be a positive in providing new drivers with better experience, better education, and honing their skills at driving, which is never an easy thing to do, particularly in the conditions we sometimes have during the fall, winter and early spring.

1550

However, I felt very disappointed that an exception could not be made for those farm trucks, farm-licensed trucks, that effectively do only farm business and would be hauling livestock to market, hauling grain from the field to the elevator, or what have you.

At the Heinz plant in Leamington, the company and union had a lockout and a strike, and it would have happened to the growers who were waiting for their tomato contracts to be signed, but the growing season couldn't wait.

These are the concerns that all of agriculture has, in that the production of crops, the production of livestock and the farming of the land -- particularly in the area I come from, we have a growing season that is frost-free from May 15 to September 15. It's not a lot of time, so timeliness is of utmost importance. For this bill, time is not of the essence.

We, the Progressive Conservative Party of the province of Ontario, will do what we can to slow down this process, and indeed hopefully have this bill totally thrown out of this Legislature and have agriculture be exempt from any labour laws, as it has traditionally been over many years.

The Common Sense Revolution, referred to by my colleague from Downsview a while ago, is a document that makes a great deal of sense. We talk about 725,000 new jobs over the next five years. We speak of balancing the budget and putting people back to work. The problem with Bill 91 is that it goes in the exact opposite direction of creating jobs: It will be eliminating jobs.

I have spoken to some people in the tender fruit industry, and they are very seriously considering either mechanizing as much as possible or actually liquidating the operation. That is a rather sad comment on the state of the industry at this particular time, because they are in a very labour-intensive type of business. When you're in a labour-intensive business, you have to depend on labour and make sure they are prepared, willing and able to do what has to be done in a timely fashion.

Production of livestock is exactly the same. The dairy industry is a prime example. The dairy industry requires that the livestock be looked after 365 days a year, and that includes Christmas and New Year's and every other holiday, Sunday included. There are times when, yes, there is friction and problems between the employer and employee, but it has always been able to be negotiated, and if it could not be negotiated, the employee simply walked away and someone replaced him or her. That is the way the industry has gone in the past, and an exemption from Bill 91 would be, in my humble opinion, the right way to go. However, it seems the government is intent on putting forth Bill 91.

During the week we were on constituency work, I had the opportunity of looking at some of the amendments. In my opinion, the amendments are very drastically changing the bill. As I have mentioned on a previous occasion, with Bill 105, which was setting up agricultural groups, general farm organizations, we had the same kind of situation, where major amendments would have been required. The government, I believe, was wise and did the right thing in totally forgetting about Bill 105 and coming in with another bill, Bill 42, which worked reasonably well. It certainly didn't make everyone happy across Ontario -- we had some negative comments -- but by and large it is supported. It's my understanding that both the Christian Farmers and the Ontario Federation of Agriculture have a number of increased memberships, and I believe they will serve the industry well.

Agriculture is in a declining mode, with the numbers now in the area of slightly more than 2% of the population. When we consider the importance of the production of food, the processing and transportation of food and food products, and your base source is slightly more than 2% of your entire population, it's very important that you allow those people to operate in a reasonable and timely fashion. Bill 91 will interfere with that on an ongoing basis.

You talk about arbitration here and the powers of an arbitrator. Well, the experience with arbitrators in many instances -- the city of Cornwall comes to mind immediately, where the firefighters, who are declared a mandatory service, had an arbitrator come in. The arbitrator provided a 13%-plus retroactive increase to a municipality like the city of Cornwall in the early 1990s, when the economy was in very great difficulty. We have to remember that there are times when these arbitrators really don't have their ear to the ground, and the reality of having to find dollars to meet the requirements is most difficult at the best of times.

The agriculture labour-management advisory committee which was established by the minister continues under the new, amended bill, and that is positive if indeed this bill is going to survive.

The Minister of Finance has made sure that the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs has had very limited budget expansion. As a matter of fact, as I've mentioned before, it's some 20% reduced over the past four years. It's rather a sad situation for the state of the industry, for Agriculture to be faced with that kind of reduction when all other ministries, save and except possibly the Ministry of Natural Resources, have seen considerable increases in the amount of moneys that were available to them.

The agricultural operations are basically family-type operations where husband, wife and family work as a unit. In many instances they may be supplemented by one, two or more employees. Generally, the operation works that way. It's a closely knit situation where people are helping one another. In the agricultural community, we look back over many years when we used to help one another during the thrashing, during the harvesting of the crops. It was basically a large group of farmers going from farm to farm, interchanging labour, and it didn't matter whether you thrashed three days at one place and two days at the other. Everyone helped one another and didn't count the time or the hours.

It is different now with the mechanization that has occurred, where farmers are much more on their own and less dependent on one another. However, Bill 91 will enforce that even more in that it will force the mechanization of everything possible. Labour on a farm will become almost non-existent. It can't become non-existent, but it will be minimized in that Bill 91 will make it very, very difficult for agriculture to survive and indeed to thrive, particularly in those areas in the tender fruit and vegetable production areas that are labour-intensive.

Mr Speaker, this is kind of an important discussion and I don't believe we have a quorum.

The Deputy Speaker: Would you please check whether there is a quorum.

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

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

1600

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

The Deputy Speaker: The member for S-D-G & East Grenville.

Mr Villeneuve: Back to Bill 91. In Maxville we have a pretty good horse show, and we had the horse racing people and the show horse people very concerned about what this government is doing not only with Bill 91 but with Bill 8, the casino bill. I was provided with a paper they had presented, that Bill 91 and the casino bill are a real double whammy to the horse racing and the show horse industry here in Ontario, particularly to the horse racing industry. The heading on this document from the Ontario Agriculture and Horse Racing Coalition reads, "Windsor Casino Opening Deals a Losing Hand to Rural Ontario."

"The opening of Ontario's first casino in Windsor is an economic step backwards for rural communities." And this is the double whammy of Bill 91: "'Casinos may bring short-term benefits to the government,' said Ontario Federation of Agriculture President Roger George, 'but they will bring long-term misery and increased welfare rolls to rural Ontario.'

"The 47,000-member Ontario Agriculture and Horse Racing Coalition, which includes the OFA and eight horse associations, has long been concerned over the impact of casino gambling on the rural economy." Well, Bill 91 is some other sort of gambling.

"'This is an issue for rural Ontario that Premier Bob Rae does not seem to understand, that the establishment of casinos and other new gaming outlets has the potential to put at risk a large portion of the 50,000 equine-related jobs and take much-needed money from Ontario farmers' pockets. The horse industry annually purchases $350 million in grain, feed and straw from its farming neighbours, which is approximately 5% of Ontario's gross farm income. Bill 91 will probably get rid of many of those jobs within the horse racing, training and production industry. This is in addition to the money that horse owners and trainers spend on veterinary services, farm equipment, transportation and rural municipal taxes. The end result,' said Dr Brown, 'is $2.2 billion of economic activity, which includes $500 million paid out in wages and salaries.'"

These people, the Ontario association for horse racing, anticipate a decline in the horse racing industry by as much as 40% if the Windsor opening turns into a proliferation of casinos across the province. You may wonder what this has to do with Bill 91. Well, Bill 91 will simply accelerate the decline of the horse industry, because it will be imposing on those people who train horses, who feed horses, who breed horses -- more rules and regulations on an industry that casinos have already pretty well pulled the rug out from under.

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): One casino.

Mr Villeneuve: I'm glad to see the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations here doing a bit of heckling because it shows that she's concerned, she's worried -- and that's the way it should be -- but not listening. As I said before, when you speak of horses, there's an old cliché, and it was said in this House by a former Liberal member for Grey, "You can take a horse to drink, but you can't make him water."

Interjections.

Mr Villeneuve: It took a while for it to sink in.

It's appalling that to date, and despite our numerous requests, there has been no comprehensive economic impact study done -- and I'm glad the minister's listening closely -- on the effects of casino introduction on the Ontario economy, let alone agriculture and in particular the horse racing industry.

The people who come to Ontario to gamble won't be tourists, they won't be hunters or fishermen, or even ardent shoppers. They will leave their few hundred dollars on the casino floor and nothing in the pockets of local communities. Many of these dollars would have gone through the horse racing betting windows, where they wind up back in the stables, and from the stable they go back to the farm. Bill 91 will simply make it more difficult for yet another sector of Ontario's hard-hit rural, agricultural economy to survive.

This government has cut off the land stewardship program completely. It was an excellent program. It prevented erosion --

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): What's that got to do with Bill 91?

Mr Villeneuve: It's all got to do with Bill 91: the imposition of additional rules, regulations and roadblocks while cutting back the budget that came from the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs to support the ripple effect. In agriculture, the dollars have a multiplier of seven; in other words, a dollar earned on the farm multiplies by seven throughout the entire rural economy. Bill 91 again is setting up a bureaucracy to create problems for agriculture and for those who are trying to survive in an ever-increasingly more difficult time.

The ethanol industry, which I've supported for many years, as you well know, Mr Speaker, is also going through some difficult times in that it's looking for the federal government to remove, for at least a minimum of five years and hopefully 10 years, the 14.7-cent tax on the ethanol portion of that particular litre of fuel.

I must commend the Ontario government. It has removed its tax on the ethanol, but not over the long haul. We need a commitment over the long haul. The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations is applauding and she has just cause, but make it happen for real: Bring it over at least a five-year period. Then we can possibly have Commercial Alcohols, which you're supporting with a large block of money in the Chatham area, go in and start the production of ethanol. We have the Seaway Valley Farmers Energy Co-operative out in my area, which is struggling to get capital put together to get its plan going. The production of ethanol must happen here in Ontario to use the locally grown grain, because if Bill 91 is going to be brought in, we have to stimulate the economy simply to meet the added costs and demands that Bill 91 will impose on the producers of food in Ontario.

1610

The Ministry of Natural Resources finds itself in many instances calling the shots on agriculture. MNR, of all things, is defining what a farmer is. We now will have the Ministry of Labour under Bill 91 telling them how to set up their corporate structure, their family farm structure, their private individual structure, as some of the amendments here touch on.

I've got to go back to the preamble. It's an alarming preamble when it reads, "It is in the public interest to extend collective bargaining rights to employees and employers in the agriculture and horticulture industries."

That I cannot accept. All of the people involved directly and indirectly in agriculture whom I spoke to over the last week, which was a constituency week, fully agree with me. The minister today, when I questioned him as to who put the pressure on him to bring in Bill 91, didn't name anyone in particular; he said everybody was happy. I wish the minister would have been following me this week. He would have noticed that there were many unhappy people here with the likes of Bill 91. Right in the same preamble it recognizes the very special nature of the production of food and the raising of livestock.

As we proceed, and I make no bones about it, our party is going to be as obstructionist as possible with this bill, for the simple reason that it is not wanted and it is not needed out in rural Ontario.

I believe I have used up almost all of my time. I know there are many other colleagues who want to participate and I look forward to their comments as well.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any questions or comments?

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): I found it rather astounding, actually, as I listened to the member for S-D-G & East Grenville, who was speaking on Bill 91, and actually even earlier when he asked my question, again, to the Minister of Labour -- but really, one wonders where this member is coming from. He is, I believe, the Agriculture critic for the third party but I honestly think he should be ashamed to be up talking about agriculture. Here he is, on behalf of his party, standing, talking about agriculture. I checked through this much-touted policy document, I guess we could call it, that maybe should be called the ridiculous revolution. I checked through and agriculture is not even mentioned once in that whole document. The word isn't even present, and really, I looked hard and I could not find anything about agriculture in this wonderful document. I think it's a disgrace that this member would stand in his place and make believe that the Conservatives care about agriculture.

If you do any kind of basic math on the funding that the Conservatives say they are intending to give agriculture, it's at least a 40% decrease. But I guess, when you think about it, this isn't surprising, because in the last year of their era the OFA called for the resignation of the then Premier, Larry Grossman, and the Minister of Agriculture. So nothing changes. They don't care.

Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): The member for S-D-G, as always, tries to put forth a view that he hears from the agriculture community. Although I think that there are other views out there, I listened with interest to some of the things he talked about. One particular issue is with regard to ethanol. He made a comment that the Ministry of Finance has given the ethanol industry a formula, which it asked for, which would give it stability. That actually is what they have. The sunset is no problem at all. Maybe he got confused a little bit with the problem with the federal Liberals, who have now bowed to the corporate interests of the fuel industry rather than saying that there should be another player to create competition. That's unfortunate, but I think maybe that's where he got confused. It does get confusing where the Liberals are on many issues.

But indeed, just for the record, that is exactly what the industry said it could live with. It's a formula which protects the farmers and the taxpayers, because if fuel prices go up, we don't get stuck. There's actually a floating level there so that we're all winners: farmers, job creation, the environment. I want to make that clear.

I'll be making some other comments later, but I congratulate the member for putting forth some concerns which I've heard out there but which I think have been addressed by the Minister of Labour, who has listened very closely to what the farmers wanted in this bill, and that's what's going to happen.

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I too would add a few comments in the rotation. I agree with the member from S-D-G. We are having difficulty finding anyone who seems to be supportive of this bill.

On the other side of the coin, I was somewhat disappointed that he and his party didn't have more to say in the Common Sense Revolution about what they would be doing for agriculture.

I am proud to say, on the ethanol plans for this province, that the Liberals were the first off the mark to make a 10-year commitment on the tax holiday.

Mr Klopp: That doesn't work. You don't understand it.

Mr Cleary: I don't need the member for Huron to get into this. I have my own views and I would like to correct him. I know that later on, after the Liberals had made their commitment, along came the government and added a few more years to what the Liberals had already said on the tax holiday. I know that agriculture and the ethanol industry are very important in all parts of Ontario. It's good for the economy and I would hope that things move along well on it; I firmly believe they will.

There are many other issues. We met with a number of agricultural people the other night from all over eastern Ontario and we asked them their comments. Around that table there was not one who supported Bill 91.

Mrs Ellen MacKinnon (Lambton): I want first of all to commend the member from East Grenville; I'm afraid I'll get it mixed up if I go any further than that. I understand a bit of what it is he's saying; however, I'm wondering if perhaps there isn't a bit of confusion in regard to this bill.

I had an opportunity this past week to speak to many of my constituents. As you know, Lambton county is very, very rural. With the exception of one or two, they were all quite happy about it. But with that one or two, once it was explained to them and clarified, they understood and they said that yes, they could live with it.

The member, I notice, said things about strikes and lockouts etc. This bill was designed and worked on by farmers, as you know, in a committee fashion. It will prohibit strikes or lockouts. It sets out a structured process of negotiation, mediation and arbitration. That's as it should be.

It would be my hope that this will not affect family farms very much but more along the line of what I would call the corporate farms. I believe there are many corporate farms, and there are some in Lambton county. Certainly, the workers have no protection there and I feel they do need protection from lockouts etc.

It also will restrict the access to property for organizing purposes in order to protect critical sanitary and safety conditions, and this is as it should be. We shouldn't have people coming on to the farms for the purpose of organization and putting things like that at risk.

I do intend to support the bill and I thank you very much for your time.

1620

The Deputy Speaker: The member for S-D-G & East Grenville, you have two minutes.

Mr Villeneuve: To all my colleagues who have taken time to respond, I thank them. To the member for Northumberland, it's amazing that all of a sudden the Liberals caught on rather quickly. They're now saying a lot of: "Me too. We will too. Law, justice and security. We had a task force that toured the province last fall." You know what? They wound up doing the same thing.

On the Common Sense Revolution here, the Liberals I believe were waving an American flag and saying that agriculture was going to be cut. There is no cut to agriculture in this, and I had some input in putting it together. There will be no cuts to agriculture. Agriculture has already been cut plenty. It's down below 1% of the budget.

Mrs Fawcett: You're not going to cut agriculture? What are you going to cut?

Mr Villeneuve: The problem with the Liberals is that common sense is something they have some difficulty recognizing.

To my colleague the member for Huron, I thank him for trying to set the record straight. I think that on ethanol I do have the record fairly straight. We do need to give the production facility a longer term so that it can make the very heavy investment that's required by both the federal and the provincial government.

To my colleague the member for Cornwall, he too I know has been travelling in the rural community recently. He's getting the very same message I'm getting, maybe even from the same people: We don't need this bill. There's no confusion; just exempt agriculture.

The problem is that they forced agriculture into this, because they say, "If you don't go for Bill 91, then Bill 40 will apply," which is absolute poison not only to agriculture but to a lot of industries.

To my colleague the member for Lambton, thank you very much for participating. I know you have a large and excellent farming community in your area, and I do think they have concerns.

The Deputy Speaker: Any further debate?

Mr Klopp: I welcome today the opportunity to stand and talk about the labour bill, Bill 91, with regard to agricultural labour. About four years ago when we were elected, the Minister of Labour made --

Mr Cleary: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think this is a very important issue, and I think we should have a quorum in the House.

The Deputy Speaker: Would you please verify if there is a quorum in the House.

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

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

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

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Huron.

Mr Klopp: I thank my colleagues in the House for making sure that there are enough members in to talk about this important bill and to talk about agriculture issues. I am glad to see that. I know that last week some members would make comments and then leave, and we tried to all be in the House at all times.

Getting back to this important piece of legislation, about four years ago when we were elected the then new Minister of Labour made a commitment to the working people of this province that he would review all pieces of legislation with regard to labour. At that time, agriculture, that industry, was exempt.

As we all know, we've moved along considerably from the 1920s, the 1800s maybe in some cases, in this business called agriculture. In fact, I have always called agriculture a business. I always resented, when I went to school, in the past when they said, "Well, you know, in the old days, they weren't business people; they were just farmers." Maybe we didn't have calculators, but they ran a business just as much as anybody in any little store in Ontario or any big store in this country. Whether they're big or small really is not the point; it is run like a business.

I don't think we should be criticized because of the fact we happen to enjoy our job. As one who's been fighting in the farm community to get points of view across, maybe we enjoy it so much that we almost want to work for nothing, but that is something that many of us have tried to change, in spite of maybe Liberals and even the odd Conservative government. Bill Stewart understood it. Unfortunately, Bill Stewart retired.

At the time we made it very clear in the rural community that you had to talk to the farm community about the issue of farm labour, because we really felt they are the ones who know about it: not bureaucrats, but the real people out on the country roads who talk about this issue.

What they want to do is what we're going to be pushing for in the rural caucus. The nice thing about that is, when we talked about it in caucus, it wasn't just the rural members who agreed with that; it was all the members of this caucus. All the members realized the importance of rural Ontario, and not just talking about it, but working its way through its actions.

As things moved through, there was a committee set up through the Ministry of Labour and they reviewed the issue. The farm community, with labour and the farmers, reached a consensus. The consensus was that they would go forward as long as there was a separate identity to that which became known as Bill 40. Some of us were surprised in the farm community and as a legislator. But I made a commitment, as did the Premier on many occasions, and this minister and Elmer Buchanan and many others in the caucus, that if the farm community reaches a consensus, it will be put forward in legislation.

We all know that legislation takes time and there are many things on our plate. We came into government when the bottom fell out of the economy. As one who relates very much to agriculture, there were lots of places for expenses, but the income fell down. We had a lot on our plate, but we've worked through the issues.

The labour committee was made up of farm groups and organizations that are directly impacted by any changes to the Labour Relations Act pertaining to agriculture. As I said last week in my comments, it wasn't even like a farmer like myself who's a family farmer. My only labour is myself, my family, my dad, sometimes my cousins, whom I sometimes get to help, although sometimes when they run my tractor or they do some work for me, it might have been cheaper if I had maybe done it myself or left it, because sometimes the equipment runs into the odd fence.

Mr Perruzza: Your cousins are watching. They might not be helping you any more.

Mr Klopp: So be it. I don't give them heck. I remember when I was 16 and I had to learn how to drive a tractor too. But in seriousness, it was the organizations like the tobacco --

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): That's what I call adult learning.

Mr Klopp: Yes, I still can learn every day to drive my tractor.

It was the organizations which did have a lot of labour-intensive dealings, the fruit and vegetable people, they were the ones on this committee; they had tough negotiations. I'm sure they felt at some points in time, were they going to be heard? So many times before in previous governments they weren't heard.

In fact, in looking back in the history book of this, this issue has been around a long time. It didn't just start on September 6. There were times over the years when the industry was asked to review what goes on in Ontario with regard to the farm labour issue. I know it was fraught with danger, because we were a little bit concerned, when I was on the other side of the fence, in the farm labour, with the OFA and a number of other farm organizations, the county federations etc, about those governments. So many times if we would talk to somebody other than the Minister of Agriculture, we would get lost. We've seen it so many times.

But the issue was coming back again and again. The minister brought out papers that said this issue is nothing new; it's been around; let's deal with it. It's better for us to deal with it, because the minister said, "I will make a commitment to listen to what the farm community wishes." It was pointed out to me by a farmer in my own county when he said that this issue has been around. So it wasn't just something I found in the mandarins of this place or over at the ministry.

1630

As we looked in other provinces, Alberta is the only other province besides us that has no legislation. They've kept it exempt. As I look to those areas, they don't have problems. In fact any problems they have, we had a chance to recognize and fix. That is what this legislation is all about.

At first reading there were a number of points that the farm community said they wanted changed. They went back and the commitment was made again, "We're going to talk." The minister said, "We're going to talk about and we're going to work with you." The labour movement said, "We want to work with you." That was the criterion that many of us followed at the beginning of this process almost three years ago and we followed with this process.

Mrs Fawcett: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I don't believe there's a quorum present.

The Deputy Speaker: Would you please check if there is a quorum.

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

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

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

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Huron.

Mr Klopp: It's good to see we have a quorum call. It allowed me to rest up and have a colleague from the Liberal Party show up. It's good to see so few here. It tells you exactly what they're thinking.

Getting back to the issue around the farmers and the concerns about working with government, it has been seen again in the short few minutes that I've been in the House today and only confirms why in agriculture we're a little cynical of working with government. When one watches today in the House, if anyone's at home watching this, we had a Liberal Ag critic stand up and criticize the member for S-D-G, the Conservative member, then the next time it came around in rotation, another Liberal critic stood up and praised him for his comments. If you think how they can change saddles and change horses so quickly, when you're dealing with a minister, you would wonder, could they change saddles?

We have put forth a very progressive idea with our government in dealing with organizations, that we work with them; we don't try to play games. We have to worry about the constituents, all constituents, the people of Ontario, but if someone has an idea, we should try to work with them. We've seen that very clearly with this piece of legislation.

We practised that with the commodity loan program, a program in which we sat down with the farming community, they said to us, "We have a problem with farmers having the ability to have their line of credit in the spring," and we said, "We need to deal with that." Everybody agreed there was no need to hand out money.

Interest rate programs: That was good for the politician. He or she got some recognition by handing out money. But as one of those who was the recipient, I paid the interest at 13% and 14%, which was too high, and then I turned around and a year later I got a cheque for a 3% or 4% rebate and everybody thought I was getting found money. It would have been far better and far more efficient, I always said, if we had a program in which I could get money at 8% or 9% up front. I would know what the costs are and then I could build around that and save interest all year.

When we got to government we said that can happen. We worked with the farm community and we have the egg commodity program. The egg commodity program is working so well not because it's being used so much, but we're not getting phone calls from farmers saying that the bank won't give them a loan any more, basically foreclosing them, as you may well know; or we're hearing that they have to go to a seed dealer who doesn't want to be in the banking business, but they need to charge a high amount to cover their administration. They now have an opportunity with this program and it has created competition among the lending institutions.

We further did that with the program with regard to FarmPlus, and FarmPlus is allowing people to invest. That again was done by farmers working together with the ministry, and the ministry listening and following through and talking to the treasury department and convincing it that we have some good ideas.

These are but two examples with us, and now a third with the Ministry of Labour. I commend them for that.

We are also promoting issues like ethanol. Maybe we talk about how it ties in with Bill 91 and the labour movement, but the Liberals talk about a 10-year moratorium. Those are only words. The financial institutions say, "That isn't good enough. We need a contract" -- a contract that is the whim of a minister changing, or a government, a contract not unlike when somebody goes to Ontario Development Corp and rents a building or makes a contract, something that is tangible.

The Treasurer made a commitment that we're going to work because it's good for farmers, it's good for investment and it's good for the environment.

When we were down in Chatham the industry itself said: "For the first time a government is actually working. Yes, they have the consumer at heart, and the taxpayer. They were tough negotiators, but they'd seen a dream." Within six or seven short months of getting everybody at the table, we came up with a formula that anyone can use. I hope that the co-ops and other private industry can use this formula.

We gave it to the federal government. There's no reason at all why they can't use it, other than that they're probably, as they pointed out, worried about their true allegiances to the oil companies. It's unfortunate. At election time, as a farmer pointed out to me the other day, it seems that just before every election the Liberals and Tories come out and say, "We're going to get on this." It's been over 10 or 12 years now that this issue has been around.

I invested $500 back in the late 1970s for an ethanol plant. Needless to say, because we were farmers trying to keep things going, we couldn't keep it going. We had to retire our investment. It sure was disheartening. At that time we already knew about cars that could run on ethanol. We also found out that in South America, of all places, cars were running on ethanol. It wasn't something new. It was again the information not getting out.

It only goes to show why I support farm groups and stable funding, another example of working with the industry and promoting and getting farmers working together, allowing them to work with government. We've been a government that has done that.

I know it's hard to believe. It's hard to believe for myself at some points when I talk to the Minister of Labour, and I have talked to the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, wanting to get an agreement, because there are two sides to this issue.

When I look and see someone saying the family farm is going to be unionized, that is just wrong. I can understand why someone's against it and wants to promote that. It's a free country. You throw your arguments, but the facts just don't show it.

Anyone knows the family farm is run by the family. As I pointed out, is my son going to go on strike against me? If my son goes on strike against me, he's going on strike against himself. We both lose. Or my father.

We look at statistics. Less than 300 farms have 10 or more employees. I would hazard to say that if you know anything at all about farming, you know how you treat your workers. If you hire someone, you treat them with respect, because if they decide that they're not going to go out to the barn for you, you can lose a heck of a lot of money very quickly. Anybody who doesn't take care of their workers and treat them with respect is in trouble.

What does Bill 91 do? It doesn't force anybody to join anything. As a farmer in my riding pointed out in the discussions -- and good discussions: "It's a lot like the marketing legislation that I have as the farmer, the owner, the worker, the operator. If we as an organization have an opportunity to have marketing boards" -- although it's been severely drained by the Brian Mulroney years, and I certainly hope that the new government pushes very hard. I know Elmer Buchanan is pushing very hard, and a number of individual colleagues in this House are pushing very hard, that the federal government talk tough with our American partners.

Now they're even going to South America to try to undermine our wheat boards and our dairy boards and our chicken boards, all under the guise that we need cheap food. We don't need cheap food. It's a fallacy in this province. It's not cheap. It's cheap at the farm gate for many of us, but when you go to buy it, at our household, it's $50 to $60 a week, and we have our beef and pork that we get. That doesn't seem very cheap to me. The point is that we need to work together, and we are working together.

1640

I know that the farm community, the vast majority -- it's not forcing them to join. It's the same legislation as the marketing system. If you wish to go and see about joining, you can, but it's not being forced upon anyone. That's been quite clear. I went to one of the first meetings. Talk about hands-on. When this first came out, I went to the tobacco industry down in Norm Jamison's riding. We started the discussions right away. At that time there were two parliamentary assistants, and we both went down to that meeting to show its importance, to hear what was going on. Norm was there. I believe there was a number of other colleagues: the parliamentary assistant for the Minister of Labour. We went down to an open meeting with the unions and the farmers and we got a lot cleared up about what was going on.

As to the idea that one person who works on a farm is going to be unionized, the UFCW person came right out and said: "No, that is not the intent. That just doesn't make any sense. Three employees doesn't make any sense." The more I thought about it -- and a lot of the farmers in that room came from the real grass roots -- if you had one or two employees and you were treating them that badly, well, you don't need this anyway. Those people would leave you.

This legislation is not forcing anyone to join anything. It's not unionizing the family farm, although I can understand why those who argue this point would want do that. I would do it too, if I were on that side. You have very few other handles to throw out, so you throw that one out. But it's not true.

Interjections.

Mr Klopp: No. I said I could understand why they would do that. I wouldn't play that way. I was taught to debate things more aboveboard than that. But that's fine. People are out there and they want to hear both sides. The reality is that if this legislation were going to unionize the family farm, we wouldn't be doing it.

If I look in the other provinces where they have the same type of legislation -- Quebec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, BC -- the family is not unionized. In the real world out there, it backs it up with fact. Someone could say that maybe in another country it's different. In the EC they have the same types of regulations in some of the countries, I understand, but of course you could say, "Well, that's in Europe." But in Canada, in those provinces, they do not have the concerns that have been raised, and we wouldn't have those concerns and neither would the Ministry of Labour.

Let's remember this: It was the farm community that worked on this bill. They are the ones who went to the meetings. The people were directly involved. Yes, you can say that Bill 40 pushes them this way, but let's remember a step back. At the very first, the minister asked for their opinion and he said, "If a consensus is reached, we'll move on," and a consensus was reached. Then at that time people said: "But you still can't trust the minister. He's going to back-stab." The people who said that were, ironically, the opposition, about whom the farm community said, "They sure did it to us lots of times."

I can remember going to so many meetings where they said: "Why should we vote for the NDP? The Liberals and Tories say they are our friends and look what they do to us. And you want us to try you?" I said: "Let's talk about hiring people. If I hire somebody at my farm and they keep not doing what I want, and if every time I ask them, 'Are you working for me?' they say, 'Oh, yes, we're working for you' but then they go out and keep wrecking stuff, it's time to try somebody new." So I said, "I think you'd have a difference."

At election time, things happened. We're here. We have made a difference. We've negotiated openly with the farm community on this bill. Elmer Buchanan has worked very closely with many farmers out there on many bills, and not only on new bills and new legislation but on past pieces of legislation. We've taken a stand at meetings with the federal government, listening to farmers about our marketing boards, about the cattlemen too. We all need to have a piece and have a chance to work together and get our fair share. The minister and this government have taken a balance on that.

The Premier of Ontario has gone to meetings in my riding and in Kimble's and in others, sat with the farmers at a table and had them talk, talk about many issues, because rural Ontario isn't just about agriculture per se. It's about many other issues -- MNR. How many premiers have done that in the last 10 years? Not very many.

Many people were impressed that the Premier didn't go to those meetings and just sit there like he was there just for a picture opportunity. The Premier of this province talks to his colleagues in rural Ontario about the issues, and he went to those meetings and asked tough questions, because he really wanted to know what they were asking and how we can help them. That, I tell you, hasn't happened for a long time.

The Premier says to people very clearly that new industry is important, we talk about new technologies, and I see from time to time -- and I understand it -- letters in the papers saying, "But he doesn't talk about agriculture." Well, you only have a few minutes in each speech. But the Premier said very clearly that just because he hasn't talked about it doesn't mean he thinks it's not important. He's made a point of saying that.

At our Vision 2020 meetings that we helped put together, all people get into those meetings -- farmers, big business, small business -- and the Premier has taken time to go to those meetings and very eloquently understood the issue and said that agriculture is as important as any other industry.

There are new technologies in agriculture. I can remember not that long ago when an air-conditioner in a tractor was something just a very few had, and some people said, why do farmers need that? Well, I come to this place and we have air-conditioning. Surely in agriculture we can have air-conditioning. We need the money and the funds to pay for them.

Bill 91 is not going to unionize the family farm. Bill 91 is there for people to have an opportunity to use it as a tool. Its time has come.

I said at the very beginning of this, over three years ago, that if the farm community is consulted in an open and fair manner and they reach a consensus and an understanding, I would support that.

I've kept that commitment. I believe the minister has kept that commitment. I thank many members in the opposition who have helped that commitment, but I think they shouldn't be playing both sides of the fence on this issue.

It reminded me the other day when I was listening to the Liberal speech. All they did was take out stable funding and put in Bill 91. Today, when I hear them criticize the Conservative Party -- as I pointed out, one stands up and criticizes the Conservative Party for the politicalness of this place, and then another one stands up and says: "The member made very good comments. I don't like the bill either." We don't need that. That doesn't help anyone.

In closing, I really commend the minister for doing what he promised and set out to do, and I thank my colleagues in caucus who have helped that process through, and Mike Cooper. I will end my comments there.

The Deputy Speaker: Any questions or comments?

Mr Cleary: Just to set the record straight on what the member for Huron has said, I guess we don't need him to tell us that everybody is happy and all is well. I can tell you that things are not all well on Bill 91. We've had lots of calls in our office, many of them from his area, who say they can't even meet with him on these issues.

Mr Klopp: Name names.

Mr Perruzza: Forward the names.

Mr Cleary: Well, I might be able to do that. You wouldn't know what that rural Ontario was, anyway.

He said the bill has the support of rural Ontario. I'd like to ask him, who's supporting the bill? I know many, many groups and many, many farmers, and I've told them about Bill 91 going to be debated in the Legislature today and tomorrow, and they cannot believe this government would stoop that low, to try to unionize agriculture when there's very little time to harvest. I would like the member in his windup to tell us, the Liberal Party, who's supporting Bill 91.

1650

Mr Villeneuve: I guess I'm repeating what the member for Cornwall said. I have to question the member for Huron. I spoke with a number of rural people last week at the Kemptville College of Agricultural Technology graduation, at the Maxville fair, and there was just no one who supports this.

I was concerned when the member for Huron mentioned that the cost of food is expensive. Well, relatively speaking and based on per capita income, food is the best buy anywhere, including the United States, right here in Canada. Bill 91 will do one thing for that: It will make food more expensive. That's inevitable. It has to happen. When you have collective bargaining, the demands of the collective group are met. People will meet it and have to put up the price of the commodity. As the member has stated himself on occasion, agriculture is the only area where you buy retail and you sell wholesale. You have no say on what the price of your commodity is. This is simply one more step in the chain of production that will cost more. He's concerned about the cost of food now. Well, this will simply make it that much worse.

I look forward to his comments. I certainly would like the honourable member for Huron to mention which farm groups, which farm organizations, or even mention some individual names. It's not a problem. Get someone on the record who's supporting this. I can't find anyone. Maybe about three or four cabinet ministers. Those are the only people I find who support this.

Mr Sutherland: I want to congratulate my colleague the member for Huron for his participation in the debate. I've been very impressed over the last four years by his commitment to rural Ontario, to the people who produce the food for this province and for other locations. He has a proven track record of representing the good interests of rural Ontario, of the farmers and of the fine people of Huron county. I think he's been doing an excellent job at that.

I was very pleased that he brought up the other provinces, because that's really what we have to look at, the fact that in other provinces where farm workers have been allowed to unionize, maybe 3% or 4% maximum have unionized. Let's clearly look at the track record in the other provinces. It has not led to the end of the family farm, as some people are putting forward. The member for Huron made reference to that, about what has gone on in other provinces. With only 3% to 4% unionized, the comment that this is going to drive up the cost of food, that so many farmers are very worried that they're going to go out of business, doesn't seem to make sense.

My question to the member for Huron is, does he think many people in rural Ontario are listening to an organization that is fundamentally opposed to this: Ontarians for Responsible Government? Does the member for Huron think that people in rural Ontario should be listening to an organization that is fundamentally opposed to our supply-management system? Should they be listening to a group that has no track record whatsoever in supporting any causes of the farmers or the people who live in rural Ontario?

Mr Perruzza: I want to pick up on a couple of comments made by my colleague the member for Huron. Being an urban member, watching this debate unfold over the past couple of years and certainly over the last few months, looking at all the consultation and all the people who participated in the process in arriving at where we are today, primarily the consultations that happened with farmers, I think that whole process was absolutely remarkable.

I disagree with many of the comments that, "You never consulted with mine." I'd say to those members, please forward the names and phone numbers of those family farms who say they have been neglected throughout this process. I am more than confident that if the ministry, the minister and the parliamentary assistant don't communicate with those people, I will endeavour to communicate with them and provide them with the information that is available for all those people.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): That'll fix it.

Mr Perruzza: But just picking up on the other point, mainly having to do with part of my colleague's speech, and the heckle about funding for farmers and funding for agriculture and how that has been cut, that particular comment came from none other than the Conservative Party in this Legislature, about cuts and projected cuts that they would undertake.

I look at the Common Sense Revolution here that's being bandied about and I see the commercials. How can you come into this place and suck and blow at the same time? In one breath you say, "You're cutting the budget. Put more money in for farmers. Put more money in for agriculture," and on the other hand you say, "We're going to cut right across the board, 20%, 30%, 40%," and agriculture is the first on the list for those cuts. Shame on you.

Mr Klopp: As you can see, we do have members in the city who are concerned about farmers and their ability to make things. We talk about the farm community out there. The farm community didn't want the issue five, 10 years ago, but it kept coming up and coming up. The farm community came forward.

I went to my Huron County Federation of Agriculture and sat down. Of course, if you go up to someone and say, "I don't like this," the person will probably agree with you at the end of the day. Surprise, surprise. That's not true negotiation in talking about an issue. People seriously sat down and said, "Let's find out what's good and what's bad about this issue." The Huron County Federation of Agriculture discussed it. John van Beer said it very clearly the night that I was there with 35 farmers in that meeting, at least, and they'd obviously discussed it, a cross-reference, and they came to a consensus. In agriculture, if you get a consensus, that's about as good as it gets, because everybody has their own idea on how to do something. They said, "If you consult with the farmers you have consulted with and are going to consult with and you reach a consensus, we will live with that," because no other government took it on. They were always afraid that some Minister of Labour some time down the road would just come in like we see with issues like the gun issue or something federally where, bang, "Here it is and that's it."

The farm community has been consulted. The NFU thinks it was what was needed. They come from other provinces. They're a national organization. My own local organization, the federation, consulted; they reached a consensus. I'm sure there was great debate, as there always was when I was there. So there are groups that talked about it and they reached a consensus.

You talk about cheap food. No, it's cheap food at the farm level; it's not cheap at the consumer level. The argument that was put forth is the same argument I heard this morning from his colleague, who said that supply management causes food to be expensive. The price of the commodity at the farm gate has nothing to do, I believe, with what happens at the retail end. Let's keep that in mind.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Your time has expired. Further debate.

Mr Mahoney: Mr Speaker, I'd like to bring you and the minister greetings from the great farming community of Mississauga.

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): They've paved it and now all it does is grow houses.

Mr Mahoney: Well, it was a great farming community at one time and there are still a few farms left there. I can at least, unlike the member, one of the View brothers, lay some claim to some history and tradition, although I suppose there were probably farms in Downsview as well, at one time.

Interjection.

Mr Mahoney: You'll match your tomatoes with my tomatoes. I don't know what that is on your boots, but you didn't get it off a farm. My advice would be that you should just stay away and let the Minister of Agriculture deal with the farmers. I don't think they would understand the language that you would misspeak to them.

I was very, very interested to hear another position from the Conservatives on the American revolution document that they put out, so aptly, I thought, demonstrated by Mr Donato in the Sun -- "Joyne Mike Hairis and the...Revalooshun," and you see the golf club stuck in his ear there.

The announcement was made that they're going to reduce everybody's income tax by 30%. All in favour? You in favour, 30%, everybody over there? Absolutely. Thirty per cent reduction in your personal income tax: great idea.

Then, on top of that, they're going to reduce the size of government by 20%, but they're not going to touch a number of things. They're not going to touch health care. They're not going to touch education in the classroom. They're not going to touch crime and I assume that means the Attorney General's department and the Solicitor General's department.

1700

Mr Wiseman: Ministry of corrections.

Mr Mahoney: Ministry of corrections. They're not going to touch -- this one was thrown in verbally, I think, by the leader. When asked about the impact on transfer payments to organizations like municipalities, the leader of the third party responded and said, "No, no, no; we're not going to cut transfer payments either." Now we hear from the critic for the third party for Agriculture that they're not going to touch agriculture either.

Did I leave anything out that they're not going to cut? I don't think so. Now, when you add all that up --

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): What about universities?

Mr Mahoney: I don't know about universities. You guys have already touched them by passing on a 20% increase in tuition fees and then restricting the transfer payments. I think you have probably damaged them enough that I highly doubt --

Mr Sutherland: What's the cost of tuition?

Mr Mahoney: The member probably hasn't finished paying his student loans off yet, he's so new to this place, fresh out of university. I don't know if that's the case or not.

You can see that in finding a 30% reduction in revenue through personal income taxes and a 20% reduction in the size of government, without touching 70% of the government -- I think it would approximate 70% of the government. Now that agriculture has been saved from the axe-wielding Tories and agriculture will also not be cut, they're going to have to find 20% reductions in the size of government, from where?

Mr Wiseman: Everything else goes.

Mr Mahoney: What is everything else? What have you got left? You've got tourism. Are you going to cut tourism?

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): Social services.

Mr Mahoney: Social services? I'm sure they could just save it all. They'll just cut it all off of welfare. That's it, that's the solution. They're just going to take 20% of the size of the provincial government off the welfare rolls. I wonder what that might do.

We talk about cheap food. I hear people from the farming communities talk about the fact that food is expensive; then I hear somebody else stand up and say it's cheap. I wonder how it will appear to a single mother on welfare who just had her payments reduced, because that's the only place I could see them -- maybe energy. Maybe they'll find it in energy. They'll shut down the Minister of Energy. Maybe that's not a bad idea. The ministry of tourism.

This document, this so-called Common Sense Revolution, is a fraud. It puts forward ideas that are so riddled with inconsistencies --

Mr Villeneuve: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: If the honourable member knew what he was talking about and recognized common sense, he would at least realize that there is common sense here. I simply say that Bill 91 is not included in that document at all.

Mr Mahoney: What did you say? Agriculture is not in there?

Mr Villeneuve: Bill 91 is not in there at all.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Mississauga West, you have the floor.

Mr Mahoney: I think this is very --

Interjections.

Mr Mahoney: You brought it up, not me. The member for S-D-G & East Grenville was the one, let Hansard show, who stood here and proudly said the Conservatives would not cut agricultural funding. He said it had been cut enough. Well, we want to know what you're going to cut. Sure, we're talking about Bill 91, but it was the member, in defending his leader and his Common Sense Revolution, who announced --

Mr Villeneuve: We'll cut Bill 91 and Bill 40; that's what we're going to cut.

Mr Mahoney: I see, and Bill 91. So now we know that if these people become the government, they will roll back Bill 91 and Bill 40 and that will find them 20% of the total provincial budget so that they can in turn reduce your income tax by 30%.

You know what I would dearly like? I don't think I'm going to have this opportunity, but my leader Mrs McLeod is going to have it, and that will be to debate head to head with the leader of the third party, to have him explain exactly how he's going to perform this magic, this trickery, this sorcery --

Interjection: This deception.

Mr Mahoney: -- this deception; I think it probably is.

On Bill 91, we know for a fact that the Conservative Party is either misleading us with their document, their Common Sense Revolution, and more importantly, misleading the people out there, or they're going to cut agriculture, folks. I have a feeling that the member for S-D-G & East Grenville will be backpedalling something fierce one day, although we can solve that problem, because they're not going to be the next government anyway.

The Common Sense Revolution will indeed go down in history as nothing more than the American Revolution recycled and revisited, we know that, but quit putting on the platform these so-called simple solutions, Preston Manning solutions. It's a little bit like Perot during the election in the States. He used to stand up, just like Preston Harris does today in the arguments on this bill and every other bill, and say, "Mr Speaker, if you want to know why the car won't run, you've got to open up the hood and look at the engine," and everybody goes: "Yes, right on. That makes sense, yes."

Interjection.

Mr Mahoney: Not bad for a Ross Perot, eh? But then you open up the hood and you look at the engine and you go, "What's under there?" That's a little bit like Mike Harris looking at bills on agriculture and saying, "How can we fix it?" When he actually looks at it, he hasn't got a clue.

Mr Villeneuve: Listen to who's talking.

Mr Mahoney: Let me tell you something. Much to your surprise, I have spent more time on a farm than you might think. In fact, my wife has family on a 600-acre farm in Iron Bridge, and that's a farmer's farm, let me tell you, because you've got to go around the rocks just to plant whatever the crop is. That's a real farm in Iron Bridge.

I've spent a lot of time and I've brought in the hay and I've been up in the mow slugging away, along with my sons, and I understand how difficult a life it is to farm in Ontario, especially in northern Ontario, let me tell you. I've driven the tractor, and my sons, when they were 12 years old, drove the tractor.

I find it amazing when I hear people in the city and I hear the press trying to drum up the issues that say we've got to stop kids from driving tractors and operating farm equipment. You'd shut down the farming industry if you did that. The family farm needs the family. What a revelation. Can you imagine? They need those young people who grow up on the farm, who understand that they've got to get up at 5 o'clock in the morning with their dad and go out and work the fields before they go to school and then they've got to come home after school and help their dad in the barn or wherever it is or help him to milk the cows or feed the pigs, whatever they have to do. They understand that.

All that proves is the uniqueness of the farming business in the province of Ontario and in the entire country. It's extremely unique. Without the families to support the industry there would be no industry, I would suggest; and with the margins being as difficult as they are in farming, with the great costs there are in transporting your goods to market, with the small amount of profit -- what is profit to most farmers, I say to the minister. I'm sure it's a good meal at the end of the day. They're eating their profit in many instances.

Do we think that if we eliminate the family farm we're going to attract multinationals into the farming business? I doubt it. If we do, what's going to happen to the cost of food? What's going to happen to all costs surrounding agricultural production? It's going to drive it right through the roof, and no government is going to be able to control that.

The best thing that any government could do for the family farm would be to get out of their way, to recognize that they are a small business, getting smaller, I say to the member from Century 21 who's just arrived.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): Mr Speaker, I'm going to take offence at this.

Mr Mahoney: Well, he's selling. That's a very attractive gold jacket. I understand he's out selling the real estate around the province, building roads. Well, you look wonderful today.

I want to tell you how important we in the Liberal Party think agriculture is. First of all, we have two people operating as critics for the Ministry of Agriculture. We have the member for Cornwall and the member for Northumberland, two people who understand, who live every day -- in fact I had the distinct pleasure of being the guest speaker at the annual general meeting of the member for Northumberland just last week, Elmer. They wanted you to come, but I was second choice. I'm sure they were delighted that you were busy.

I was pleased to meet with those folks, and I understand from travelling around this province how important agriculture is, whether it's in cash crop or whether it's in livestock or whatever area of agriculture it's in.

1710

Interjection.

Mr Mahoney: Oh, I could go on. The member doesn't think I could go on.

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): Watermelons.

Mr Mahoney: We have those. But the most important thing: Minister, why don't you leave them alone?

Do you know the first person to contact me after Bill 40 passed? The first person to contact me -- this was very interesting -- was Gordy Wilson, of the OFL. I had just been recently appointed Labour critic for this party, taking over from the member for Mississauga North, who moved into the Environment area.

Gord Wilson said, "Now that you're the Labour critic, do you think we can get you to support the amendments to the agricultural sector?" I said: "Well, I don't know what they are. What's the deal, Gord?" He said: "We have a consensus. We have a deal. There's no problem. This'll be really easy. This won't be like Bill 40 at all. This'll be smooth. The minister has met with all the farm people, all the communities; he's talked to them all, to the OFA; he's talked to everybody involved who has an interest. We think we can just sort of slide this thing through, but if you guys make a big fuss about it, it's just going to create problems."

So he's saying, "You know, it's really in your hands, as the critic for the opposition. If you'll just sort of" -- nudge, nudge, wink, wink -- "come along, we can put this through, and wouldn't it be nice to finally pass a piece of legislation where an actual consensus existed?"

I said: "You know, Gord, that makes sense. I'm prepared to look at that. If what you tell me is true, and I have no reason to believe otherwise, I'm prepared to do that." In fact, I even offered to have the Minister of Labour's staff provide a briefing and to get some of my colleagues to come. "Maybe we can do this. Maybe there is a chance, for the first time in the short history of the NDP government in Ontario, maybe, just maybe, there's a chance at a consensus. Sounds like it."

Mr Perruzza: Is that how you've been rewarded for your loyalty?

Mr Mahoney: How would that reward me for my loyalty? Sentence me to be the Labour critic? I'll tell you, it's like a sentence, except that what it does is it virtually every day gives me an opportunity to talk about issues that are of a lot of concern, because while this is an agricultural bill, it is also -- and clearly, the minister, in answering a question today in this House, said it would remain under the Ministry of Labour.

What we have got here is a government that has been thrust into office by accident and has said: "Holy smokes, we're in office now. What are we going to do? Well, we've been telling all our labour buddies over the years that if we ever got power, we would bring in all kinds of stuff for them, so we better do that." And what did we have? We wound up with Bill 40, Bill 80. What was the CECBA bill?

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): Bill 117.

Mr Mahoney: Bill 117, CECBA, the parliamentary assistant for Labour says. How did you get that job? You've got to be the busiest guy over there.

Hon Mr Pouliot: He is.

Mr Mahoney: Well, we know what you're doing. You're just out taking pictures of everybody and rubbing your hands in glee with the $66 million the Ministry of Transportation is generating for the treasury.

The Deputy Speaker: Back to the debate.

Mr Mahoney: So we had Bill 40, probably the single most destructive bill in my seven years around here, Bill 40, and there have been some very, very difficult bills.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Seven years.

Mr Mahoney: Well, not a long time. I'm a rookie. I haven't been here as long as you, but I might be. I'm not sure what your future holds.

But Bill 40, a labour bill. Bill 80, a labour bill. Why can't we deal with bills that get the economy going? Why can't we deal with issues, why can't we deal with bills that create jobs, that create economic development, instead of this Premier travelling off to China? And why did he go? Because he had to shut down 13 offices around the world at a time when we should be trying to expand our economic base, when we should be trying to --

Interjection: Spend, spend, spend.

Mr Mahoney: It's not "spend." You make money off of that. That's what you don't understand.

Interjection.

Mr Mahoney: No, you got a fax machine and you send the Premier off to have tea with the prime minister in Beijing, and you think that's going to be economic development and growth.

So what do you do? You shut everything down around the world and then you focus on payback time for all your organized labour buddies. Make no mistake: This is not for the rank and file. This bill and Bill 40 and Bill 80, one of the most divisive bills I've ever seen in the construction trades, who are still upset about it -- in fact, the parliamentary assistant will know that the Canadian Federation of Labour is still upset. They're coming to me saying, "When you guys are the government, are you going to roll back Bill 80?" They're still upset with what this government has done: interfering in the democratic process, telling organized labour how they should be running things. So they bring in Bill 80.

Then they bring in Bill 117. What was that? That was clearly a payoff because of the social contract, the thousands of new members you put into OPSEU. You said to Mr Upshaw, "We're going to hammer you on this thing," but then you gave him thousands of new members. What does a new member mean to a labour leader? What it means is money and expansion of the base. A bigger union means more power. The legacy of this government, aside from the havoc you have wreaked upon the financial stability of this province, aside from the fact that you have taken --

Mr Villeneuve: Write 91 on it, Mr Speaker.

Mr Mahoney: It relates to 91, because all they can do is bring in labour bills. There was a sector that was exempt under Bill 40, under the Labour Relations Act. It was the agricultural sector. And it's interesting to me how agricultural workers are exempt from workers' compensation.

Interjection: No, they're not.

Mr Mahoney: Certainly they are. They're exempt from workers' compensation. Why would you exempt them? You exempt them because you recognize the uniqueness of the worker in agriculture, the seasonality, the climate problems. We've got eight months of winter and four months of bad skating in this country. It's pretty tough to farm in a climate like that.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Eight months of winter in Mississauga?

Mr Mahoney: You've got about eight months of political life left, with all due respect, unless you decide you want to go a little earlier, and we would be delighted to accommodate you. In fact, I have a sneaking suspicion that the public out there would really like to see an early election. It was because of an early election that you wound up in government. I have a sneaking suspicion they might like an early election again.

So what does this government do? They go through Bill 40, Bill 80, Bill 117, Bill 157, another labour bill, a private member's bill that carried.

Interjection: Speak to Bill 91.

Mr Mahoney: They all relate, because is this a labour bill or an agricultural bill? I'm told by the Minister of Labour that he's going to hold it close to his bosom and it will remain under his purview and will remain as a labour bill under this government, yet the Minister of Agriculture seems to be the one who is carrying it.

On Thursday of this week another labour bill, amendments to the Workers' Compensation Board, will be introduced, and we'll have a debate on that this coming Thursday.

My point is that whether it is Bill 91 or any of the other labour bills, this government is totally preoccupied by a requirement to continue to tinker with the relationship between management and labour, whether it's in the steel industry, whether it's in the auto industry or now whether it's in the agricultural industry.

1720

I heard the member for Huron saying that this bill doesn't force anyone to join anything. Well, what does Bill 40 do? Why don't you just exempt them from Bill 40?

The fact is that it tilts the playing field in such a way that it allows organized labour to move in quicker and easier, without even such a thing as a secret ballot. Imagine, in 1994, any government, duly elected in a democratic society, supporting legislation that does not require a secret ballot to organize and then telling us that that's not exactly what you're going to do in Bill 91, to stand there and tell us that this doesn't force anyone to join a union.

Of course it doesn't. As draconian as you have been in your term in office, you know you couldn't possibly get away with a bill that said overtly, "You are forced to join this union" -- except the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, CECBA. Bill 117 actually did that, forced civil servants to join a union without giving them a choice. They did it with the civil servants because they had to shut Fred Upshaw up, and it seems to have worked. You don't hear him yelling too much any more about the social contract or the problems with this government. I don't see him on the 6 o'clock news any more. I guess it worked. It's payback time. That's the way this government wants to do it.

The question today from the member for S-D-G & East Grenville -- boy, that's a long name, but I'm remembering it -- to the Minister of Labour was, I believe, "Who asked for Bill 91?" Is that basically what you said?

Mrs Fawcett: The same question I asked two weeks ago.

Mr Mahoney: The member for Northumberland asked that question two weeks ago and got the same answer. It wasn't an answer at all. Well, I can answer it for you: Gord Wilson, the Ontario Federation of Labour.

Interjection.

Mr Mahoney: Well, he asked me if I was going to support it, if I would support it before it was Bill 91.

And this so-called task force that was set up -- I mean, you guys just can't get anything right. Here's the task force: Three representatives of farm employers, one representative from farm workers -- imagine putting in place a piece of legislation that impacts directly on farm workers and only putting one farm worker representative on a six-person panel -- and who were the other two? Who do you think? Organized labour, the OFL.

So here you go. You want to know who wants this bill? It's organized labour who wants this bill. Why, I ask you, would they want it? What might be the possible motivation for organized labour to request a tool to organize in agriculture? Might they want to organize? Silly me. Might they want to expand the membership of the Ontario Federation of Labour to include agricultural workers? Why else would they want it?

Then the member stands up and says that's not what it's about. Well, I'm sorry. I hate to be so cynical or to be looking for clandestine motives within this government, but I have yet to see any that are pristine, I have yet to see any that are based on common sense and I have certainly yet to see any that are based on any kind of consensus agreement.

Mr Villeneuve: Common sense? I'm glad you're using the word a lot.

Mr Mahoney: Oh, the nut sense. I don't know why they call it "common sense," because it's not very common, let me tell you that. You don't have a clue with this phony 30% tax cut and 20% cost cutting. I don't know what you guys are smoking. It's truly unbelievable where you're coming from. But it's okay because there is no credibility. I can tell you that you have certainly moved and have stopped Reg Gosse, stopped the provincial Reform Party from organizing. I want you to know that I sent them a financial contribution to try to get them to organize, just to help you out.

Mr Villeneuve: Why would you do that?

Mr Mahoney: Just to help out the Tories.

Mr Villeneuve: You sent money to Reform?

Mr Mahoney: Well, I didn't really, but I certainly thought about doing it.

Mr Cleary: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: We have here a very fine speech, and I think there should be a quorum in this House.

The Deputy Speaker: Would you please check if there is a quorum.

Acting Clerk Assistant (Mr Franco Carrozza): Speaker, a quorum is not present.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Acting Clerk Assistant: Speaker, a quorum is present.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Mississauga West, you have the floor.

Mr Mahoney: The members opposite and to my left, physically anyway, are asking me what my answer to Gord Wilson was when Gord came and asked me if I would support the bill. I said very clearly: "If you're telling me there's a consensus, if you're telling me that this task force has come along and arrived at an agreement with the Minister of Labour, I don't personally have a big problem. I want to check with my agricultural critics and find out if there are problems."

I did that and found out, lo and behold, not only was there not a consensus, not only had the task force not arrived at any kind of an agreement with the Minister of Labour, but there were at least 11 major points of disagreement. I thought, how can this happen? How can the Minister of Labour stand up in this place and say that he has an agreement based on the efforts of a task force when you don't, you simply don't?

What are the dynamics of this? We have members who go out to meetings in the farming community, and the farmers stand up and talk to our members from Cornwall and Northumberland and they say: "We don't agree with Bill 91. We want an exemption to Bill 40. Just put back in the exemption and leave us alone and let us farm and survive. Stop threatening unionization of the family farm. Recognize that we're unique in an industrial sense, in a production sense; that we have problems that other industries don't have; that our margins are low; that we're more concerned about surviving as a business than we are about some cockamamy bill that's going to entrench labour negotiation rights for workers in the farm industry. Leave us alone."

I said, "Gord Wilson, if you're telling me that all that's taken place, I would support it." It hasn't, it simply hasn't; that's the fundamental problem. I don't think that the Minister of Labour is a dishonest man, and I certainly don't think the Minister of Agriculture is a dishonest man. So who's telling who what? Where, when and how is this happening? Could it be that the farmers are scared to death of you and they at least think that Bill 91 is watered down enough that they can somehow duck through the loopholes and dodge the impact and if they make too much of a fuss you're liable to bring in a bill that will put them out of business? Could it possibly be? This is nothing more than pandering to Gord Wilson and the OFL, and we will be fighting this bill right to the end.

1730

The Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Mississauga West for his contribution to the debate and ask for any questions and/or comments.

Mr Villeneuve: To the honourable member for Mississauga West: a very interesting speech. I now know why, on the day the minister announced this particular bill, which is an addendum to Bill 40, he replied on behalf of his party and really said nothing. It was a confusing response, because he simply looked and acted much like the leader of the Liberal Party here in Ontario, who had said that indeed we needed labour reform but we didn't need it when it came in.

We made sure, and I made sure, in reply to Bill 91 the day it was brought in for first reading, that the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario would repeal Bill 91 and would also repeal Bill 40, because these are not needed. When we compared them and when the government compared them to labour legislation in the province of Quebec, they became a major irritant, because the twin to Bill 40 in the province of Quebec has created major problems for labour unions. It's created different areas in the province of Quebec. It's a major problem.

Gord Wilson quite obviously has a lot of impact on the member for Mississauga West. It was interesting whenever the "Me too" syndrome came in, because the Tories were there. The Liberals are now where we've been all along on this one and on many other issues. It was interesting to see that the member for Mississauga West commented almost as much on the Common Sense Revolution as he did on Bill 91. We had to keep reminding him that we were on Bill 91.

I'm glad that we've got their attention now. They are now sitting up and taking note and saying, "Me too," to many of the Tory policies that have come out in the last month, in the last year. Continue saying, "Me too." As long as you're behind us, you're on the right track.

Mr Perruzza: Just to respond very briefly to a couple of the comments that were made, the member came in here and he talked about how Gord Wilson of the Ontario Federation of Labour calls him up as the critic for Labour and says, "If you guys don't make a big deal about this, then this bill is going to be fine, it's going to go through, there aren't going to be any problems." Then he proceeds to talk throughout his whole speech about how, because Gord Wilson and the Ontario Federation of Labour have called him and asked him to support the bill, it's all bad and it should be plundered and it shouldn't proceed and it shouldn't go anywhere.

Not once did I hear the member talk about the people who actually drive the tractors, the people who actually plow the earth, the people who actually get out there in the field with their muddy boots on and do the actual work, and the fact that they are underpaid, the fact that they have no benefits, the fact that in many cases they have very bad working conditions and, quite frankly, have to work very, very hard.

I find it in some cases very offensive that a lot of people come in here and talk about all of the guys making $100,000 a year and how they're okay, but when it comes to workers, when it comes to those people who make their living in blue jeans and in work boots and have no benefits and make wages they can't live off, nobody at that point cares and nobody talks about them. That's wrong.

Mr Mills: I'm pleased to rise in the couple of minutes I've got here. I've probably spent more time actually milking cows and plowing the land, both in the United Kingdom and Canada, than most people in this House. This is what I came to Canada to do.

I was a farmer in England. I can tell you that I belonged to the farm workers' union in England. I helped organize that in the area where I lived. I came to Canada and, believe me, did I ever get a wake-up call.

I had an arrangement with the farmer I was working for. He said to me, "You can have every other Sunday afternoon off." On the Sunday afternoon that was mine off, I looked across to where he was and I saw him getting in his car; he was driving off. The cows had to be milked, although it wasn't my time to do that. When this gentleman came back the next day, I said to him: "Excuse me, the arrangement we had was that every other Sunday I get off and this Sunday, yesterday, was my Sunday." He said: "You've got it muddled up, brother. It was my Sunday." It was a complete fabrication and a lie.

I tell you that you need unions in farming. I was never treated on a farm so despicably in my life than when I came to Canada in 1957. I was harassed. I got up in the morning. They shined the lights in my bedroom to get me up. I lived a nightmare until I escaped that regime. Having come from a unionized farm in England to Canada, I can tell you, Mr Speaker, I still bear the scars of that today and it's almost 40 years ago. I still remember that harassment. I still remember how I was treated and it's disgusting.

Mr Cleary: Poor Gord.

Mr Mills: It's all right for you to say no. You don't know nothing. I tell you I lived those times and I was ashamed of it.

Mr Cleary: First of all, I'd like to thank my colleague for a very fine speech. I think he touched on the most important issue facing all of Ontario: the economy. It's not Bill 91.

I've had many discussions with my colleague about Bill 91 and agriculture in general. He has also said he is familiar with agriculture, because he and his sons have worked on the farm and he knows there are many issues on the farm. You have to plan your crop rotation and do your bookkeeping; you're responsible for the health and the welfare of your animals; you're a veterinarian; you're your own maintenance person; you do your own welding.

He touched on an issue where Gord Wilson had called him, and I know he and our caucus are very concerned about this bill. We're concerned about the suppliers that may supply the farm and the farming community, if they unionize, and farmers cannot get the repairs they need to do their maintenance on their machinery. They're concerned about if they cannot get their feed and their fertilizers.

There are many concerns. It boils down to, and the member put it well -- he said, "Who is asking for this bill?" We've all asked that question many times. We're all asking, "Who wants Bill 91?" I wish some of our NDP colleagues would stand up and answer our question, "Who wants Bill 91?"

The Speaker: The honourable member for Mississauga West has up to two minutes for his reply.

Mr Mahoney: A number of my colleagues have suggested that I made a statement about workers' compensation being exempt, and I just want to clarify the record. My understanding is that the family farm, which is primarily what I'm concerned about, the impact on the family farm with regard to this labour legislation or through contracting out -- exemptions are acquired from WCB. I well understand that the large farm operations pay WCB premiums.

I want to just make a very brief comment about the member for Durham East's remarks. I think for the first time on this side of the House we heard the truth from the member for Durham East.

Mr Mills: It's true.

Mr Mahoney: I believe what you're telling me about the working conditions you found in the 1950s when you arrived here. I say to the member for Durham East, however, this is the 1990s and I think there's been a lot of changes which the member would probably realize. But I think you pointed out what I have been saying about Bill 91, that this is clearly an attempt to unionize the family farm in this province.

Interjection.

Mr Mahoney: I think it is. I mentioned Gord Wilson a number of times in my speech. I don't think Gord Wilson is being dishonest. It's Gord Wilson's job to represent the Ontario Federation of Labour, and part of the responsibility in that area would be to expand the base of the OFL to make it stronger, to make it more powerful, to make government listen. I think Gord Wilson is doing his job.

The member for Durham East has clearly said that he believes we need unions in agriculture. I heard you say it just moments ago in this place.

Mr Mills: We do.

Mr Mahoney: I wish the Minister of Agriculture would say the same thing instead of playing this hidden agenda game and trying to pretend that you're out there to help somebody who hasn't even asked for your help. You want to organize the family farm, and if you do, you're going to destroy it.

1740

The Speaker: Is there further debate?

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I'm pleased to join my colleague from S-D-G & East Grenville to speak on the second reading of Bill 91. On previous occasions I have stated in this House that the wellbeing and success of our family farms reflects the overall prosperity of our province. I have also stated that we as legislators must be diligent in our promotion and support of the family farm.

With these principles in mind, it saddens me to see this government introduce a bill that will hurt the family farm and hence the economy of our province. In the pursuit of their own socialist, labour-driven agenda, the NDP has put forth a law that will unionize the family farm. This measure will drive up the cost of farming in Ontario and will bring down the number of farms and farm workers.

It is a pitiful irony that the pretence for this bill is to enhance the rights of farm workers when in fact unionization will take workers off the farm. It is ironic that the government would claim that the agricultural sector wants to unionize when farmers, large and small, have said that this law will make a bad situation worse.

This bill was not born of necessity, but out of ideology. In another attempt to appease a special-interest group, namely, big labour, the hard-working majority will once again suffer.

Bill 91 will kill jobs. It should be obvious to this government that any legislation that places artificial upward pressure on wages will result in less jobs. By encouraging farm workers to unionize, the government is placing an undue burden on Ontario's struggling farmers. Wages will increase and workers will be laid off. Farmers will be forced to do more with less or shut down.

This bill, not unlike Bill 40, transfers power from the owner of the farm to the worker. Although the bill prohibits strikes and shutdowns, it permits the government to step in and dictate higher wages. This is as good as a shutdown because family farm families simply cannot afford to pay any more to the workers.

The only difference between this legislation and Bill 40 is the tactic of negotiation. Instead of threatening the employer with a strike, the employees simply threaten to give notice to the Ministry of Labour. At the request of either party, the Minister of Labour appoints a conciliation officer. If the conciliation officer reports that an agreement cannot be reached, the minister directs the parties to choose a selector. If the employer does not comply, the ministry will make the appointment. The selector will then settle by accepting the final offer.

Through a long-drawn-out process we have the same end result as if Bill 40 applied to farms. The power to set wages and run your own operation is taken away. The employees can threaten to use this process and it will be just as effective as a strike threat. Many farmers will be unable to afford to jump through these bureaucratic hoops. They will have little choice but to sell their farms to larger operators or to developers.

If the farmer is still able to operate under this legislation, he will naturally react to the higher wages by mechanizing his farm, thereby reducing the need for the manual labour. Again, the result is less jobs. Unfortunately, this is the kind of policy we have come to expect from this government, an approach that throws money and bureaucrats at Ontario's business, crowding out jobs and investments.

This government just doesn't seem to understand the needs of Ontarians. In every sector of the economy, this is a time when we need to use a commonsense approach to governing. Bill 91 is not common sense. It is nonsense, absolute nonsense, and like Bill 40 it's another piece of legislation a Mike Harris government will repeal at the first opportunity.

Through our Common Sense Revolution plan, our party will allow small business to prosper again in Ontario. It was suggested earlier by a member of the opposition that the Common Sense Revolution did not take agriculture into account. Let me set the member straight. When Ontarians get a 30% tax cut from a Mike Harris government, they will have more money to spend on food.

Mr White: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The member opposite has benefited in his riding more than any other member in this whole House. I'm wondering if he would tell us what he would talk about --

The Speaker: The member does not have a point of order. The member for Lanark-Renfrew.

Mr Jordan: I'm sorry, Mr Speaker. I didn't hear the question.

As I was saying earlier, when Ontarians get their 30% tax cut from a Mike Harris government, they will have more money to spend on food. When we eliminate red tape and costs, we will create an environment where small business and farms can grow. These effects will combine to create more jobs in agriculture and a healthy economy in Ontario.

Farming is a flexible industry, but this government is imposing an inflexible ideology that will be unforgiving. Farming is flexible in that the industry must constantly adapt to changes in the weather and changes in the environment. In a global economy, farmers must also be able to contend with volatile prices and a much lower margin of profit than is enjoyed in other sectors. That is why this bill is unsuitable for farmers, very unsuitable. At no time did you ever see young farmers out in front of this Legislature demanding, of the Minister of Labour, labour organization on the farm -- never. Never did you see a farmer out there; he has more common sense.

Another aspect that shows just how out of touch this bill is is the fact that it is being carried out by the Minister of Labour. Where's the Minister of Agriculture? As I stated during the first debate on this bill, farmers I have spoken to would much prefer that the Minister of Agriculture handle this legislation. A minister who has worked hard with the farmer, who has come to understand the farmer, is the minister who should be handling this bill if there has to be such a bill. I must also add that they would rather not see the legislation at all. As I said before, to save the time in this Legislature and the cost of doing business here, just withdraw this legislation completely and let the farmers relax and go on with their business as they are doing today. The NDP and its bureaucrats think that Big Brother knows better the interests of the farmer than the farmer himself.

I, Mike Harris and the Conservative Party realize that the farmer knows his business better than anyone else. He knows his working conditions. He knows the markets. He knows his annual income. He budgets well. He does not budget a deficit; he budgets to spend relative to his income. That is what stabilizes the farm, not organizing the labour.

Mr Perruzza: Oh, he has no mortgage, eh? Do we have to listen to this stuff?

1750

Mr Jordan: I would ask all members of this House to vote against this legislation.

The member across asks, why should he have to listen to this kind of talk about a union on a family farm? I don't know if the member would recognize a farm if he were to take a drive outside the city.

Mr Perruzza: No, you just said farmers don't have any debts.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Downsview.

Mr Jordan: People don't realize how the agricultural industry is really the basis of industry in the province of Ontario. There's one thing about the farm industry: As the farmer budgets his income, if there is room to upgrade equipment, to modernize, he's the first one to do it. Ontario enjoys the most efficient family farms across Canada, and I might say across North America.

I might relate to the dairy industry for a minute, because during the free trade talks, there was a lot of discussion about the dairy industry in Canada, the dairy industry in Ontario. More than 40,000 farmers showed up in Ottawa to try to protect themselves from the legislation that was going on at that time. Not able to do that, they are now subject to tariffs over a five-year period, which will gradually be reduced. But the fear you might expect to be out there in that family farm isn't, because, as I said earlier, they know their business, they are efficient and they can compete. They're not concerned about our neighbours to the south being more competitive. They are ready to compete with them, regardless of the tariffs.

I am concerned that the organization of the family farm is going to mean a change in the whole attitude, in the giving of time, in the interest that really comes from the heart in that business. It's not like another business. There is no one who would run a business like a family farm that starts at 6 in the morning and perhaps finishes at midnight, many times.

Mr Villeneuve: Never finishes.

Mr Jordan: As my friend our agricultural critic says, it really never finishes, because you need 24-hour attendance. You need a maintenance man, you need an accountant, you need a general farm manager. These family farms have built themselves like a family unit. They're the strongest cornerstone in any municipality. You go to the family farm and find the family involved: the male usually managing the operation, with the wife perhaps the accountant or managing the books, and the children involved in many aspects of the farm, whether it's on the maintenance of the machinery in the buildings or the maintenance of the machinery in the fields.

When we use the words "family farm," it means more than family farm; it means the whole composition of the industry. It's the family in the true sense of the word, not as the word is trying to be deteriorated today into meaning something else. It's the true word of the family working together that makes that industry a prosperous industry and, in most cases, gives great stability and understanding to the people who come from the rural area.

If these people sitting across don't understand farms or why they need one, some day when there's a food shortage, they can think back to the day they introduced labour legislation that brought hardship to the farms, that brought high prices to food, that brought scarcity of food supply, that turned family farms into large economic setups which are really not as people-oriented as the smaller farm and the family farm I'm attempting to describe this afternoon.

The Minister of Labour stated the other day that he has a brother, I believe, near Hamilton who runs a beef operation. I would suggest to him that he take a drive over there and sit down and have a visit with him and get some firsthand information from him on why he has been successful in that farm operation. I'm sure he will explain to him his fear of seeing the family farm disintegrated by the unions.

Today, I hope the government is not really as bored as some would like to say it is. I know there are many over there who understand a family farm operation.

Mr Mills: I've spent more time on the farm than you have in pyjamas.

Mr Jordan: I wondered why you were such a good member.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I don't believe there's a quorum here to listen to this.

The Speaker: Would the table officers determine if a quorum is present.

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

The Speaker: A quorum being present, the member for Lanark-Renfrew may resume his speech.

Mr Jordan: I would think that in the last two weeks we've seen the members of the government begin to start to think as individual members representing their ridings. I see some of them sitting over here to my right today who had what it takes to vote on an issue as they knew their conscience and their riding would want them to do.

I know there are many members over here who are familiar with a family farm operation who can go back to their roots, go back to their relatives and their friends and ask them serious questions about organized labour on the family farm. Who are you going to organize -- the farmer's wife, the daughter, the children, the sons, the in-laws? These are usually the real core of the employees on that farm. As the farms grow larger, of course, then there's other help required, including, as I said earlier, maintenance staff and planning staff so that the operation is sound financially and not run as we tend to run governments. We just keep on spending and we don't seem to be concerned that the money we're spending we just haven't got.

I think that is a good lesson generally speaking that you will learn from rural Ontario. They know where the money is coming from before they allot it to any upgrade of equipment or to enlargement by purchasing more land. It certainly makes good business to borrow money or mortgage for more land, but to borrow money and mortgage for the operation of a farm is a very different mode of operation and one that you have to be very careful of, because as I said earlier, the financial status of the farm is very dependent on so many things: dependent on the health of the people who are running it, dependent on the weather, dependent on the markets for whatever product they have. There's a very large swing in the market.

I would like to close with a real, sincere request to the Minister of Labour to just please withdraw this bill.

The Speaker: I thank the honourable member for his contribution to the debate.

Mr Jordan: I would move adjournment of the debate.

The Speaker: The member may realize that he doesn't have to at this point. We normally adjourn at 6 o'clock. There is time for questions and comments if the member has completed his contribution.

Mrs Fawcett: The member for Lanark-Renfrew made certainly a few good comments in opposition to this bill. I think that is something that this party agrees with. However, I would like to just say, in reference to the Mike Harris plan which includes this $6-billion spending cut, it's rather interesting that they plan not to cut education, law enforcement and health care. Mike Harris says that with this wonderful plan, he will balance the budget in four years without touching spending on health care, policing and education. That accounts for about 60% of the total provincial budget.

These cuts have to come from someplace. As a result, to meet the target, I would say that on average, 40% is going to have to come from ministries such as Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, Natural Resources, Environment and Energy, Northern Development and Mines, and Culture, Tourism and Recreation. So I believe their plan will cut deeply into agriculture. We in the Liberal Party truly believe that agriculture and food must be a priority.

Mr Jordan: What's that got to do with the bill?

Mrs Fawcett: Well, you brought it up in your little talk, sir.

We are definitely committed to agriculture and we believe that Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs should assist farmers and not hamper farmers to operate on a daily basis. Bill 91 must go, it has to go, and the agricul tural exemption has to be put back into the Labour Relations Act. It is just one more thing that will really hamper farmers.

The Speaker: The member's time has expired. If there are further questions and/or comments, we will hold them until the next time this bill is called back. If there are not, then I will allow the member for Lanark-Renfrew -- there are further questions and comments?

Mr Villeneuve: Yes.

The Speaker: The House stands adjourned, it now being 6 of the clock, until 1:30 of the clock tomorrow afternoon.

The House adjourned at 1802.

30 mai 1994