Journal des débats 1994-mai-31 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I am pleased to rise today to invite the public and members to visit Cornwall over the next month to enjoy the festivities of French Week and the Multicultural Festival.

Every year, francophones celebrate their heritage and achievements in Ontario during the parade, dances and other cultural activities. This year's theme focuses on the importance of the family unit. I hope that entire families will be taking part in the festivities from June 18 to 25.

Franco-Ontarians are a strong and proud group in my riding and I am happy to be able to congratulate them and wish them all the best for a successful 32nd annual celebration.

I would like to also highlight the 12th annual Multicultural Festival, scheduled for June 26 of this year. The festival is a showcase of music, dance and international cuisine, reflecting the importance of all peoples who have helped make Canada the great nation that it is today.

With generous sponsorship from local industry and service clubs, there will be participation from 24 groups including delegations from Israel, Vietnam, Latin America, Italy and many others.

The organizers are expecting 10,000 visitors this year. I invite the public and all members to consider joining in the fun of both cultural celebrations.

PICKERING NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I rise today to acknowledge an extraordinary achievement for Canadian nuclear technology. On April 10, Pickering unit 7 broke the world record for continuous on-line operation of a nuclear generator.

Unit 7 broke the old record of 713 days set by Oldbury 1, a British nuclear reactor. The Pickering unit has not only surpassed a world record, but will register a new and prominent accomplishment in the annals of international history. In fact, unit 7 is performing so well that it is not scheduled to be taken off-line for yet another four months.

This success is attributed to both Canada's leading-edge technology in nuclear generation and the hardworking men and women who see to the safe day-to-day operation of this unit.

I commend the employees at the Pickering station for demonstrating a superb commitment to team work, to safety and to excellence. I think all members will be pleased to know that no maintenance or safety measures were spared in pursuit of this performance record.

In closing, I ask every member of this House to recognize this accomplishment and to support the world's greatest nuclear generating system.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I oppose the construction of a medium-security unit at Queen Street Mental Health Centre.

I acknowledge the shortage of secure facilities for people with psychiatric disabilities who have run afoul of the law. I also acknowledge that the Queen Street Mental Health Centre, with nearly 500 treatment beds and significant outpatient services, is a long-standing and essential medical service.

However, I can find no excuse for the way in which community consultation has been handled. No one told the vast majority of residents and elected officials about this facility. In fact, the Toronto Sun is now the primary source of information for the community. We are told several community meetings were held. These, however, must have been very quiet meetings. One straightforward letter about this project filled a gymnasium with angry local residents.

The community's reaction to the complete lack of consultation has been a definite no to the project.

In the absence of consultation, the proper response of my colleague Minister Grier must be to halt the construction of the unit, engage in a meaningful consultation and listen to what the community recommends.

GAMES FOR THE DISABLED

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I have more pleasant news to report to the House. I had the pleasure, this Saturday past, to attend the north and eastern regional games for the disabled that were held in New Liskeard at the high school, école secondaire Sainte-Marie. It was a very cold and brisk day in New Liskeard and high winds did hamper the athletes, but it was a very successful event. We had 80 to 90 athletes from all across eastern and northern Ontario come to New Liskeard and participate.

There were some extraordinary achievements accomplished this weekend in New Liskeard in regard to that. Two I would like to highlight: one ex-resident of Timiskaming and one present constituent of mine.

The first is Martin Larocque, who was a resident of Timiskaming and has now moved from North Bay to Toronto, works out of the Phoenix Track Club here in Toronto, and by the way, is practising for the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta. He won the 800-metre race, the 400-metre race and the 200-metre race.

Also, from the small village of Thornloe in my riding of Timiskaming, Adam Miller won the 1,500-metre race and the shot-put. He was also runner-up in the 200-, 400- and 800-metre races.

It was a joy to see all these people up in New Liskeard and very keen to participate. It was a great day for all. Many of them are going to go on to the All-Ontarians in Windsor in a couple of weeks.

1340

BOATING SAFETY

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement concerns the need to promote boating safety and education on Ontario's waterways.

Last year I reintroduced private member's Bill 41, An Act to provide for the Certification of Motor Boat Operators. It is aimed at increasing public awareness of the need for boater safety and education courses. I am an avid boater and I know there is a real problem with careless and uninformed operation of motor boats.

I regret that both the Liberal and NDP governments have chosen to jeopardize the safety of boaters in Ontario by failing to recognize the importance of my bill. However, I am gratified that there are organizations that realize boating need not be dangerous, provided the operator acquires basic knowledge and takes reasonable precautions.

The Boat Pro Manual is a joint publication of the Canadian Power and Sail Squadrons and the Canadian Marine Manufacturers Association. The $10 manual is designed to present boating information in an easy format, recognizing that safety on the water is the prime factor. Copies can be obtained by calling, toll free, 1-800-268-3579.

The Orillia and District Chamber of Commerce is sponsoring a Marine Safety Awareness Show at Tudhope Park on June 11 and 12. Police and marine safety agencies will be on hand to provide information on everything you need to know -- before you need to know it. I commend these organizations for joining me in trying to put an end to needless recreational boating accidents. Injuries and deaths that occur on our popular waterways need not happen, but this Marine Safety Awareness Show will, I hope, help that.

SPECIAL ABILITY RIDING INSTITUTE

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I brought in one of my sneakers to show you my new fully automatic, self-tying electric shoelaces and to tell you I bought them at a SARI fund-raiser on May 15. SARI, the Special Ability Riding Institute, located at Route 1, Arva, Ontario, in my riding, is a non-profit organization which was formed in 1978 to provide instruction in horseback riding and driving to persons with physical, developmental, psychological or learning disabilities.

While participation in some sports may be denied to people with disabilities, horseback riding can be adapted appropriately in most cases. People participating in this sport have reported many benefits, such as increased balance and coordination, improved confidence and a sense of achievement.

Applicants, who are referred by their doctors, may be any age. Lessons are designed to meet their specific needs, and instructors are fully trained according to standards set by the Canadian Therapeutic Riding Association. Volunteers are trained to help in classes and are an essential part of this most beneficial program.

SARI relies on the support of individuals and groups in order to raise operating funds, so I'd like to tell members here, and anyone interested, that they need not be consumed by jealousy regarding my electric shoelaces. They can have a pair of laces for a mere $4, in any number of shocking colours, by contacting SARI at 666-1123 at Route 1, Arva, in my riding.

ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): In recent weeks I've had the pleasure to attend at a couple of OPP community policing launches in my constituency in eastern Ontario, last week in the village of Beachburg and a few weeks before that up in Algonquin Park. I want to commend the communities that have been involved with the Ontario Provincial Police in providing a very important service that brings the face of our provincial police to small communities in my part of the province.

I want to say that, as one member in the Legislature, I have been finding particularly in my part of the province, and I know other members have from their point of view, a growing concern about public safety not just in large communities like where I live in the city of Pembroke, but in smaller communities like Beachburg and Foresters Falls and Cobden and many other places across the eastern part of the province and the rest of Ontario.

I want to congratulate the OPP for bringing this initiative to the streets of small towns and rural townships, because I think it is important that we in this Legislature understand the pressures under which the Ontario Provincial Police are now operating. I'm hearing in my constituency, and my colleagues elsewhere, in southwestern, in northern, elsewhere in central and eastern Ontario, are hearing alarming reports about the constraints with which the OPP is operating. I have growing reason to believe that these budgetary constraints are seriously impairing and impeding the ability of our excellent OPP to meet the public safety requirements that are properly theirs in large centres and in rural communities.

IDA NUDEL

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): Today I want to express appreciation to the Ontario Legislature from Ida Nudel.

During the 1980s, all three parties -- the NDP with Marion Bryden, the Liberals with Monte Kwinter and myself -- served as co-chairs of the legislative committee for Soviet Jewry.

We worked closely with the Jewish community in the Toronto area to fight for human rights for Jews in the USSR. The persecution of Jews was acute. When a Jew applied for an exit visa, not only was it refused, but the applicant was identified by the KGB for persecution.

These refuseniks, as they were called, lost their jobs, lost their homes, were sent to remote work camps, and many died. The Ontario legislative committee for Soviet Jewry adopted Ida Nudel as a refusenik who epitomized the plight of Soviet Jews.

For years we met and sent letters to senior Soviet officials. We presented the Ida Nudel award to leading human rights activists in Ontario and Canada. In 1988, Ida Nudel was given an exit visa from the USSR and immigrated to Israel.

Last week, when Ida was in Toronto at the home of Eric and Marsha Slavens, I asked her, "Did we in Ontario make a difference?" She responded: "Yes. I would not be alive today were it not for the media attention that you gave me. Many of my friends were killed, but I am alive because of you."

To all who helped fight the battle for human rights, for refuseniks like Ida Nudel, I say thank you. May we keep up the battle for the other Ida Nudels around the world where their human rights are being oppressed.

LEADER OF THE THIRD PARTY

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): Watch out Doug Henning and David Copperfield. There's a new kid on the block with an amazing new disappearing act. His name? Michael -- "call me Mike" -- Harris, aka Mike the Magnifico. In a blink of an eye, Mike the Magnifico made the entire Ontario Progressive Conservative Party disappear. Yep, just like that.

During his recent non-election bus tour of Ontario, the PC logo was nowhere to be found, not on his bus, not on his pamphlets, nowhere. Simply amazing. And during his whirlwind non-election tour, Mike the Magnifico told everyone who came to his big tent that he will cut taxes by 30%, slash government spending by 20%, and at the same time balance the budget and create 750,000 new jobs. Wow. Anybody who accepts all that at face value is probably a major investor in the Brooklyn Bridge.

During his grand tour, Mike the Magnifico honoured the town of Dundas with his presence. He took time from his busy magic act to tell us he wants to inject the private sector into operating health care. He talked about making health care costs more competitive in the private sector. Perhaps he should take his dog and pony show down to the States and view just what their health care system is all about.

Now, my fellow Ontarians, can you figure out what Mike the Magnifico's next disappearing act will be? Yep, you guessed it. As quickly as he made the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party disappear, he is planning to do the same with our universal health care system. Mike, what a guy.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I invite all members to join me in welcoming some special guests to our assembly this afternoon. Seated in the Speaker's gallery are members of the consular corps who are posted here in Toronto, representing quite a number of countries. I invite members to welcome the members of the consular corps to our chamber this afternoon. Welcome.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The presiding officer might get together a search party and see if you can find a government to which questions might be directed.

The Speaker: The member does not have a point of order. However, it is now time for oral questions. Is there someone from the official opposition who wishes to pose a question? The honourable Leader of the Opposition.

1350

ORAL QUESTIONS

PORNOGRAPHY

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): The minister to whom I wish to direct my first question has entered the House, so I will place my question to the Solicitor General.

Minister, all of us I think were shocked by the story we read today, by the evidence and the events that are being brought to light in the London Police force's investigation of a child pornography ring in that particular city.

As you will undoubtedly know, the chief of police and his officers have been investigating that child pornography and prostitution ring since last December. They have made, to date, some 30 arrests. The chief has now indicated publicly that the problem is more widespread than he had realized and that he simply does not have the resources to be able to deal with it. Their investigation has led the chief to conclude that a provincial task force is required to deal with what you would term the shocking proliferation of child pornography in Ontario.

Minister, do you agree that this provincial task force is needed and, if so, will you move immediately to set up such a task force?

Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General): I thank the member for this important and timely question. I can advise members of the House that I have this morning spoken with Chief Fantino myself, and he apprised me of the situation and the circumstances in London, talked with me about his concern that it reaches beyond the jurisdiction of his particular police service, and advised me further that he has spoken to senior officers of other police services. Senior members of my ministry staff have also been approached and he has had dialogue with them.

The upshot of it all is that the chief is seeking to submit a proposal to my ministry that we become involved in a JFO, a joint forces operation. I have advised him that of course there are mechanisms for such a proposal and such approvals, that my ministry officials have been advised to respond as quickly as possible, as soon as that proposal is submitted, and the chief has advised me that he is indeed putting together that detailed proposal. My officials will receive it shortly. We'll move on it expeditiously.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, we're obviously concerned that the London police chief not only says that the magnitude of the problem that he's been investigating is beyond what he is able to manage, but that indeed there is evidence that it spreads to other jurisdictions, including Toronto and other communities across the province.

I have to assume that the London police chief has talked with you about this concern before this, at least that your ministry has been looking at it before this. This investigation has been going on since December. There has certainly been a public awareness that this particular investigation was taking place.

I have to also assume that you have talked with other police chiefs in other jurisdictions and that they have talked to you. This is surely not the kind of problem that we wait until it reaches proportions where a police chief is having to say publicly that it is beyond his control before you, as the minister responsible for policing, are ready to take some action to provide the support that's needed.

Can you tell me, Minister, how long you have been aware of this problem, what you believe the magnitude of the problem to be and what actions you have taken as minister to deal with this problem up to this date?

Hon Mr Christopherson: I believe that the honourable member is not characterizing the position of the police chief in an accurate fashion. I don't believe that there's any sense that the matter is out of control. In fact the chief has assured me in our discussions that the matter is under control. I believe, based on my discussions with him, that the London Police have acted appropriately and I believe that they have dealt adequately.

The issue now is whether or not it goes beyond the jurisdiction of one particular police chief. There are processes in place for chiefs to make proposals to the ministry for such joint forces operations undertakings. There is nothing unusual about that. I want to say very clearly and very emphatically that this is not a question of anything being out of control, particularly where Chief Fantino is concerned.

While I believe he has done an excellent job in leading his police service in dealing with this issue, what has happened is a properly, orderly movement of the issue to the point where he feels that he needs to involve other police services. We have the mechanism for that. He has had the dialogue with my ministry officials. He is prepared to submit his proposal. My ministry officials await that detailed proposal, and I have assured the chief that it will be acted on quickly.

Mrs McLeod: My concern in raising the question is quite clearly to be sure that the London police chief and other police chiefs across this province get the support they need for what is a truly horrifying problem, and get the support they need in a timely way. I don't understand why the police chief should have to make his concerns known in a public session if the minister responsible is indeed working closely with the police forces to help them deal with the kinds of issues they are facing.

The question I am asking, Minister, is, what have you been aware of and what action have you been taking to provide our police forces with the support they need to deal with this problem?

I understand that there is a project called Project P, the anti-pornography squad of the OPP, which has made child pornography its number one priority for 1994. Clearly your anti-pornography squad has said that this is a major problem, but that, as I understand it, is a six-person squad that has the responsibility of dealing with all of the issues related to pornography across the province.

What Chief Fantino would appear to be calling for, and what his evidence says is needed, is a very focused, very aggressive approach on dealing with this absolutely appalling problem of child pornography and prostitution.

Minister, I ask you, do you think this six-person squad is sufficient to deal with this problem? If you do not, will you give us an absolute assurance today that you will make sure the police are given the resources they need to deal quickly and effectively with what could only be described as horrendous abuse of our children?

Hon Mr Christopherson: Firstly, let me ensure that I convey the fact that I think all members of this House and in my ministry believe that these types of issues need to be addressed vigorously and thoroughly and are absolutely abhorrent and unacceptable. We all need to do everything we can.

I would, however, again, because I think that the member may do an injustice to Chief Fantino, caution her on how the member describes the approach that the chief has taken, the motivation for the position taken by the chief and the process. I've spoken with the chief and I would suggest to the honourable member that this is not a question of a problem in terms of policing resources; this is a question of leadership.

The leadership of the police in London have said they are now at the point where they believe that, based on precedents in the past, they have an issue that justifies them making a proposal to this ministry for a joint forces operation, which means certain things will come into place, all the things that the member is talking about. That is the way the process works.

I have assured the chief that when we receive his detailed proposal -- and I understand he's having discussions with senior officers from other police services -- we will move on it expeditiously. I've spoken to senior members of the ministry, my staff in the ministry, to ensure that happens.

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

Hon Mr Christopherson: My last point is the fact that the member knows also that questions of whether or not investigations should happen are not made by the responsible civilian parties such as myself. They are made by the police experts, and therefore there is a process in place within the ministry to deal with joint forces operations proposals. That is what will happen. I do assure the member that we will act on this as the priority that it is.

Mrs McLeod: I trust that we remember that we're talking about kids and pornography and prostitution and that the answer and response will be immediate and effective.

EMERGENCY SERVICES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I will direct my second question to the Minister of Health. Once again I want to raise the issue of emergency care in small rural hospitals and northern hospitals in Ontario. I would stress the word "again" because we have a continued inability to take the action that's necessary to resolve the kind of crises that are facing hospitals in rural and northern Ontario.

Yesterday the Ontario Hospital Association released a survey that showed that some 40 hospitals -- small rural and northern hospitals -- are topping off doctors' salaries in order to keep their emergency wards open. The minister is well aware that those hospitals have to take those payments out of their global budgets which are used to run the entire hospital.

Minister, I wonder how long you've been aware that this kind of topping up out of the global budgets is taking place. What does that mean to the access to health care in hospitals in rural and northern Ontario? How many bed closures has that meant? How many fewer nurses has that meant?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I welcome the opportunity to discuss once again an issue that is of real importance not just to the Leader of the Opposition but certainly to those of us on this side and to my members from rural and northern Ontario.

It is not a new issue. The topping up of doctors' salaries is not new. It has been happening in small rural hospitals for quite some time. That was why I was delighted that last August we were able to arrive at an agreement with the Ontario Medical Association that capped our payments to physicians at $3.85 billion, and that within that we would begin to discuss with the OMA and with the Ontario Hospital Association how best there could be some redistribution within that budget to make sure that physicians covering emergency rooms in small rural hospitals were paid in a way that made it worth their while to go.

In the current fee-for-service system, if they only see one or two emergency patients a night, they have decided to withdraw their services because they don't make enough to warrant being there. We think that's a very serious problem. We set up a tripartite committee. The OMA withdrew from that committee in February and, as I informed the House yesterday, I'm delighted that they now have agreed to come back and sit down with the Ontario Hospital Association and the ministry. I'm very confident that with goodwill on all sides we can resolve the issue once and for all.

1400

Mrs McLeod: Obviously you're the Minister of Health. You're ultimately responsible for ensuring access to quality health care across this province. My question was about what impact the topping up of doctors' salaries in order to keep emergency wards open is having on health care provided in those hospitals.

I agree that you and your government negotiated the agreements with the Ontario Medical Association. I agree that you put in place the budgets for the Ontario hospitals and the hospital association. I think you have a responsibility to understand the impact of those agreements and to be willing to step in and try and resolve any problems that have been created because of them. Both the OHA and the OMA have said that they're willing to sit down and resolve the issue. They want to go back to the table. They want to go back with the Ministry of Health as a full partner in resolving the issue.

Minister, I ask then, are you really prepared to negotiate with the OHA and the OMA? If so, tell us when that meeting will happen and whether you will accept the responsibility for calling that meeting immediately.

Hon Mrs Grier: The Leader of the Opposition seems to misunderstand what has been happening. We have always been at the table. The Ontario Hospital Association has always been prepared to be at the table. The Ontario Medical Association withdrew from the table in February. Now the Ontario Medical Association has agreed to come back to the discussions. We are attempting to convene a meeting just as soon as we possibly can.

The Ontario Hospital Association has suggested that there be a 60-day framework for negotiations. I have certainly indicated to my officials that whatever it takes to meet that kind of a deadline in terms of the number of meetings and trying to do it as expeditiously as possible is what we are anxious to see.

I have to say to the honourable Leader of the Opposition, though, that the luxury that her government had of throwing money at the problem is not one that we have. We have committed ourselves --

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): You signed the deal with the Mount Forest doctors.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member for Halton Centre is out of order.

Hon Mrs Grier: -- to $3.85 billion a year for physicians. We believe that within that, it is important to begin to do some reallocation --

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

Hon Mrs Grier: -- so that rural residents of this province, northern residents of this province, get the health care that they deserve and have a right to.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, the question here is, when is this going to be resolved, how long is this pending crisis going to go on and what is happening to health care in these hospitals while these endless negotiations or non-negotiations continue? That's the question we keep putting forward.

It's not just about negotiations and bargaining tables and it's not just about what association has what responsibility for administering what budget. The question we want you to respond to is a question about health care. It's about people's need to have access to the health care they need when they need that care. It's about a car accident on a northern highway at 3 o'clock in the morning and people being sure that they're not going to arrive at the nearest hospital and find that there's a "Closed" sign on the door of the emergency ward. That's what this is really all about and that's what we're asking you to address.

People have a right to expect --

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): Why don't you do something about it?

The Speaker: Order. The member for Chatham-Kent, please come to order.

Mrs McLeod: -- that they can get that essential emergency care when they need it, where they need it, regardless of what community they happen to live in. It is a fact that --

The Speaker: Could the leader please place a question.

Mrs McLeod: -- at least 40 small rural hospitals are now struggling to provide that very basic essential emergency care while you wait to convene a meeting and attempt to resolve the problem.

I ask you, how long do you believe that these hospitals can continue to cope by siphoning off their global budgets? What advice are you giving to these small rural and northern hospitals to deal with the crisis in the meantime? Will you assure them that at the end of all this they will not have to make decisions that jeopardize health care in every aspect of their hospital simply in order to make sure that people have access to essential emergency care?

Hon Mrs Grier: I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that this is about people's care, people's care in their communities, people's care in their small rural hospitals, people who have a right and have an expectation that their physicians will be there for them to provide that care whether they need it at 3 o'clock in the afternoon or 3 o'clock in the morning. What we are coping with is physicians who have said, "We won't be there at 3 in the morning, because we're paid on the basis of how many people we see, and that doesn't generate enough income to justify us being there at 3 in the morning."

I think it is a very serious problem, one, let me say, that the previous government in five years didn't find a way of resolving, but one that can be resolved if there is goodwill on the part of the physicians and on the part of the hospitals, and I believe there is. I believe that we can now begin to resolve it, a problem that has been there for a very long time and that the people of this province want resolved, and we're prepared to try to resolve it.

ELIZABETH FRY SOCIETY

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a question for the Minister of Correctional Services. I want to ask you about a lengthy investigation into the ministry of corrections operation through the Elizabeth Fry Society in Hamilton and allegations of misuse of funds, conflict of interest, lesbian sexual assault and serious violations of the parole supervisor-parolee relationship.

We're advised that the investigators' review was completed and delivered to the ministry of corrections either January or February of this year. Minister, can you advise us if the report made any reference to a requirement for matters being referred to the police? If so, what have you done in respect to that? Also, did the review contain any information requiring administrative action by the ministry? If so, what have you done in that respect?

Hon David Christopherson (Minister of Correctional Services): Yes, I am certainly aware of the review that is taking place. The recommendations and the report itself from the reviewing panel or individuals have been received by the funders. There's more than one funder, as I'm sure the member knows, that provides the budget money to the Elizabeth Fry Society, and collectively all of the funders are a part of this review, and they are the ones that are receiving these recommendations.

I understand that the discussions between the authors of the report and the funding partners is still under way. In fact, as recently as within the next week or few days even, there will be further meetings between the funders and the authors to review the report, and I expect the funders will make recommendations to their parent bodies on actions that should be taken.

Mr Runciman: Essentially the minister evaded answering my question. I asked him a very specific question in respect to matters raised in that report that required involvement of the police or required administrative changes, and he did not respond specifically to those questions. In my view, if he refuses and continues to refuse to answer those questions, he's participating in a coverup of what occurred at the Hamilton Elizabeth Fry Society.

Interjection.

Mr Runciman: Yes, take a hike. That's the kind of response we get from this minister.

I'll reiterate my questions in respect to police matters. This has been ongoing for some time. We're talking about very serious allegations and some victims involved in this. Who is the minister representing in this instance as the top police officer in the province? His chief of staff, one Darlene Lawson, is a former executive director of the Elizabeth Fry Society in Toronto and a friend of Terri-Lee Seeley, the executive director of the Hamilton Elizabeth Fry Society.

I ask the minister once more, are matters in this report critical enough to be referred to the police? If so, have you done it? If not, why not? What has been the role of your chief of staff in this whole matter?

Hon Mr Christopherson: First of all, I don't think it does the honourable member of this House any credibility whatsoever to be tossing around terms like "coverup" as lightly as he likes to do, simply seeking a cheap headline, when the reality is that there's no such evidence whatsoever.

I have said to the honourable member where we are in terms of the process. It's the funding group that received the report. If I were to have taken action that precipitated the receiving and review by those funders, the honourable member would have been on his feet accusing me of interfering in an arm's-length relationship and would link that to Lord knows what other kind of conspiracy he could throw together with flimsy ideas and very little fact. That is the fact. That is where the process is. He knows that.

1410

In terms of the specific question about my chief of staff, my chief of staff had absolutely no role at all involved in the development; the report itself was done by independent investigators, including the federal government, and they were responsible to the funding group.

I would very quickly and emphatically suggest to him that he's trying to generate cheap headlines. It's disappointing to see somebody who at times has great credibility throw it away on this kind of slimy stuff.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The minister was doing fine until the last few words. I know the minister would not want to use language that is provocative in the House and I know he would wish to withdraw those last couple of comments and allow his colleague to place his final supplementary.

Hon Mr Christopherson: I certainly, and of course, withdraw anything I said that was unparliamentary.

Mr Runciman: The minister's feigned indignation doesn't impress anyone; we're used to that kind of response.

In respect to very serious allegations, about sexual assault especially, I would think that the top cop in the province would as his first priority be concerned about victims and ensure that the police were called in in those kinds of situations, and not suggest to us and the people of Ontario that he's going to draw in all the funding groups and get their advice when those kinds of allegations are brought to his attention. He has a responsibility, and he's not following through on it.

I would suggest -- and I'm not using cheap political rhetoric -- that in fact this reeks of government protection of political friends of the government. It reeks. The minister's chief of staff, Darlene Lawson, is the former executive director of the Elizabeth Fry Society of Toronto and a close friend of Terri-Lee Seeley, the Hamilton executive director at the centre of this investigation. The reason your ministry has been so lax in following through on this is, I suggest, Mr Minister, that you're protecting your political friends.

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

Mr Runciman: The minister suggested his chief of staff has not been involved. The people in Hamilton say that when they've tried to contact the minister in respect to this matter, those calls are referred to Darlene Lawson's office. Have you required Ms Lawson to withdraw from any dealings in respect of the Elizabeth Fry Society of Hamilton?

Hon Mr Christopherson: With regard to the direct question the honourable member asks, at the outset of this I had a discussion with my chief of staff to ensure that she had no involvement at all that could in any way lend any credence to the kind of allegations that I knew certain members of the House might try. Therefore I am very satisfied, particularly knowing the individual in question, who is one of the most honest individuals I have ever met. I would stand behind her integrity any day, every day, all day. I do in this case also.

Let me just say that if guilt by association were to be true and that's how you were found guilty, the Tory party in Ontario would never have survived four months in government, let alone 40 years. Let's get off this. Look at the facts, look at the process. Everything is aboveboard, it's being done the way it ought to be, and I'm absolutely satisfied that things are being done appropriately.

PORNOGRAPHY

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): My question is to the Solicitor General. Mr Minister, the child pornography trade is spreading across the province. You're very much aware, from the questions this afternoon, that it's a tremendous concern. We know a lot about it in London, and we'd like it stopped. We know that 30 people have been arrested, and, you should know, with London resources, four in Metropolitan Toronto.

These young children are vulnerable and are being victimized by these predators and, sadly, sometimes by people in positions of trust to children. It's a community issue and the communities in Ontario want these people put out of business. I wasn't satisfied with your response this afternoon to the question, and I would like to ask you to respond again in another way.

I know you're looking for a proposal, but you're the Solicitor General. You're asking that communities tell you of their concerns, either elected representatives or police forces. So my question today is, are you going to say yes to this proposal, and when can we expect it to begin?

Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General): First of all, let me say that I appreciate the role the honourable member plays in this area in terms of the leadership she's providing. I know she is very concerned about this, and in my discussions with Chief Fantino, certainly that reflected his view of the way the honourable member was conducting herself in her riding and in her community.

I appreciate the question she's asking and the reason for it, but I must say again -- and I would ask honourable members to be very, very clear on hearing this response -- that this is not a question of Chief Fantino saying that things are out of control, that he can't handle it and is hollering for Queen's Park to step in. That is not the case at all. Chief Fantino has done an excellent job in providing leadership to his police service. I suspect the honourable member would be prepared to make that statement herself. The London Police service has done an excellent job.

The issue now, however, is that it does go beyond the boundaries of one particular police service. We have a process in the ministry for dealing with those types of issues. The process involves submitting a proposal. There's nothing unusual about that, and I would say very sincerely to the honourable member that were I in this case to do anything different --

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

Hon Mr Christopherson: -- than the established procedures, I would be doing a great disservice to the expertise and the professionalism that policing and police decisions around joint forces operations would have. I would ask the honourable member to check with Chief Fantino himself to see if there is any variation between what I am saying here today and what he would say to the honourable member.

Mrs Cunningham: Well, I did speak to Chief Fantino this morning, and I can only quote what he said. I think everybody in this province respects the leadership of this particular police chief and others across the province, but he did say, and I'll quote, "This whole thing begs for a concerted effort." He's saying this is the kind of issue that is not being dealt with in many communities.

In London, we have put all our resources into this issue, to try to turn every stone, try to find every victim, to talk to families and to track down these predators. That's what we've done. The search is far beyond London now, and he's saying, and I'll underline again, that dealing with this has to be a priority right across the province and it has to be dealt with now.

This police chief, Julian Fantino, does not speak lightly on this issue. I think he is taking a stronger stand than what you've stated. I do know that he respects process. If you're the Solicitor General, you can speed up the process. You can predetermine the need. You can tell all of us in this Legislative Assembly that you will be supporting this proposal and that you know it's necessary. That's what I'm looking for: not only a yes for speeding up the process --

The Speaker: Would the member please place a question.

Mrs Cunningham: -- but a time frame. Announce in this House when you expect to have this study done.

Hon Mr Christopherson: With great respect to the honourable member, I think there is nothing at all lacking in this, and if she can find someone who wants to suggest to the contrary within the policing community, I'd be prepared to respond to that. The fact of the matter is that the London Police service has done an excellent job of dealing with this issue, as far as it could. It has gone beyond their boundaries, and that means we need to bring in other police services.

1420

The member will also know that we do have a permanent unit dealing with pornography in the province, Project P, which involves OPP officers and Metro officers and others as required, and the chief is suggesting that there needs to be a tie-in here, but there does need to be a formal joint forces operation. That is not unusual. Some joint forces operations are known about publicly, some are not. It depends on the need the police have, which is why it's a police matter, not unlike a decision for a police chief initiating an investigation or concluding an investigation. Those decisions are made by police experts at arm's length from the civilian accountability --

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

Hon Mr Christopherson: -- and that is what happens in this place. However, I have spoken to my senior officials and given assurances to Chief Fantino that the proposal will be received as a priority, it will be treated as a priority, it will be expedited, and Chief Fantino has assured me that he was satisfied with the actions I've taken to date. If there's anything different from that, I'd certainly be interested in hearing it.

Mrs Cunningham: I will then assume that the minister will be reporting back to the House soon, maybe within the next couple of weeks, on the status of a province-wide police task force in the province of Ontario with regard to the child pornography trade. I look forward to that announcement. There are many communities that should not be smug and comfortable with regard to the issue of child pornography, and it's the kind of thing that people do feel comfortable about because it's just so awful that they don't know where to start.

It's widespread, and victims are traumatized for life. Some of the children in London have been as young as eight years of age. I have to tell you right now that these children -- two words. They become dysfunctional, which we've all been talking about in committees of this Legislative Assembly in the last couple of weeks, and communities may eventually have to support them in so many ways.

Because you feel, I know, that your ministry and boards of education must add their deep concern to education policies for violence-free schools and because the Ministry of Education is probably going to be making an announcement in that regard on Thursday, will you instruct the Minister of Education to include in his announcement and his guidelines for safe school communities -- I think they're going to be released on Thursday and I may not be here. So we can have a community response to violence and maintain not just safe schools but whole communities, will you ask him to insert this as one of the issues of concern in his guidelines: community education?

Hon Mr Christopherson: I'm certainly prepared to talk to the Minister of Education about any matter that could have an implication for his ministry as it overlaps with mine. I can't speak to the specifics she raises, since they are primarily at this point an Education ministry-driven matter.

Let me say this to her: If in the course of dealing with this issue, either locally in her community or on a province-wide basis as the result of a JFO being started, there are any matters that need to be brought up with the Ministry of Education, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Community and Social Services or any other ministry in this government, we will deal with that as a priority.

I think she would agree that all members in this House share a concern when it comes to our children and the abuse that takes place in these kinds of cases. She has my personal commitment that we will deal with this thoroughly, adequately and in an acceptably timely fashion.

TVONTARIO HEADQUARTERS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation. Minister, there is some understanding, or at the very least some very widespread rumours, that despite a 30% vacancy rate in the city of Toronto, TVOntario is currently contemplating pursuing plans to build a brand-new office tower in the heart of Toronto's downtown. Minister, will you tell us today that this simply cannot be true? If by any chance it is, would you tell us what possible justification there could be for even contemplating such an expenditure?

Hon Anne Swarbrick (Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation): There is no decision yet made for TVO to move. Should there be such a decision, it will be based on it being a better deal for taxpayers than what TVO now pays for its rent today.

Mrs McLeod: I can hardly believe that the minister didn't simply assure us that nobody would even contemplate building a new office tower for a government agency in downtown Toronto, particularly when we've just been talking about hospitals across the province struggling to provide emergency care.

May I remind the minister of the fiasco that occurred the last time this government decided it needed a new building? The government spent $180 million on a new building for the Workers' Compensation Board that it could not afford. The auditor was critical of it and critical of the government's role in letting that project go ahead.

The only things that have changed since the decision was made to build that building are that the vacancy rate in the city has increased, the government is much poorer, and critical services this government provides are being cut.

Minister, will you tell us, if this is a business plan, what could possibly justify such an expenditure and how much would the expenditure be? Would you at least tell us that no matter how much it is, it is still too much?

Hon Ms Swarbrick: Under both of the predecessor governments to this one, TVO has been paying very high rent for very poor facilities. TVO has a great need for improved broadcast facilities. Their lease is coming to expiry. It makes every bit of sense that TVO should be looking for facilities that will finally meet its needs at a far better deal than it's been paying Moog in the building it's been in under the Tories, who negotiated it in the first place, and then under the Liberals before us.

METROPOLITAN TORONTO HOUSING AUTHORITY

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): My question is to the Minister of Housing. Yesterday the minister announced that Peat Marwick Thorne, led by Ronald Hikel, will conduct a comprehensive review of MTHA. In her statement the minister said, "Mr Hikel will work closely with the MTHA board of directors and its staff during this process of change."

However, the MTHA board of directors and senior management are part of the ongoing serious problems at the agency. Vance Latchford, chair of the board's tender review committee, said in a recent memo to the minister that MTHA staff withheld key information the board needed to make decisions about the improper performance of contractors who continue to receive large contracts.

Given these allegations that staff have blocked the board's efforts to do its job, how can the public be certain that the auditors will have access to all the information they need to form a complete picture of the management of MTHA?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): It is precisely because of the questions that have been raised by members of the board, by members of staff of MTHA and, most important, by residents who live in MTHA communities that we have asked Peat Marwick Thorne to undertake the review of MTHA operations.

The member for Mississauga South asks the question, how can we be sure that all information will be available? I can assure her, I can assure members of the board, I can assure staff and I can assure residents that it is my will, and it will be monitored by me, that any information required by Peat Marwick Thorne in the execution of its undertaking on behalf of our government will be met.

Mrs Marland: That's not very assuring for us, because this minister also had assured us all along that there wasn't a problem at MTHA.

I'd like to remind the minister that the vice-chair of MTHA, Anne Smith, has also complained that MTHA staff has kept information from the board. Ms Smith says, "Senior management has withheld such basic information as staff resignations." There are also allegations that another board member is being harassed and intimidated by the board chair and by the general manager.

1430

There continues to be a shroud of secrecy over the agency. At the MTHA board meeting on May 17, the board chair, Pat O'Neill, did not release the internal audits to the board members, even though many outsiders already had received leaked copies of the audits. Instead, the members received a synopsis of the audits. Clearly, both senior management and the board chair are determined not to share information with the public and other board members, yet these senior officials remain in place during this audit process.

Minister, will you ensure that the auditors can get to the bottom of what is going on at MTHA by asking the current board chair and the general manager to step aside during the four months of the audit?

Hon Ms Gigantes: The work that Peat Marwick Thorne will be carrying out on behalf of the government is work that will touch on every area of the operations of MTHA and include all matters to which I have previously referred. I would underline to the member for Mississauga South what she already knows, if she would state it accurately, please, in the future: I have never said that all was well at MTHA -- never, never, never.

The work that they will be carrying on has the full support of this government. It is our will that the work will produce recommendations which will help us to make improvements in the operations of MTHA on behalf of the residents of MTHA in the short term and also will produce options and a proposed method for the involvement of the board, of staff and of the people who live in MTHA communities in the future shape of an organization which has well outgrown its need to perform in this community.

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): My question is for the Attorney General. Attorney General, recently the Zonta Club of Woodstock sponsored a public information meeting called Justice Without Fear: What Can I Do? Over 800 people attended the meeting to hear speakers talk about our justice system. One of the issues raised was Ontario's position on harsher penalties for young offenders who commit violent crimes against people.

My question for the Attorney General is this: During the federal-provincial-territorial meeting of justice ministers in Ottawa, what was Ontario's position with respect to increasing sentences for young offenders who commit violent interpersonal crimes?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): I appreciate the question from the member for Oxford. As I've said in this Legislature a number of times, Ontario and all of our sister provinces and the federal government were unanimous in saying that we were concerned about the growth of interpersonal violence and about the need to change the Young Offenders Act.

Prior to the current government being elected, the justice ministers from across the country had already agreed to a year-long study of the Young Offenders Act, a study that's taking place on the 10th anniversary of the introduction of the act. The feeling was at that time, by all of those provinces, that a piecemeal or simplistic approach would not be appropriate, that we really needed to look at the whole act and how it was operating and that we needed to look at how we shift some of the emphasis in the system from the low end of the scale in terms of seriousness of crime to the high end.

Ontario's position has been clear. There is a real need to make changes in the sentencing options that are available for young offenders. However, those changes must be comprehensive, because what we are seeing is not only a growth in violent crime but a huge growth in the charging and the incarceration of young people at the lower end of the seriousness scale.

Mr Sutherland: Thank you for that response, Attorney General. I realize the Young Offenders Act is a federal act and that it is up to the Liberal government in Ottawa to make the necessary changes. However, I believe my constituents would like to know what steps the provincial government is taking to best utilize the current act in such areas as sentencing, transfers to adult court and how the provincial government is making the best use of our limited resources to combat interpersonal crime.

Hon Mrs Boyd: Our agenda has been very clear as it relates to justice and law enforcement. We are doing everything we can to focus our limited resources on violent interpersonal crime and to explore other, non-court-based methods for dealing with non-violent and relatively less serious crime.

If I go back to the issue of sentencing young offenders, I think it's a good example of how we need to approach this issue. Currently, we are incarcerating young people at unheard-of levels for generally less serious property-related crimes, and incarcerating young people is extremely expensive.

It is this government's position that we could be using some of these resources from that lower end of the seriousness scale to direct them towards youth who do pose a danger to themselves and their communities and their families. It's that group of young people who are most in need of these resources so that they can rehabilitate themselves and become self-sufficient members of society.

Prevention is the other key issue.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the minister conclude her response, please.

Hon Mrs Boyd: The practice of incarcerating young persons for non-violent and minor offences reduces the resources we have available for prevention.

The Speaker: New question, the honourable member for St Catharines.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My question is for the Premier, but after almost three weeks away, he's ducked out after 35 minutes. I guess I have to give it to the member for Algoma-Manitoulin.

FOREST MANAGEMENT

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources. But before I ask my question, I'd like to congratulate the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of Northern Development and Mines on their recent announcement.

I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources and it concerns the government's policy to think globally and abandon locally on forestation policy.

Yesterday it was revealed that Ontario Hydro is considering investing in as many as 18 international projects involving the restoration and reforestation of large tracts of forest land in Central America, Russia and, yes, the United States. It is interesting to note the active interest which this government, as represented by Ontario Hydro, is taking in these foreign projects at the very same time when it slashes funding to forest renewal in this very province year after year. Under this government, funding for planting trees on crown forest land has dropped by 30%, the amount of forest land tended has been cut by 50%, and last year 11 million trees were mulched in this province.

The minister suggested yesterday that these international projects are being considered as a way of combating the problem of global warming and greenhouse gases. My question is, what does the minister have to say to the tree seedling growers, to the silviculture contractors and all the users of Ontario forests who witness this type of potential investment going on in other parts of the world by a provincial government agency when the province itself has seriously cut back on reforesting the forests in its own backyard?

Hon Howard Hampton (Minister of Natural Resources): First of all, I want to thank the member for the question. I can only say, if it took me that long to ask the question, I'd still be waiting around. So let me try to come directly to the answer.

For many years in the province of Ontario, the province has not had the funding necessary to do the kind of regeneration work that we need to do in the forests. Year in, year out, the Ministry of Natural Resources, under Conservative governments, under Liberal governments and, yes, in the difficult economic times we're having under the New Democrat government, has gone and sought money for forest renewal. Over the last 10 years, the last 15 years, that money has been difficult to come by.

What we are attempting to do is put in place a forest renewal trust fund which will have first claim on stumpage fees, which will mean that for the first time ever in the province we will have a guaranteed fund for forest renewal.

That proposal by our government is being warmly received by the forest industries, is warmly received by the silvicultural contractors, is warmly received by the tree nursery operators. They all recognize that what we need is a new type of relationship designating funding for forest renewal.

I am very proud that we are the first government, the only government, to move in that direction, the first government to recognize that forest renewal ought to have a first claim on revenue generated in the forest. I look forward to the member opposite supporting us when we bring the legislation forward very soon to implement what we're trying to do.

1440

Mr Brown: As you know, for the last almost four years, as I mentioned before, reforestation has decreased by 30%. The amount of land tended has decreased by 50% since this government came to power. The minister is most selective in his memory of what goes on in Ontario's forests. Let's look at the raw numbers. The operating budget of his ministry has been cut by some $32 million this year. The Ministry of Environment and Energy's budget has been cut by $59 million.

They claim they're interested in reforestation and they claim they're interested in global warming. They make lots of claims but have not produced anything.

We look forward to his announcement of sustainable forestry. We look forward to the act. We thought it was going to be here three months ago; so did the seedling producers, so did the silviculture people, so did all those people who right now don't know what's going on. There's just chaos there.

Is the Minister of Natural Resources now considering approaching Ontario Hydro and asking Ontario Hydro if it will provide the funding to reforest Ontario?

Hon Mr Hampton: The irony of the Liberals standing in the House one day and saying, "You should cut your spending," and then when we find effective ways to cut the spending and still deliver the service, they complain that we've cut the spending.

Since we have become the government, the management within the Ministry of Natural Resources has been cut from 11 levels of management to five levels of management.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Don't buy the rain forest. You don't have to go to Costa Rica; do it in Ontario.

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

Hon Mr Hampton: We've moved from eight regional offices to four regional offices. We've reduced from about 16 different branches in the ministry to six different branches. What we have done is removed levels of management, we have done away with unnecessary offices, we have moved services closer to the people, and that has saved people money.

Further, so that the member will understand, the reality is that our forest issues will not be solved by throwing money at them, as the Liberals tried to do. No forest policy under the Liberals, no old-growth policy under the Liberals, no sustainable forest policy under the Liberals, no new legislation. I am sure the member will support us as we do, in the next 12 months, all those things that five years of Liberal government failed to do.

MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. It concerns a meeting that my leader and I had yesterday with Mr Hector Verhoeve, mayor of Norfolk township, Deputy Mayor Jack Boughner, planner Jim McIntosh and clerk administrator Merlin Howse about your flawed planning development reform package.

Norfolk township officials, like their counterparts across Ontario, believe your new policy fails to recognize the diversity of Ontario's municipalities and planning areas, limits any possible development in small rural municipalities and limits locally elected officials in the decision-making process, they claim.

Minister, will you recognize and respond to these very serious concerns raised by Norfolk township and completely overhaul your planning and development policy to make the system clearer, easier and more accessible to the people of rural Ontario?

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): The package of reforms we have introduced, which is the first major reform package in some 30 or 40 years, in fact meets the concerns of rural communities. We've heard from rural communities. The Association of Municipalities of Ontario has four members on the committee that is working on the implementation of these policies.

We've had a buy-in from the home builders, we've had a buy-in from the environmentalists, we've had a buy-in from the developers and we've had a buy-in from the municipalities. When you can get that kind of consensus, I don't think we're doing too badly.

Mr McLean: The minister has not listened to the rural Ontario elected officials. They tell me they cannot get a meeting with the minister or his officials. They tell me the member who represents that area will not return calls or meet with them.

Minister, your Sewell Commission on Planning and Development Reform in Ontario spent more than $2 million over two years, travelling the province to review the planning and development process. You then turned around and formed a censorship on duly elected local councils by forcing them to respond to the Sewell commission in 90 days.

It's apparent you have little regard for local Ontario municipalities, and I join with rural Ontario in demanding that you withdraw your new planning development package until all concerns have properly been addressed. Will you make that commitment today, withdraw that? Because those people we met with yesterday said that they were not listened to and they're not happy.

Hon Mr Philip: No, I won't withdraw it, because the people of Ontario have been asking for a streamlined form of government, a streamlined form of planning. They've asked for that for years.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Name one. Name one.

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

Hon Mr Philip: You did not deliver it. You delivered absolutely nothing. We have delivered it, and we intend to proceed with it.

BENEFITS FOR OLDER WORKERS

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): My question is to the Minister of Labour. One of my constituents, an older worker, was laid off from his job in January 1992. He was just one of the 30 let go. His unemployment insurance benefits ran out the following October.

He then applied for assistance under the federal-provincial program for older worker adjustment. It is now June 1994, a full one and a half years after he applied to the program, and my constituent still doesn't know if he qualifies. We've heard there is some kind of backlog in the system. Can the minister advise this House and my constituency why there is such a delay in a program for older worker adjustment?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): The member is probably aware that the program for older worker adjustment is a joint federal-provincial program designed to assist older workers who are laid off due to a major closure that occurred on or after January 1, 1988. They have to have little possibility of being re-employed. Before any decision can be made on whether or not a layoff will be designated under the program, extensive research on the layoff itself is carried out by officials in both my ministry and Labour Canada. I might say that we have never had the money from both sources that would fully deal with all of the people who might qualify.

In January of this year, the Ministry of Labour received cabinet approval to enter into discussions with the federal government on possible ways to change the current criteria of POWA to assist and try and get a larger number of older workers into the existing budget. Once these discussions have been completed, an adjusted Canada-Ontario POWA framework agreement will be signed with the federal government, which should assist us to get an additional group of workers covered under the plan.

Until these arrangements are completed, ministry officials will continue to analyse those who are laid off and see whether or not they qualify.

Mr Hansen: Can the minister advise this House and my constituency of what this government is doing to help older workers who have little hope of being recalled to their jobs?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: We are rather proud of our record, although it's not all that we would like. We have several programs. As I've mentioned, there is the Ministry of Labour and the POWA, with changes currently being negotiated with the federal government, which incidentally co-administers the program. To change any of the criteria to assist older workers, they have to be involved.

This government has also brought in the employee wage protection plan, and I think it's significant to say that up until now this plan has paid out better than $126 million to better than 55,000 workers whose employers have declared bankruptcy or gone into receivership.

As well, the member will know that we have the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board administering the transitions program which provides training to laid-off workers who are now over 45, and labour adjustment services also provided through my ministry which work closely with both employers and workers in the event of a layoff.

1450

PETITIONS

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): I have a petition from the riding of Quinte and it reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the majority of Ontario citizens believe that the privileges which society accords to heterosexual couples should not be extended to same-sex relationships; and

"Whereas redefining the fundamental institutions of marriage and family in allowing same-sex couples to adopt children would cause an enormous negative impact on our society over the long term;

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

"That the House refrain from changing provincial laws that deal with family, marriage and children and that the undefined phrase 'sexual orientation' be removed from the Ontario Human Rights Code."

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which was brought to me by a gentleman named Elroy Belbeck who received over 30 signatures just in a very short time one night. It reads:

"Whereas, to our opinion, a majority of Ontarians believe that the privilege which society accords to married heterosexual couples should not be extended to same-sex relationships; and

"Whereas for our government to use our tax money to furnish contributions for the propagation of practices which we sincerely believe to be morally wrong would be a serious violation of our freedom of conscience; and

"Whereas redefining marital status and/or spouse by extending it to include gay and lesbian couples would give homosexual couples the same status as married couples, including the legal right to adopt children; and

"Whereas the term 'sexual orientation' is vague and undefined, leaving the door open to the demands for equal treatment by persons with deviant sexual orientations other than the practice of homosexuality;

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

"We request that the Legislature not pass into law any act to amend the Human Rights Code with respect to sexual orientation or any similar legislation that would change the present marital status of couples in Ontario."

TOBACCO PACKAGING

Mrs Karen Haslam (Perth): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario in support of 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 of Ontario; and

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

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

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

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

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

I sign my name to this petition.

KETTLE ISLAND BRIDGE

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): I have a petition addressed to the Parliament of Ontario coming from my constituent from Manor Park:

"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 affix my signature to the petition.

FIREARMS SAFETY

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

"Whereas we, the undersigned, strenuously object to Minister of the Solicitor General's decision on the firearms acquisition certificate course and examination; and

"Whereas we believe that the Solicitor General should have followed the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters' advice and 'grandfathered' those of us who have already taken safety courses and/or hunted for years;

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

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

"To amend 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 petition has been signed by approximately 100 constituents in my constituency, and I have affixed by signature thereto as the member of the provincial Legislature.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Peter North (Elgin): I have a petition 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."

It's signed by a number of constituents in Elgin county.

TOBACCO PACKAGING

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I've got a petition here to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario in support of the plain packaging of tobacco products, and it's a pleasure to read it on today's World No Tobacco Day.

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

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

"Whereas Bill 119 contains the provision that the Ontario government 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 packaging strategy the most efficient method of protecting the Canadian public;

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

I've got a page here waiting, standing right by, from Mount Albert, and I'm going to sign this and send it down to the table officers.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I have a petition from the Catholic school board. It says:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the British North America Act of 1867 supports the right of Catholic students to a Catholic education, and the province of Ontario supports two educational systems from kindergarten to grade 12/OAC; and

"Whereas the Metropolitan Separate School Board educates more than 103,000 students across Metropolitan Toronto; and

"Whereas this is equivalent to 30% of all the students in the area; and

"Whereas the Metropolitan Separate School Board is expected to provide the same programs and services as its public school counterpart and must do so by receiving $1,822 less for each elementary school student and $2,542 less per secondary school student (based on 1993 estimates, MET published statistics);

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to act now to ensure that Ontario's two principal education systems are funded fully and equality."

I've affixed my signature to the petition.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I have several petitions, but I'll just read one of them into the record and that should cover them all. It says:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

Whereas this bill would change the meaning of the words 'spouse' and 'marital status' by removing the words 'of the opposite sex'; and

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

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

"Whereas the NDP government has indicated it will force private sector employers to pay same-sex spousal benefits; and

"Whereas redefining marriage and forcing the private sector to pay same-sex spousal benefits will have serious negative economic and social implications;

"We, the undersigned, petition the NDP government to withdraw consideration of private sector spousal benefits for same-sex couples and refuse to pass the private Liberal member's Bill 45."

That is from Bethel Baptist Church in Orillia. One is from First Baptist Church in Orillia, another is from the Orillia Baptist Church, one from Marchmont Baptist Church, one from Christian Reform Church and another one with 135 signatures privately, and I'll affix my name to them.

1500

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): Last week during constituency week, Wayne Smith, who is the president of OSSTF District 46, came to my office to present me with a petition that is signed by 329 members of District 46.

They object to the disproportionate way in which the social contract affects their members, particularly those members still on the salary grid as well as those nearing retirement. They demand that grid increments be made mandatory under Bill 48. As I say, there are 329 signatures on that petition expressing concern about not having grid movement, so I present that petition now.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario on the issue of the 20-bed forensic jail which is in the process of construction at the Queen Street Mental Health Centre;

"Whereas the public has been assured through the media and other sources available that all levels of government have agreed that the political process of this issue has been greatly negligent, it is in the best of public interest and of taxpayers of this community to terminate all construction procedures directly related to the building of this 20-bed forensic jail for the criminally insane immediately;

"Whereas the citizens of this community believe it is their right to demand an investigation of this 20-bed forensic unit from its original proposal to the planners and building department and everyone that has participated in the process to this very date;

"Whereas community leaders and city council members agree that employees of the Queen Street Mental Health Centre be re-evaluated, as they have demonstrated a lack of supervision and negligence to the care of their patients;

"Therefore, we request that construction of this forensic jail for the criminally insane be stopped immediately."

I have affixed my signature to this petition.

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition to the Legislature Assembly of Ontario and it reads as follows:

"Whereas the previous provincial Liberal government of David Peterson announced its intention in its budget of 1989 of requiring all school boards to provide junior kindergarten; and

"Whereas the provincial NDP government is continuing the Liberal policy of requiring school boards in Ontario to phase in junior kindergarten; and

"Whereas the government is downloading expensive programs like junior kindergarten on to local boards while not providing boards with the funding required to undertake these programs; and

"Whereas the Wellington County Board of Education estimates that the operating cost of junior kindergarten will be at least $4.5 million per year; and

"Whereas mandatory junior kindergarten programs will force boards to cut other important programs or raise taxes; and

"Whereas taxes in Ontario are already far too high;

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

"We demand that the government of Ontario cancel its policy of forcing junior kindergarten on to local school boards."

It's signed by quite a number of my constituents, and I've affixed my signature to it as well.

TOBACCO PACKAGING

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): Today being No Tobacco Day, it's most appropriate that I read this petition signed by many people from the town of Dundas. It's a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It says:

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

I also affix my name to this petition.

LAND-LEASE COMMUNITIES

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition signed by a number of constituents from Middlesex and addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario in regard to Bill 21, An Act to amend certain Acts with respect to Land Leases.

The thrust of this petition is the concern that Bill 21 has languished too long. The signers petition this Legislative Assembly to process the bill as quickly as possible and make the protections in it available to seniors in land-lease communities and others who rely on these places for homes so that they can avail themselves of the same protections that other tenants in this province have.

I have signed my name to this petition.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 SUR LES ONTARIENS QUI ONT UN HANDICAP

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

Bill 168, An Act to ensure Equal Access to Post-Secondary Education, Transportation and Other Services and Facilities for Ontarians with Disabilities / Projet de loi 168, Loi garantissant aux Ontariens qui ont un handicap l'égalité d'accès à l'enseignement postsecondaire, aux transports et à d'autres services et installations.

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): This bill creates the right of access for people with disabilities to the following facilities and services: post-secondary education, transportation, government publications, training programs and communication. A person who believes that his or her rights under the act have been infringed may file a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

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 Agriculture Industry / Projet de loi 91, Loi concernant les relations de travail dans l'industrie agricole.

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): As a member from a largely rural riding, I'm pleased to be able to join in the debate and offer my perspective on the legislation before the House, Bill 91, the Agricultural Labour Relations Act.

I think there are a number of quite important provisions in this bill. I'd like to focus on its intent, the effect that it will have on factory farm workers and the manner by which it came to this stage of the process. I'd also like to remind the House that the agricultural community asked for this bill, and I think part of the reason is the fact that Ontario is among the last of the provinces to provide this type of protection, this type of legislation. That in itself speaks volumes in terms of our need to catch up and afford protection to workers at factory farm operations.

1510

In addition to the right to organize and bargain collectively will come rights in regard to health and safety. Because this bill exempts the family farm, the people affected will indeed be those who are employed on factorylike places like mushroom farms, the horticultural sector and large processors. These operations employ anywhere from 50 to over 100 people at locations across our province.

In total, after Bill 91 passes, about 18,000 year-round employees will benefit from this legislation and 14,000 seasonal workers following the passage of regulations. That is 32,000 people living and working in this province of Ontario who would otherwise be excluded from some extremely important safeguards: the right to organize, the right to bargain for fair wages and the right to insist upon a safe workplace.

This last issue is one that I think needs to be examined, and examined very closely, because of the current situation on some farms in the community: factory farms and those places where conditions are just not acceptable. The reality is that because of those conditions on some farms -- and I want to emphasize "some factory farms" -- workers have been put at risk. We've all heard of these places, and we have an obligation to move ahead on the health and safety problems that do exist.

A significant number of operators in the factory farm sector use homemade machinery that is never inspected. In the past five years there have been six deaths on mushroom farms. Three of the victims died in the shredders. This is a situation that must be addressed, and a very effective way to address it is through health and safety standards that can be enforced by workers as a result of a collective agreement.

We're obligated to provide the legislative framework that will help reduce the kind of dangers that some workers face. I know that responsible factory farm operators support this legislation as well, because they want safe workplaces in their industry. They want their workers to have this margin of safety and they don't want their reputation besmirched by those who don't take the kind of care that's needed to ensure that workers in our society are not endangered.

There's a great need to reduce the number of these preventable accidents. The cost in human suffering and the loss to Ontario families is unacceptable. This bill is a step towards ending these accidents, and that needs to be very clearly stated and very clearly stated as often as possible.

I'd also like to spend some time discussing the process by which we arrived at the recommendations that led to agreement by stakeholders to Bill 91, the bill before us. The Ministry of Labour established a special task force with representatives from labour, commodity groups and the Ontario Federation of Agriculture in early 1992.

Their June report recommended the extension of the right to organize to all employees engaged in agricultural or horticultural work if there could be a separate labour statute for agriculture, a prohibition on strikes and lockouts, the creation of a binding dispute resolution mechanism and the establishment of educational programs on labour relations.

The government agreed with the task force and extended its mandate to develop recommendations on the appropriate statutory framework and dispute settlement mechanism. In the late summer and fall of 1992 the task force continued in its efforts and once again, in November 1992, reached a consensus and provided advice to the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Labour that right to organize be extended to seasonal workers once the regulation was passed, to facilitate the establishment of a farm labour-management advisory board to advise the government, to create special rules for farm owners and family members and to provide resources and data to arbitrators to assist in decision-making.

These recommendations became the basis of the bill that we see before us today, and I want to go back to what I said before, that there was a consensus among all of these stakeholders. They came to the government and said, "This is the kind of bill that we need." This is precisely the bill that we see before us.

The process has been long and complex, but it has been well worth the effort inasmuch as this kind of consultation -- listening and respect for the recommendations of the stakeholders -- has produced what I think is a very strong piece of legislation that will successfully accomplish the purpose for which it was intended.

This, of course, as you well know, Madam Speaker, is not the first nor will it be the last time that this government has had mutually beneficial consultations with the agricultural community. That has allowed us to move forward with important policy for the people of this province.

You will recall that in February of this year this government passed the Environmental Bill of Rights. The Environmental Bill of Rights is Ontario's most significant environmental legislation in the past 17 years. It fulfils our long-time commitment to provide the people of Ontario with a greater say in environmental decisions affecting their lives and their communities and it ensures increased government accountability for the environment.

When the Minister of the Environment, the Honourable Ruth Grier, began that process to establish an EBR for Ontarians, there was some concern in the agricultural community because of fears of nuisance complaints.

We all know that in the last few years the trend has been for more and more urbanites to move to rural areas in order to enjoy the benefits and the quality of rural living. Most of these ex-city dwellers move smoothly into our rural communities. They've become involved in our neighbourhoods. They make an important and welcome contribution in our schools, our social and our economic activities, and they are most welcome.

There are some, however, who don't understand that a working farm is not a static place like we see in postcards and picture books. It's a place where people, men and women in our communities, earn their living by producing the products that we need for domestic consumption and for export. In fact this very dynamic sector of our economy is our second-largest industry. We produce 35% of all Canadian agricultural production.

You can see that in addition to the importance of the agricultural community to our economic wellbeing, it has become a place that has been rather idealized, and we have to put things into perspective. These are working farms, as I said, where men and women earn their living.

In addition to the fact that this sector has felt some concerns regarding the invasion by ex-urbanites, farm communities have had to deal with low commodity prices for their goods and the realities of a very difficult recession. We know in this province that in 1989 we began to see a downturn that has had a catastrophic effect in some sectors. We're moving out of that. We're moving out of it very quickly now, very effectively, but those lingering problems still exist in rural Ontario and we have to have special understanding of that.

The stress that all of these things has placed on rural families is quite significant. We, as a government, were and are determined to work in partnership with all sectors of Ontario society to bring about positive changes that Ontarians were demanding in September 1990. You'll remember that day, Madam Speaker, because Ontarians said very clearly that they wanted significant change in this province. In the last four years we've seen that kind of change, marked with collaboration with the government, partnership and consultation.

In the late fall of 1990, when the Minister of the Environment took steps to implement the Environmental Bill of Rights, the farm community worried that it might be faced with nuisance complaints regarding noise, dust or odours from people who are unfamiliar with the normal farm practices that most in rural communities understand, and that complaints or statutory interference could make farming and earning a living from agriculture all the more difficult.

In response to that concern, representatives from the Ontario Federation of Agriculture had full access to the advisory committee of stakeholders that had been charged with the task of consulting with Ontarians in order to advise the government on the proper principles and possible content of an Environmental Bill of Rights.

As a result, under section 84 of the EBR, normal farm practices are not subject to outside intervention. An action may not be brought until the plaintiff has applied to the Farm Practices Protection Board under section 5 of the Farm Practices Protection Act and the board has disposed of the application.

1520

Quite naturally, since the environment is of profound concern to rural communities, all of us would wish those causing harm to our precious resources, namely, farm land, to be stopped.

However, the responsible members of our agricultural community, and those are the vast majority of people in the community, are protected from those who are ill informed or simply bent on mischief.

It was essential to the minister and to this government that such accommodation be made, and in addition to this accommodation is the investment by our government, through the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, in green farm plans. In the next two years $38 million has been made available to farmers who wish to voluntarily inventory their farm practices to make improvements to help protect the environment.

This kind of cooperation and respect for the opinions, the needs and the concerns of the members of the agricultural community is something of which I believe we can and should be proud. It has allowed us to fulfil some important obligations to the people of this province in a very constructive way, and it speaks of respect for people and dedication to progressive and positive government for Ontarians.

That respect has helped us to build partnerships across Ontario within all communities, and that includes those affected by Bill 91. We have made sure that the special circumstances that exist in agriculture have been given full regard in this legislation. It's a bill that is fair, that extends rights to workers, protects the family farm and moves forward a resolution to the health and safety concerns of factory farm workers.

I'm pleased to support this legislation, and I would like to extend congratulations to the Minister of Agriculture and Food as well as the Minister of Labour and the task force, because it's their diligence that has helped to create this very important, very workable piece of legislation.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Now we have questions or comments to the member for Middlesex.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): Just a couple of comments to the member for Middlesex: One thing that was said was that the Ontarians had cried out for this type of legislation, and I think one thing that some of the Ontarians are crying out for, that is, those in the agricultural sector, is that the minimum wage has been raised so high that there are some, many in fact, farmers, greenhouse growers, in my area who can't afford to hire agricultural workers any more. Some of these workers have come to us and offered that they would prefer to work for less money if they could only get a job for the summer. I think that's one thing that may result from this type of legislation, that in fact not only will the minimum wage be exceeded, but there may be an attempt to make it go far beyond that.

The other area I want to comment on is the fact that the workers will have rights. It's kind of interesting, and I make a point of this because you say the workers have rights, and not that I endorse it, but they don't have the right to strike. But you say if they do strike, then there's a long procedure that has to be gone through. Meanwhile, the farmer has a crop that's sitting there. That crop can't be harvested, and at the end of the day, the person who's going to suffer the most is the farmer, because if workers do strike, there's nothing in the legislation that's punitive to them. So you come back to the workers and you say, "Well, you shouldn't have struck."

So there are those two areas, I think: the effect it will have on agricultural wages and the lack of teeth in the legislation when it comes to strikes.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I'm pleased to comment briefly on the remarks that were put forward by the member for Middlesex. I would ask her a very direct question and hope she would respond to it. Who in her riding, given the nature of the riding that she represents, truly wants Bill 91, truly wants labour laws extended to the farm to the extent that this legislation requires family farms to become unionized? I represent a similar type of riding with a large rural component and I have found no one in my riding who speaks in favour of Bill 91.

We have seen and are seeing on a daily and weekly basis the effects of the NDP's job-killing Bill 40 labour laws that have dramatically affected industry and business in this province and are discouraging people from investing in this province and coming to Ontario to set up shop. Now the government, having learned nothing from that experience, is extending similar labour laws to the farm community.

I've had many constituents indicate to me that if employees strike, they really are holding a huge gun, in fact a bazooka, to the owners and operators of the family farms in my riding; that it is not a sector of our economy that needs these laws as proposed in Bill 91; that there is no demonstrated need out there other than in the ideological minds of the NDP government here at Queen's Park; and that the people of Ontario, and most important the family farmers in my riding and throughout Ontario, overwhelmingly reject this type of legislation.

I ask the member to please tell me who wants this -- are they farmers, are they family farmers? -- and why the government is moving in this direction when the people of Ontario clearly do not want this legislation.

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): I want to basically take up the challenge from the member for Simcoe West because, like the member for Middlesex, I have an agricultural component to my riding. Geographically, it probably forms about half of the riding, although not so population-wise. Probably the labour-intensive nature of the type of farming mirrors that of the riding of the member for Essex South, because Niagara grows more in the way of tender fruit crops, which require a lot more handpicking than most of the other types of farming that are practised by the different farm communities across the province.

I have met with horticultural workers who feel very strongly that they need this legislation, not just to organize themselves but to ultimately deal with the range of health and safety issues down the road. It would be very difficult to bring about health and safety legislation and bring forward these concerns without having in place an organization that can carry that mandate.

In my other life, I was on a steering committee that made a presentation to the Tory government. They had a committee that travelled the province dealing with agricultural health and safety. It was very much a concern among the different horticultural workers, but they frequently felt themselves disfranchised. As immigrant women working on the mushroom farms not too far from my home, they felt they could not raise these points without having an organization. We need this change.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I want to respond to the comments by the member for Middlesex. The member has been doing a very effective job of representing the interests of the rural part of her riding, which makes up the largest portion of her riding, and the many fine people in Middlesex who make such a significant contribution to food production in this province.

I didn't hear all the comments by the member for Middlesex, but I was wondering if the member, in her two-minute response, would be able to comment on what she thinks about the fact that there is a certain organization going around the province claiming that it represents the interests of farmers. This group is called Ontarians for Responsible Government. They're saying, "We're looking after the interests of farmers."

1530

It's my understanding that Ontarians for Responsible Government is an umbrella arm of the National Citizens' Coalition. From what I know about the National Citizens' Coalition, this group opposes supply-managed systems. They see this somehow as a subsidy to farmers.

I would be interested in knowing what the member for Middlesex thinks about an organization that fundamentally opposes supply management in our agricultural sector and now claims, despite having no other track record in representing the interests of farmers and in some effects really opposing the interests of farmers, that it's looking after the interests of farmers by saying this bill is going to unionize the family farm.

The member for Middlesex in her remarks did a very effective job of pointing out that it's not going to unionize the family farm, and if we look at the track record of other provinces where farm workers have been allowed to unionize, it's only been about 3% to 4%. They still have very viable family farms going on in those provinces and significant agricultural production.

I ask the member for Middlesex for her comments on that.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Middlesex has two minutes to respond.

Mrs Mathyssen: I think I have quite a task ahead of me.

First of all, to the member for Essex South, perhaps if you read Hansard you'll see that my comments were rather more moderate than you would suggest, but I do wish to reiterate that the agricultural community wanted a separate piece of legislation to address their special needs, and I think that's important. Second, in my discussions with my community, once people understood what Bill 91 did, what it contained and how it would affect workers in the province, they were very supportive. They haven't given in to these scare tactics that we've seen out and about.

As far as the member for Simcoe West is concerned, I can only say that I think you show a rather profound ignorance of the collective bargaining process and organizing procedures. Very small units are not practicable in terms of organization. Second, we've been very clear that the family farm is to be protected. This bill is addressed to the larger operations where there are concerns regarding health and safety and lack of proper safety equipment.

Finally, thanks to the member for St Catharines-Brock; I appreciate her words and her support.

I would like to respond to the member for Oxford, because I too have seen these rather interesting road signs and I find it quite reprehensible that a group like Ontarians for Responsible Government, aka the National Citizens' Coalition, would have the audacity to say it's fighting on behalf of the family farm. Quite clearly, the survival of that entity in our society is dependent on the farm family being able to earn a proper living, and supply management is one way that happens. I want to remind the members that the National Citizens' Coalition is also the bunch who refused to --

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

ROYAL ASSENT / SANCTION ROYALE

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): At this time, I beg to inform the House that in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, His Honour the Lieutenant Governor has been pleased to assent to certain bills in his office.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): The following are the titles of the bills to which His Honour did assent:

Bill 120, An Act to amend certain statutes concerning residential property / Projet de loi 120, Loi modifiant certaines lois en ce qui concerne les immeubles d'habitation

Bill Pr71, An Act respecting the Capitol Theatre and Arts Centre (Windsor)

Bill Pr83, An Act respecting the City of Burlington

Bill Pr86, An Act to revive Tuberate Heat Transfer Ltd

Bill Pr90, An Act to revive Wordz Processing Corporation Ltd

Bill Pr93, An Act to revive North Toronto Christian School (Interdenominational)

Bill Pr100, An Act respecting Ontario Southland Railway Inc

Bill Pr104, An Act to revive North Toronto Business and Professional Women's Club

Bill Pr107, An Act respecting the City of Brampton

Bill Pr109, An Act respecting the County of Dufferin.

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

The Acting Speaker: Now we will resume further debate on second reading of Bill 91.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: If we're going to resume debate, I think it would be in order to have a quorum in the House.

The Acting Speaker: Please determine if a quorum is present.

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

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

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

The Acting Speaker: Now we are resuming the debate on Bill 91. Further debate?

Mr Crozier: It's a pleasure for me today to rise to give a few words to the debate on Bill 91, An Act respecting Labour Relations in the Agriculture Industry. I feel particularly obligated to do this because, as was referred to earlier, I come from an agricultural riding. I'm proud to say that we lay claim to being the Sun Parlour of Canada, as well as being rather good at growing tomatoes and other products.

In beginning on this, I think I should give a little background to the labour agenda and history of the New Democratic Party. When they took office in 1990, there was this agenda that there should be extended powers of unions. I use the words "extended powers" of unions, because I don't see anything wrong with them working with unions, but it's when that ideology takes you a bit too far one way.

Under Bill 40, you will recall, they introduced measures that would give unions more power and I think that limited the ability of small business to survive in the face of labour disputes.

This, we think -- and many of us know -- has led to businesses leaving the province and to businesses cancelling any expansion plans.

Premier Rae and the Minister of Labour have to some extent sent out signals to the province that perhaps business isn't as welcome as it used to be. We've seen the legacy of this policy, I believe, in the continuing recession. For over a year the NDP has been saying the recession is over. Ontario has continued to notice plant closures and growing unemployment. In fact, in the first two months of 1994 there were 10,000 fewer jobs in Ontario than the year before. This must be compared to the fact that over 140,000 jobs were created in the rest of Canada. There are 590,000 men and women without jobs in Ontario, and even the NDP doesn't expect unemployment to drop below 10% in the next few years. The recession doesn't seem to be over in Ontario, and Bill 40 and the NDP's anti-business agenda are in large part responsible for that.

But now there is a second Bill 40, if you like, in the works. There's another plan by the NDP to attack business in this province -- I'll call it "son of Bill 40" -- that is directed to a significant segment of the economy that's been facing financial difficulties for many years. The NDP has turned its guns on the farmers of Ontario, men and women in small, predominantly family-run business in the agricultural area who are struggling to survive. The agricultural labour legislation known as Bill 91 will place yet another burden on an industry that's already in trouble. As the legislation is now written, it will add new union control to an industry that's very sensitive to any kind of labour dispute.

1540

That's some background and history. Now I'd like to talk about agriculture specifically.

Agriculture has played an important role in the local economy of rural communities across this province, and, as I said at the outset, more specifically I'm interested in it because of my riding of Essex South. The farming industry has gone through tough times for more than a decade, and we have no regrets about the large increases in the budget of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food that occurred under the Liberal government.

It's important to remember that Ontario is Canada's largest agricultural province, generating $5.8 billion at the farm gate and over $17 billion in total sales of agricultural products and contributing over $1.6 billion to Ontario's exports. Between 130,000 and 150,000 people work on about 72,700 Ontario farms, with the total industry responsible directly or indirectly for one in five jobs in Ontario. The agriculture industry is second only in size to the auto industry and continues to be the economic foundation of rural Ontario.

During the first few years of the NDP's term in office, the agriculture industry faced one of its most difficult periods in the income crunch of 1991. During the year 1991, crop prices fell over 30%. Net incomes for the entire industry fell over 15% to $1.31 billion, the lowest levels since 1985.

The government responded by delaying its promised support for GRIP and NISA programs and promising future financial assistance following the recommendations of the Hayes task force on farm finance. While still recovering from this latest crisis, the industry has also seen major provincial support programs cut back over the past two years as part of the government's cost-cutting. The major financial assistance funding programs promised by the NDP during the election, in the Hayes task force on farm finance, and in the agricultural investment strategy announcement of 1992 have never materialized. The $120-million assistance that was promised to farmers disappeared under the province's spiralling deficit problems.

Far from providing any new assistance, the Ministry of Agriculture's budget has actually declined by more than $100 million since this government took office in 1990. This is 20% of expenditures. If we think that decline is serious, we can only imagine what would happen if the Harris American revolution were ever to come to fruition, because what they are saying is -- well, you have to go to two or three places to see what they say.

If you see what they say on television, they're not going to touch health, but they're going to cut spending 20% overall. Then if you go to the written material, they say, "We're not going to touch health and we're not going to touch the classroom part of education and we're not going to touch police services." But then if you read Hansard, they say, "It doesn't say anywhere in there that we're going to cut agriculture," so I guess that means they're not going to cut agriculture. If they go through all of this and keep saying, "We're not going to cut that one or another one," I don't know where they're going to find the funding cuts to pay for the $4-billion tax reduction.

My point is this: If they do cut their spending the way they want to and if the NDP continues the way it's been doing, cutting over $100 million since 1990, not only will agriculture be cut off at the knees, it will be cut off at the neck, and I certainly don't accept that in Essex South.

While many other ministry budgets have increased, funding for agriculture has declined, as I've just suggested, and as members of the third party would suggest, would further decline. Government spending, though, has increased 15% since the NDP took office, including an increase of 13% to the Ministry of Labour and an increase of $32 million for the Ministry of Citizenship, an increase of 58%. Meanwhile, agriculture funding has declined. I'll leave it to the government to explain these inequities.

One of the other major promises the government made to the agriculture industry since taking office was to support rural development. In fact, the ministry has even recently changed its name to the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Unfortunately, that's all that's happened. The minister has no real new authority and no new funding. The NDP will likely spend more money just to change all the signs and the letterhead and vehicle signs than it will on any new rural development work.

The minister talks about doing some ombudsman work in consulting with other ministries as part of the ministry's new name. Meanwhile, the NDP still plans to go full steam ahead with the Sewell commission recommendations and make planning in the province more restrictive, more complicated, more time-consuming and less efficient. The Sewell commission simply adds more layers of bureaucracy and throws up more roadblocks to development as the NDP works to control all local planning in the province.

The Sewell commission report says, "We're going to give more authority to the municipalities." I came from a municipal background. The problem is that it's going to be so difficult to get that authority. There are so many levels of bureaucracy above -- a couple of new boards -- and there are so many conditions to meet before it ever gets handed to the municipality that I doubt some will ever give it, so I don't know how that can be making things easier. The Sewell commission's report, I suggest, will only hurt small communities which are trying to develop and diversify their economies. The NDP is doing more to prevent rural development than to encourage it.

When the government first started talking about its labour reforms after taking office, it made it clear it intended to remove the traditional protection family farmers had from labour disputes. The government planned to simply eliminate the agriculture exemption in the Ontario Labour Relations Act and subject farmers to the same provisions as all other businesses were to face. However, we heard farm groups across the province stand up and make it loud and clear to the Minister of Labour that this would seriously hurt the agriculture industry. In January 1992, the Minister of Labour agreed to an agricultural labour task force to quell the growing protest in the farm community.

1550

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

At the time, the minister said, "We want the task force to look at a wide variety of options, particularly the inclusion, under the Ontario Labour Relations Act, of factory-like agricultural operations, but certainly not the family farm." The NDP led farmers to believe that the report of the task force would be used as input into the changes planned under Bill 40. Unfortunately, the Minister of Labour just simply went ahead and introduced Bill 40 before the task force was finished. In fact, the final work of the task force, including its specific recommendations, was not released until the fall of 1992.

With Bill 40, the NDP removed the agriculture exemption under the OLRA, removing all protection for the farmers. This action was nothing less than a threat designed to intimidate farmers and farm groups to agree to the reforms under the work of the task force. Farmers were now dependent on the government bringing in additional legislation to protect them.

The task force ended up recommending a number of specific measures designed to protect agriculture and the industry and family farms, such as preventing strike action, separate legislation instead of amendments to the Ontario Labour Relations Act, and exempting family farm members from collective bargaining.

Many individuals and farm groups worked long and hard to ensure that the task force provided a reasonable framework for recommendations, in the face of the government ultimatums to reform and in the face of the reality that the exemption for agriculture was removed under Bill 40.

I want to emphasize my support for the difficult work done by farm leaders in the work of the task force. Although there were only two farmer representatives, I believe it is, on the task force, farm leaders from across the province worked through the labour issues coordinating committee to ensure that the farm task force members had input from across the country.

Mr Speaker, it must be dry up here.

Mrs Ellen MacKinnon (Lambton): Not outside.

Mr Crozier: Not by the sounds of things.

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

What is unfortunate is that the government would put farmers in this kind of defensive position. What is unfortunate is that at a time when agriculture is facing serious financial problems, when farmers are struggling to survive, the main priority of the NDP was to bring farms under the Ontario Labour Relations Act. The NDP's agenda did nothing to help the real problems of farmers.

To make sure that the NDP realizes how fatally flawed the legislation is, it's important to point out that there were 11 major flaws in the legislation that was brought in, 11 major broken promises in the eventual Bill 91 that's before us now.

Mr Sutherland: What? How do you come to that conclusion? How can you say it's a broken promise?

Mr Crozier: We're demanding that the Minister of Labour address each one of these issues before proceeding with legislation.

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): That's done.

Mr Crozier: The thunder isn't the only thing that's annoying.

The first was the failure to create a sufficiently separate statutory framework: The task force recommended the creation of a separate statute for the agriculture sector, to be called the agriculture labour relations act. The task force noted the unique characteristics of the agriculture industry, including seasonality, climate sensitivity, time sensitivity, supply management, and the need for the maintenance of continuous processes to ensure the survival of animals and produce. I could go on and explain the other recommendations under that part of their 11 major problem areas.

The second was the failure to create a sufficiently separate administrative body.

The third was the failure to emphasize the unique nature of agriculture.

The fourth was the failure to prescribe a comprehensive and flexible definition of agriculture.

The fifth was the failure to prohibit strikes, which I've spoken to before. I think this is an important issue, because even though the legislation says that you cannot strike, there's nothing that we can physically do to prevent an organized group of workers from walking away from a crop. If that's done and if there can't be substitute workers, then the crop is lost, and yet there's nothing in the legislation that then takes those strikers to task and punishes them, so the only one to lose in all of that is the farmer.

Sixth, there's a failure to provide an adequate dispute resolution system. No matter what's listed in the legislation, and there's quite a long list under the way a dispute is settled, my point is that the damage from the dispute is done before the method of resolving it ever kicks into gear.

The failure to implement specialized services and education support was the seventh flaw that was found.

The eighth was the failure to exempt family members, and yes, I believe the legislation eliminates husband and wife and children and siblings, but a lot of family farms are made up of a lot broader family than that. There may be an uncle working on your farm; there may be an aunt; there may be some cousins. I think the family aspect of the farm should be much expanded.

The ninth was the failure to exclude seasonal workers, and that's important in our area, when you get into the greenhouse industry, where we have offshore workers, or for that matter in any of the crops. If they're seasonal crops and you miss the season, by golly, you've missed your income for the year.

The 10th was the failure to exempt sharecroppers.

The 11th was the failure to specify appropriate access to farm property during a labour dispute. As I said, the crop could sit there and rot, or it could have been harvested and sit and rot.

To sum up, there are these 11 specific questions that need to be addressed before the legislation is acceptable, so I ask these questions:

Why has the NDP refused to create a separate agriculture labour relations act, one that does not constantly refer to the Labour Relations Act that we have in effect at the present time? In fact, when it comes to amendments, I see there are a number of sections where the government recommends voting against sections that exempted this piece from the Ontario Labour Relations Act, yet it will depend to a very great extent on that act.

1600

Why has the NDP refused to create a separate agriculture labour relations board? Why has the government refused to recognize specifically, in the preamble of Bill 91, such issues as climate conditions, seasonal variations and the perishability of produce and livestock? Why has the government refused to define "agriculture" under Bill 91? Why has the government refused to implement provisions to prevent strikes from occurring under Bill 91? Why has the government refused to implement the dispute settlement process as recommended by the task force? Why does the government refuse to implement the task force-proposed, labour-management advisory committee?

Why does the NDP refuse to exempt all family members from requirement to unionization? Why does the NDP refuse to properly define "seasonal workers" under the legislation and why are share growers not adequately protected from being included under this legislation? Finally, why has the NDP failed to address the health and safety of livestock and crops in allowing access to farm operations for organizing purposes?

Failure to implement any one of these task force recommendations breaks the promise that the minister made to farmers in this province and unnecessarily threatens the family farm.

In conclusion, the government has promised amendments. We will be waiting to see if they address the wide range of problems that we've raised today. Farmers will not support this legislation if the minister fails to fix the bill, and neither will we.

The only things farmers can trust is that if the NDP continues to refuse our demands to fix Bill 91, we will fix it after the next election and protect farmers in the sensitive agriculture industry from strikes and other labour disruptions.

A Liberal government would give farmers the respect and assistance they deserve, something that's been missing for the last four years.

The Acting Speaker: Now we have time for questions or comments to the member from Essex South.

Mr Jim Wilson: I appreciate the remarks made by the member for Essex South. At the beginning of his remarks regarding this labour bill he commented on the Mike Harris Common Sense Revolution, and all I can say to the member is that he hasn't read our document.

He accuses us in his remarks today of not finding enough spending cuts to justify the 30% reduction in the provincial income tax rate, the removal of the employer health tax for businesses with payrolls under $400,000 and the other good initiatives that we put forward in our plan to create 725,000 private sector jobs in this province. Those aren't government jobs; those are jobs that will be created in the private sector.

We know we're on the right track, even though we've known it for a number of years. We even had the admission some three or four weeks ago in the government's own budget when the Treasurer, Mr Laughren, for the first time in four budgets acknowledged that the only way to create jobs in this province is to lower taxes, and we do that. In order to lower those taxes in a significant way, which would give us the lowest tax rates in North America and attract businesses to our province once again, we identify in this document $5.53 billion of cuts to government programs and government spending. We want to get government spending under control and reduce it.

We identify areas like decreasing the number of MPPs from 130 to 99 to match the number of federal MPs we have in Ontario. We cut the size of the bureaucracy by some 13,000 people to bring us back to 1985 levels around here. We reform welfare in a compassionate way and, frankly, a number of the poverty groups and welfare reform groups agree with the approach that we want to take to welfare reform in getting people back to work in this province, and in the process we will save $1.7 billion. In total, we identify $5.53 billion. We need $6 billion to reach our goal to lower taxes. We only have to find half a billion more and we ask the people of Ontario to help us in that process.

Mr Cooper: I would like to thank the member for Essex South for his participation in this debate. I think basically what the member debated at the very beginning was quite good. There are things that need to be done to assist the farmers and things like that. But near the end, where he got into the actual labour things, I think what he has to do is understand more about how labour relations work and what would happen and what the responsibilities are for unions if they do just walk off the job and the penalties that would be applied there.

As for his further comments about the things that have really been missing in this legislation, this whole piece of legislation and the whole direction has been founded on a consensus thing and, as he knows, the amendments that address the exact problems that he brought up about the climate nature and the perishable nature of agriculture etc are all included in these amendments. If we could get out of the House and get into the committee process where the work is actually done, we could table these amendments. I think the farmers and the opposition members would find that most of the things they're raising as concerns will be addressed in these amendments, and we can get on with this legislation and get around to the more important things such as getting the farmers some of the things they need.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I want to comment briefly on the member for Essex South's remarks that he made here, where he indicated that if it wasn't amended the way that they see fit, they would not be voting for it. My colleague, our Agriculture critic, Noble Villeneuve, has stated very clearly right from the beginning where we stand. It's very clear that we don't agree with the bill at all. We believe that it is an extension of Bill 40, the labour bill, the job-killing bill in this province that drove jobs to every place except Ontario. This response from the Liberal member indicating what he foresees within this legislation is totally unacceptable to us. We don't want to put another burden on farmers in this province.

I happen to be a dairy farmer. My son and his wife are running the farm now. Now they have no hired help because of the red tape and bureaucracy that goes through with farmers today. Here we are, adding another layer of bureaucracy and trying to organize the farms.

Mr Cooper: He won't be affected.

Mr McLean: He won't be affected because he has no help. But I'll tell you, he would have help if there was not the bureaucracy there that has him filling out, for hours and hours every month, papers to send to government. That's what this is: adding on to the bureaucracy.

Interjection.

Mr McLean: You see, it's interesting for people in this House to talk about the agricultural industry, which they know nothing about. They have no idea what goes on in the agricultural industry. They have no idea the work they do from 5:30 in the morning until 7 or 8 o'clock at night, feeding the people of this country. I know what they do. It's unfortunate that some other people here want to put more bureaucracy on the farm community. I don't. Our party does not. We have been clear from the start. When this bill becomes law, if it does, it will go the same way as Bill 40 within 100 days after we take power. I think that's the only acceptable place for it: in the garbage.

1610

The Acting Speaker: The member from Essex South has two minutes to respond.

Mr Crozier: It's very interesting, and there are so few left from the government side that I feel obligated to respond to a response. But I want to make something very clear about my friend in the third party, and I hope, in the time I took to speak, that some of my farming friends were able to get in out of the rain and watch what was going on because my friend down here said -- and they have it in writing -- that they will take the seats in the Ontario Legislature from 130 to 99.

You know what will happen? There'll be one less Metro representative; there will be 30 less rural and small urban representatives. You know what that'll do to those areas outside Metro Toronto? It'll reduce our influence on Metro Toronto. My friends over here don't care whether we have reduced say in this place.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): You have no idea what's going on. Obviously you don't know what's going on.

Mr Crozier: But I do. When they go and look at the electoral map and see how it will reduce the voice of rural and small urban Ontario --

Mr Murdoch: I am sure you don't care. Maybe you should.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Grey-Owen Sound, come to order.

Mr Crozier: -- then they certainly won't agree with reducing the number of representatives in this Legislature.

The Acting Speaker: Further dabate?

Mr Jim Wilson: I'm pleased to rise for a few moments and speak on Bill 91, An Act respecting Labour Relations in the Agriculture Industry.

Before I get into quoting some of the remarks from a survey I did in my riding recently, I want to take up the challenge from the previous Liberal speaker, the member for Essex South, and indicate to him that the people of Ontario are sick and tired of big government.

They do not want to see more MPPs in this province; they want to see fewer. They say to me that it's not the numbers that count, it's the quality of people they send to this Legislature to represent them, and 99 MPPs will represent this province well if we send good people here to do the job. We have 99 MPs in this province that we send to Ottawa and that is enough. People are tired of big government. The big government of the 1970s and the 1980s is over, folks. The game's over. There's a new game; it's called the Common Sense Revolution.

The fact of the matter is that we've got to get serious about bringing down the size and cost of government, and this refers to the bill we're studying right now, which calls for more government, more bureaucracy on the family farm, more papers to fill out.

In essence, what Bill 91 does by bringing in unneeded, unwanted labour laws to the farming community and to our agricultural industry is sour the good relations that we've enjoyed between farmers and their employees, between farmers and their families, among members of farm families, the good relations that we've enjoyed for centuries in this province without these types of laws.

These laws say to farmers, "You're bad people and the state has to come in and tell you how to run your operation," as you've done with Bill 40 and your labour laws in the other sectors of the economy. You send a very negative message to the people of this province and particularly the farming community. You add a layer of suspicion in that community that is not needed and that sours relations. I say, shame on you. It is not needed; it is not wanted.

I did an extensive survey of my riding on this bill and other issues I outlined and had a third party look at the wording of the survey to ensure that it was as fairly worded as humanly possible, giving the pros and cons of the legislation.

Mr Murdoch: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I know my colleague is going to present a very important point here and I understand that the government of the day really doesn't care about agriculture, but it certainly would be nice that there be more than four of them in here when we're speaking and they would have a quorum. I don't believe there's a quorum.

The Acting Speaker: Would the clerk please determine if a quorum is present.

Acting Clerk Assistant (Mr Todd Decker): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Acting Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present.

The Acting Speaker: We may resume the debate. The member for Simcoe West.

Mr Jim Wilson: I'm glad more members have joined us this afternoon to help debate this important but not needed piece of legislation, Bill 91.

I want to prove my point so that it's not just me coming here speaking without having done my homework. As always, I've done extensive homework on this piece of legislation. I did an extensive survey of my riding. As I was saying before the quorum call, that survey was worded in a way to give the pros and cons of this legislation to the entire number of households in my riding.

Just about 85% of the 1,000 people that responded to the survey -- and I'll note that just over 1,000 people responded. That's as large as any Gallup poll, any Decima poll, any poll that's done on the national scene, and this was a survey simply done in my riding. It was a written survey, so it wasn't just a phone interview.

People had to take an extensive amount of time to fill out the 17 questions and to provide me with their comments so I could bring them to the government's attention today, and I want to tell you, you're getting an earful from the people of my riding, and I hope to goodness you'll consider some of the comments that people passed on to me to pass on to you.

As I said, 85% of the people that responded to the survey were opposed to this legislation after having given it extensive thought. This represents overwhelming opposition to this bill. It has been our contention since the very beginning that this legislation is not needed; that there is no good reason other than some ideological hogwash from the NDP; that they want to extend their labour relations tentacles into the farming community now.

No place, no industry, no sector of our economy is sacred. They want to extend their ideology before they leave office. One of their parting shots is now Bill 91. They want in fact to bring soured relations, to bring deteriorating relations to employers and employees in the farm communities.

Some of the reasons for opposing this legislation include: the legislation gives too much power to unions; it will facilitate increased unionization; it will give workers extraordinary powers to hold farmers hostage at harvest time; it will undermine the competitive position of Ontario farmers; too many farmers are finding it difficult enough at this time to make ends meet; government should not interfere with business; and unions are currently crippling our economy.

Those are all summaries of comments from people in my riding, and I want to give you the specifics.

Bruno Demilis of Tottenham opposes Bill 91. He says, "Show me a handful of farmers in southern Ontario that make a good living on a farm without outside work or subsidies."

Larry McQueen of Collingwood opposes Bill 91. He says, "If farm workers want big bucks, what will happen to the farms?"

John and Carolynn Westlake of Beeton oppose Bill 91. They say, "Unions are killing North America and Europe versus the rest of the world."

Paul More of Creemore writes: "Farmers are going bankrupt. Consumer prices will go up. The supermarket chains are the ones that are making all the money."

Sean Lawes of Collingwood opposes Bill 91. He says: "These employees should be covered by employment legislation already in place in a general sense. This should be adequate."

T. Ridding of Collingwood opposes Bill 91, saying the bill "spoils the market structure."

Marian Newson of Collingwood opposes Bill 91. She says: "Let them work like the rest of us. Stop handouts."

Maria Benjamins of Cookstown opposes Bill 91. She says, "If farmers were paid a fair price for their produce, they could pay their workers better."

John Trude of Collingwood opposes Bill 91. He says: "Too much government interference in labour laws already. The list of businesses closing down due to high labour costs caused by unions is already too long."

1620

Don Lighthall of Thornton opposes Bill 91. He says: "Unions have led to the downfall of a number of business sectors. Don't finish off the farming industry."

G. Ayers of Thornton opposes Bill 91: "I presume that agricultural labour already has the same rights as others. Ontario agriculture already cannot operate without imported labour for labour-intensive crops. This would be a case of eliminating farm jobs for the very few that want them."

Dave McKee of Collingwood opposes Bill 91: "There is no way that a farmer, given his margins, should be subjected to this nonsense. He makes no money as it is."

W.R. Dunnell of Alliston opposes Bill 91: "We have too damn many unions now."

Theresa Reid of Everett opposes Bill 91. She says, "Farms must be free enterprise with mediated negotiations as required."

Grant Brownridge of Beeton opposes Bill 91. He says, "The government should stay out of the farm labour business."

Carolyn Milne of Beeton opposes Bill 91. She says: "Unions have seen their day. Farmers must be competitive."

Allan Stewart of Alliston opposes Bill 91: "We are already overloaded with counterproductive labour legislation."

Dave Chandler of Collingwood opposes this bill: "This is another area that survived without the interference of government bureaucracy for many years."

John Amero of Angus opposes Bill 91. "Unions have ruined our country," he says.

D. Barr of Collingwood opposes Bill 91: "International competition is fierce. Unionization will totally destroy any semblance of our ability to compete."

Charles Clive of Tottenham opposes Bill 91: "Such a move could result in stoppages that would cause shortages and rotting produce."

William Wheatstone of Collingwood opposes Bill 91: "We are not dealing with corporate farm businesses in Ontario. Farms are basically family owned and run."

Dave Robertson of New Lowell opposes Bill 91. He says, "Collective bargaining rights would not guarantee an improvement for farm workers."

Eric and Karen Burgess of Tottenham oppose Bill 91. They say: "Collective agreements and unions have crippled our economy. They are confrontational and in the public sector alone are costing a fortune."

Joyce Smith of New Lowell opposes Bill 91. She says, "Unions have become a bad deal for both management and labour and have literally priced many manufacturing units out of operation."

M.A. Edwards of Collingwood opposes this legislation: "The next government must reverse recent NDP legislation giving the unions more power if Ontario is to prosper again."

W. McPhail of Tottenham opposes Bill 91: "Government shouldn't interfere in business."

Ellis Gates of Collingwood opposes Bill 91: "Who would harvest the crops if there are union problems?" It's an extremely good question.

Larry Culham of Angus opposes Bill 91: "In large factory farm settings, I feel collective bargaining risks are okay. But I don't think the impact on small farm business would be fair."

Werner Syndiks of Colgan opposes Bill 91: "We will be under increasing outside pressure through GATT and NAFTA," and he doesn't feel Bill 91 will help farmers compete.

Tom Perry of Tottenham opposes Bill 91: "Ban all unions in any way, shape or form. They're outdated and not needed today."

John Sanderson of Beeton opposes Bill 91: "The competitiveness of Ontario's farmers is a higher priority in these economic times."

Peter Naisbitt of Beeton opposes Bill 91: "We need less interference by government."

M. Schneider of Collingwood opposes Bill 91: "Unions have had more than enough encouragement to expand in every endeavour by the current government or abuse by employers."

John Wiggins of my riding opposes Bill 91: "Collectivism cannot and does not work. Whole libraries have been written in the last 140 years or more detailing why."

Joe McCarroll, a very good friend of my family in Alliston, opposes Bill 91: "It could be the finish of many farmers."

J. McCaffrey of Collingwood opposes this legislation: "Farmers will find themselves being held up at harvest time to the detriment of all of us."

Rad Whitehead of Collingwood opposes Bill 91: "The province should enact right-to-work laws that allow individuals the choice of whether to be represented by a union or not."

J.W. Newton of Beeton opposes Bill 91: "Just another burden on a different enterprise. Workers' compensation costs are excessive."

John Nichols of Collingwood opposes Bill 91: "Most family farms can barely operate now, without the added expense of this legislation."

John McGillvray of New Lowell opposes Bill 91: "With minimum wage laws, labour laws etc we do not need all this extra protection. I honestly don't know what the need is here."

Ray Bevan of Collingwood opposes this legislation: "It will break the backs of most farmers that are just getting by."

Rod Brown of Collingwood opposes Bill 91: "The prohibition clause is almost laughable. A slowdown is basically a stoppage in perishable commodities."

Mildred Lockhart of Collingwood opposes Bill 91: "Farmers can hardly make a living now. How do you unionize the weather, cattle etc, etc?"

Dave Miles of Alliston opposes Bill 91: "A farm is a business. No other business is impacted by anybody outside the bargaining unit."

And J.N. Glover of Wasaga Beach opposes Bill 91 when in summary Mr Glover says, "Organized labour has gone too far."

It is clear where my party stands on this piece of labour legislation that is not needed and not wanted by the people of this province. It is clear where my party and our leader Mike Harris stand on Bill 40, the job-killing NDP labour legislation that was brought in last year. We will scrap this legislation. As my colleague the member for Simcoe East noted just a few minutes ago, it will end up in file G for "garbage" if the people of Ontario see fit to elect us in the next election. That is where this legislation should end up, in the heap of garbage, in the pile of ideological nonsense, in the trail of garbage that is left by this government and its ruinous ways, ways the people of Ontario don't ask for and don't want.

This bill is an attempt by the government to correct a perceived wrong, a very suspicious approach at best, and I'm being kind in my words. It is a perceived wrong. I live in farm country. My ancestors have been farmers in our area for more than 160 years. We do not want this legislation. There is no one in my riding who has asked for this legislation. Eight-five per cent of those who responded to an extremely extensive survey not only checked off the box saying they were opposed to this legislation but wrote extensive paragraphs telling me why they were opposed.

1630

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I don't think there's a quorum.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Is there a quorum?

Senior Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals (Mr Alex McFedries): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Senior Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Simcoe West.

Mr Jim Wilson: As I was saying, it's very clear where this legislation will end up should my party form the next government after the next election in this province, and I want to just comment briefly on the Liberal Party's position or lack of position on this.

It was a couple of weeks ago, three weeks ago or so, that the Liberal caucus called for an opposition day motion, and we debated an opposition day motion with respect to this legislation, or the somewhat dubious contents of this legislation at that time. At the end of that debate, it was very unclear to me where Lyn McLeod and the Liberal Party stand on this legislation.

We heard the member for Essex South just a few minutes ago in this House, during his time for remarks, remind us that his party will try to fix the legislation if they form the next government. That's not good enough for the people of Ontario any more. In case the Liberal Party hasn't noticed, people don't really trust politicians. It has a lot to do with the NDP's record in government and it has a lot to do with the previous federal government, I will say. In this day and age, they want to know where you stand and they want you to have the courage to go to Queen's Park on their behalf and to take firm stands, the stands they've sent us here to take.

Some 85% of my constituents who responded to the survey very clearly have made up their mind on this legislation, yet we hear from the Liberal caucus that they're going to perhaps fix this legislation if they form the next government. That isn't good enough. We're scrapping the legislation. I want members of the Liberal caucus to tell us exactly what they're going to fix.

I thought the heckling during the member for Essex South's presentation was quite good from the NDP side when a number of members said: "How are you going to fix it? Tell us how you're going to fix it."

It's not good enough any more, folks over there, to run on John Chrétien's coattails and it's not good enough to not have a position. You've got to have a position about legislation, you've got to have a position about important issues so that the people won't just throw out the NDP government. What we're trying to do is convince the people this time around: "Hey, folks, we know you're going to throw Bob Rae out. We know you're going to throw out the NDP government, but please think about what the alternative is."

Unfortunately, the people of this province can't form an opinion on what the alternative is if we don't know where the Liberal Party stands on these important issues. That's my challenge to them. I'm sure during their opportunity to speak this afternoon they'll want to respond to that challenge.

We are very clear where we stand on this legislation and on other legislation. We're not fudging, and we believe it is the honest and proper way to approach the people of Ontario, not only bringing their concerns forward in this House but in responding to those concerns in very clear ways so that people know where the parties stand on the issues; so that we won't just throw out a government next time around but we'll have actually put some thought into what the positive alternative is to be. We will give the next government in this province a mandate to make the changes, to cut government spending, to cut the size of the bureaucracy, to cut taxes -- a mandate to get this province moving in a new direction.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions or comments?

Mr Sutherland: I want to respond to the member who just spoke. In his comments he cited these surveys that have come back in from his constituents who say they're opposed to the legislation, and he takes this as saying they're opposed and, "You shouldn't go forward with this legislation."

But if you listen to the comments he read out from his constituents, it's clear many of them have not had the legislation explained. The member failed to explain it to them. One letter he read said, "I presume they already have the same rights as all other labourers," and that's the point. They don't have the same rights, because the Tories thought they shouldn't have the same rights, even though Tory governments in other provinces have allowed farm labourers to have the same rights as other workers to come together and organize.

Another comment was, "Stay out of the farm labour business." The point is that the Tories got into the farm labour business by putting this restriction in in the first place. If you listened to the comments put forward, I believe the member was trying to be sincere, but it became very clear through the comments that he has not explained the legislation to them.

There were comments about what a stoppage will do, causing damage through lost crops. Read the legislation. They can't go on strike, because the legislation recognizes the unique nature of agriculture. Unfortunately, the member didn't want to explain that to his constituents, so it's little wonder they are opposed to the legislation. Maybe he should take the time to explain the realities of the legislation.

With respect to his comments about elected officials having the courage to take a stand, the Common Sense Revolution says, "We're going to create 750,000 jobs and 3% economic growth." Check the five years the Liberals were in and how many jobs they created. You've got to have a lot more than 3% economic growth to create those jobs.

Mr Crozier: I too would like to make a couple of comments to the last speaker. When he made the comment that the electorate doesn't trust politicians, I don't recall at any time during the by-election in which I ran that anyone said to me they didn't trust me. As a matter of fact, I might modestly say they elected me, by a somewhat slim majority, mind you, but at least I was elected and at no time did they say they didn't trust me.

I'll give you one example of who they didn't trust. There was a majority government in Ottawa the last time around. They sure didn't trust them, because they just about wiped out the PCs. Mike Harris realizes that, because he chooses not to even call himself a PC any more.

I suggest what will happen this next time, when they make these promises that are only based on other provinces -- they're only reducing the tax level to 40-odd per cent because it's slightly lower than Alberta. They're only suggesting that we have fewer members in the Legislature, but they don't say 90 or 80 or 95; they follow the federal government and say we'll have 99.

As I said, the one proof we have right now that politicians aren't trusted is that they don't trust the Progressive Conservatives. That's why they kicked them out federally, and that's why they'll all but eliminate them next time provincially.

Mr Stockwell: To the member from Essex, does the name David Peterson mean anything to you? I don't want to get into that. I think we all have our political skeletons in the closet with respect to leaders who have been unceremoniously turfed out in the past. For a Liberal to stand up and chastise any other party about the fact that it's not trustworthy and will be dumped, after the decimation that took place in 1990 -- with all due respect, in 1990 it was pretty clear where the people of this province stood with respect to the government that was in power. Before you start casting the stones, you'd better tighten up your windows and make sure there's a lot of putty in those panes.

To the member for Oxford -- there he is, up in the front row. I guess that's why he keeps standing up with the point of view he has: He wants to get to that front row, hopefully in this session. To argue with a constituent about whether they agree with your piece of legislation and use the argument, "You don't understand," misses the point. What you're saying to the constituent is: "You don't understand what we're trying to do here. You don't understand what this legislation says. You don't understand what we're trying to accomplish here."

You're going to have get this through your head: The constituent understands. He or she don't agree. It's not a question of comprehension; it's not a question that they're not bright enough; it's not a question that they don't understand what's going on. It's simply that they don't agree with what you're doing. The sooner this government understands that, the better off you'll be. You're here to serve these constituents, not the other way around, and your telling them they don't understand legislation is not the way it works. You're supposed to take initiatives and legislation that puts into practice what they believe and want, and Bill 91 is not what they want.

1640

Mr Jim Wilson: I appreciate the opinions expressed by members from all sides concerning the remarks I've made on this legislation. I am glad and delighted that members wanted to finally participate in this debate in a forceful way. They may object to some of the things that I've said, but as pointed out quite correctly by the member for Etobicoke West, I wasn't saying those things with Jim Wilson quotation marks. Those were actual written comments received from the good people of the riding of Simcoe West, and, folks, if there's something you better understand, it is that, yes, they will throw out the NDP government, because you feel your job is to go home and lecture your constituents about what's good for them.

That's not what democracy, what the parliamentary system, was designed to allow you to do. That's a fundamental flaw in your approach to government, and that is why they've thrown out other governments at the federal level, they've thrown out other provincial governments and, folks, they're going to throw you on the garbage heap of history. That's exactly what they're going to do with you in the next election.

The sooner you call it, the better, because I would love to put my theory to the test ASAP, as soon as possible. I would love to go to the people this summer and ask them what they think about Bill 91; what they think about same-sex spousal legislation; what they think about Bill 40, the job-killing labour law; what they think about $10-billion deficits and $90-billion debts; what they think about ever-increasing taxes; what they think about all of the nonsense and ideology you've brought into our health care system; what they think about mismanagement and fraud in health care and welfare. I would love to go to the people and get their answer to those questions.

Mr Peter North (Elgin): I rise today to take my opportunity to debate a little bit about Bill 91. As I'm sure you're aware, Mr Speaker, I'm from the county of Elgin, the riding of Elgin, and it is quite a diversified agricultural centre. We have in Elgin fruits, vegetables, cash crops, dairy, beef, pork, the feather industry, the tobacco industry. We're pretty fortunate we've had so many people who are in the agricultural industry stay in the agricultural industry and in fact stay on the farm.

But unlike some of the members who have spoken previous to me, on the government side at least, people in Elgin county don't seem to support this bill as much as people, obviously, in government ridings would. I get a sense in talking to them and in listening to the discussions they've had among themselves and debates they've had among themselves that they don't feel it's actually warranted.

I wanted to touch just on the preamble to the bill. It was mentioned yesterday and I think it's appropriate and perhaps prudent of me to read it again. It says in the preamble, "It is in the public interest to extend collective bargaining rights to employees and employers in the agricultural industry."

Well, we've had some discussions with some constituents back home about just that particular preamble, and the impression that I get in talking to those people is that it's in the best interests of the province to create a strong agricultural community, to create certainly a strong rural Ontario, and we've had some difficulty in that in recent times. We've had some difficulty in maintaining, I guess is a better word, a strong rural Ontario.

We've had a problem in loss of services in terms of loss of rural policing. Earlier today it was mentioned again, the aspect of losing services in terms of emergency ward services in rural Ontario, and all of these things, when you add them up, when you put them together, seem to be decimating the aspect of rural Ontario and the whole aspect of agriculture in rural Ontario.

Another thing I wanted to mention was something that's been most difficult, I think, certainly in terms of younger people in rural Ontario: the withdrawal of funding for agricultural education. I know people in my particular riding have been very concerned about that. They feel that opportunities that exist in agricultural education will further the interests of the agricultural community and of rural Ontario in terms of giving them an opportunity for research and development that will create economic development for our area.

Some of the things that have been talked about with reference to Bill 91 centre around the number of ministries that are involved in rural policy and agricultural policy. If you care to speak a little bit about it, you'd find there are a number of different ministries that anyone in the agricultural industry would have to go to, be governed by. They are set under rules and regulations and, to quote a number of farmers in the area, are restricted through their red tape, so to speak: ministries such as MNR, the Ministry of Environment and Energy, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, the Ministry of Labour, the Agriculture ministry itself. So there are a number of different ministries that constantly present challenges and encumbrances to people who are in the agriculture industry. They find themselves constantly answering to many different pipers and almost in conflict with themselves in terms of, when they do one thing, they're told one thing by a ministry; when they do something else, that is in disagreement with what the ministry said at first. So they find themselves having great difficulty.

Bringing a bill like this, Bill 91, that will give them difficulties and encumbrances in terms of the labour they would employ on the farm, just adds to the burden of dealing with a number of different ministries.

The member for Huron, Mr Klopp, who's a good friend of mine, said yesterday that he had a sense that in his particular riding they had reached a consensus. I know the member for Huron said they'd reached consensus and that consensus was a hard thing to come by in terms of the agricultural community. It passes a little bit strange that they would be able to come to a consensus on something like this. I would almost guess that it's somewhat of an aggravated consensus in that it's a little like having a gun held to your head: You're in a situation where if you're going to have to do something, then you'll go along with it, providing that you can get certain concessions.

That's the situation that was relayed to me by people who are in the Elgin County Federation of Agriculture through the OFA. They've said to me, "Well, if this is the best of the worst, I guess we'll have to accept it." But that doesn't mean they agree and it doesn't mean they support it. There needs to be that difference taken when you talk about this bill, because I get the impression from members who are on the government side that they're seeing them as supporting the bill instead of going along with what's been decided because they don't really have any other opportunity. I think that's the belief they have.

We've had a number of people talk to us about how they would deal with this particular bill when it's passed and when it becomes legislation, if in fact that's what happens. They say to me that it's rather simple. They'll simply mechanize, and by doing so they'll eliminate the opportunities that they would have to be entwined in this bill and encumbered by this bill. They have said to me very clearly that when they do mechanize, that will cost people in Elgin county jobs. It will certainly cost students in Elgin county jobs.

I know in our particular community, people in the tobacco industry, people in the fruit industry and somewhat in the cash crop industry use student labour on a fairly regular basis. Certainly in the tobacco industry they do. If we are to move towards mechanization, that will definitely be a real drawback for students who are in our particular community and who would look to those resources to be their resources towards a community college or perhaps university education.

I can say that in the life of this government, while I was on that side of the House and then on this side of the House, there's a real concern in terms of the number of pieces of agricultural legislation that have come forth. I think you can safely count on one hand or perhaps less than one hand the pieces that have come forth. I know that in the time I sat over there and was an attendee on occasion of the rural caucus, there was great concern with regard to the number of pieces of legislation that would be coming forth and that had not come forth.

It seems ironic that when finally a piece of legislation that is considered to be an agricultural piece of legislation does come forth, it doesn't come forth first of all from the Agriculture ministry; secondly, it does come forth from the Labour ministry; and thirdly, it's not a piece of legislation that the agriculture community in my particular constituency supports. So it's disappointing.

1650

It's disappointing when I remember back to a time when I campaigned and talked about what we believed and what we firmly thought about the agricultural community, about agricultural land, preservation of agricultural land. Moving towards this type of arrangement, moving towards this piece of legislation I don't think supports the aspects and the commitments that were made during the time that the election campaign was on and the discussions were made with people about agriculture in those particular communities.

The people of Elgin county have also spoken to me and they've made it very clear that this to them is, above all else, more red tape. They find it to be a situation where now it could incur some expense in terms of legal costs if they do have to go to arbitration, if the case may be so. They are looking very closely to see what it does mean in terms of red tape, paperwork, what records will have to be kept in a different manner than they've had to be kept in the past. They certainly will want to know what those types of impacts will mean.

In this House over the last few days, and in fact before the break, there was quite a bit of discussion on this particular bill. We've had a chance to hear now from all three parties. What I find quite interesting is the fact that even today, even just a few minutes ago, the argument is based on who did the worst job when they were in power, rather than what we can do about this particular bill while we're here today. It seems to me it doesn't really matter at this point who did the worst job or how much it cost or what they could have done or how they should have done it, but rather the fact that we have to address this particular issue. We've got to make sure that if this bill is going to be brought forward, it's to be brought forward in a way that the agricultural community is comfortable with.

I think we've come to the point where we basically seem to take farmers, agriculture, the product that is produced by agriculturalists and rural Ontario in totality, for granted. The Legislature has a tremendous opportunity to do things in the agricultural community. They have a tremendous opportunity to make things right, to make things better, to improve opportunities for people in agriculture, which I think will improve economic development right across the province.

I've not heard people coming to my office and screaming at me that it's time now that we bring this labour legislation in terms of agriculture forward. This has not been the top priority. I don't think it's the top priority on their list in terms of "things to do in talking to my MPP."

Actually, the other thing I was going to say is that I've had no one express concerns to me of the consequences of leaving the exemption in place and what it means to simply leave this exemption in place. I've not had a lot of people say to me, "This is what's going to happen if you leave this exemption in place." I've not really heard in the House, in the discussion that's been taking place in the House -- although a few members have touched around the subject, they've not really said to me, "Well, Pete, this is what happens if we leave this particular exemption in place."

We're here to represent our constituents. It was mentioned earlier by government members and it's been mentioned by opposition party members as well that we're here to represent our constituents and we should put their concerns and their interests first and foremost in trying to represent them here in this Legislature.

In representing the interests of your constituents, if you have a majority of your constituents or you have the greatest percentage of your constituents who have concerns with the bill that's in place, it's second reading; it's a time to deal with that. It's not a time to toe the line; it's a time to deal with the issues that are in front of us.

This bill at this point is not represented by the agriculturalists and farmers and people of rural Ontario. It's not something that needs to be passed over lightly; it's something that we need to address. We need to look at the issues and we need to make sure that if we bring this in, it is in the best interests of the province and in the best interests of the agricultural community.

It says in here in the preamble, "It is in the public interest to extend collective bargaining rights to employees and employers in the agricultural industry." If that's the case, then it needs to be done right. If this is not the bill that does it right and it's not supported by the agricultural sector and by farmers in general, then it should not go forward. If that's the case and your constituents tell you that, then you should bring those concerns here to this Legislature.

I want to close by saying, and I try not to do this in sort of a humorous way, that it was mentioned earlier that it's clear where one particular party stands and clear where the other particular party stands. Well, I don't have a particular party here with me, so I can only say I can make it very clear where my constituents stand. My constituents stand on the side that says I am not to support this bill and my constituents stand on the side that says we should not bite the hand that feeds us.

The Deputy Speaker: Any comments or questions?

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I hope to have the opportunity to speak to this bill at length later on this afternoon, but I want to very briefly commend the member for Elgin for his fine and thoughtful presentation this afternoon. He indicated that he doesn't represent a party at the present time, but he sure sounded like a Conservative to me.

The member came into this House, elected as a New Democrat. He sat on the executive council for quite a number of months. He found that he could no longer support the agenda of the New Democratic Party. He is now sitting in opposition as an independent member. He is very effectively voicing the views of his constituents. He's doing a fine job in this House, and I just want to commend him for his presentation this afternoon.

Mr Cooper: I want to commend the member for raising the concerns of his constituents. I think he's quite right; people aren't knocking down their doors, because for the most part what we're seeing is that about 90% of the farming community won't be affected by this legislation.

What we're talking about right now with this legislation is when you get into the corporate farms and the fringe area of agriculture. This is the problem and that's why this legislation is being brought in, because while there's an exemption right now, there's that grey area in the middle which could end up being organized. It's best that we do some legislation and do it right. So yes, while he says that it's not a big concern, there are certain people out there who can see a problem developing. That's why we're bringing in the legislation, and we are working on the consensus to make sure we do it right.

We seem to have a consensus right now, and with the amendments that the minister has proposed, I think we'll set up a good piece of legislation which will be separated from the Ontario Labour Relations Act, which is what they've asked for, which specifically addresses the problems out in agriculture. That's why this legislation is being brought forward.

While he says he's representing his community, I agree, most of his community isn't going to be affected. That's why they aren't knocking on the door. There are some misconceptions out there and this is what we're trying to address, to get the legislation done properly and with the cooperation of everybody. If we can get into committee and get this legislation done and actually get down to the amendments, I think a lot of people will find out that it's a good piece of legislation that will be workable and for the most part won't affect the family farm and most of the agricultural sector.

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): I too want to commend the member for at least attempting to represent his constituents. I'm rather interested in some of the remarks, though, from the government members, because right away they say this won't affect very many people. Well then, why do we have it? Why do we need it?

Mr Cooper: The grey area.

Mrs Fawcett: Then be specific and address a concern or two, but why put in a bill that affects everyone, if you say it really isn't needed for the major portion of the farmers?

Farmers everywhere are saying, "We do not need Bill 91." There is no need for Bill 91. Farmers know that they must treat their workers properly; otherwise they don't get a good job done. With farming, we know that if the job isn't done properly, then they can lose everything. So really, farmers are already treating their people very, very well. I really believe that Bill 91 is not needed. It should be done away with. Put the agricultural exemption back into the Labour Relations Act, just the way farmers want it. Everyone would be happy.

1700

We all know that farming is different. The structure of agriculture is different than an ordinary industry. It is a different kind of industry. The sensitivities of the sector, the perishability of the crops, animal welfare, incomes and global competition argue for different treatment of agriculture. Bill 91 is not needed, but what is needed is the agriculture exemption back in the Labour Relations Act.

The Deputy Speaker: Any further questions or comments? If not, the member for Elgin, you have two minutes.

Mr North: I want to say that it's certainly a pleasure to have an opportunity to speak in the House today with regard to this issue. I want to thank the member for Wellington and my friend across the floor and my friend on the Liberal side for addressing the content of my speech somewhat, trying to help alleviate some of the concerns that are out there.

I have a little trouble with my friend across the floor who continues to use the words "corporate farmer," because most of the people whom I know in the industry are a corporation of some description at this point, in order to stay alive.

Mr Cooper: The big ones.

Mr North: I don't know what you call big and what you call small. We have a diminishing number of farmers in this province now compared to what we had a few years ago. You can't run on 50 acres any more; it takes a little more that. To some degree, everyone is somewhat of a corporate farmer.

For people to say that this won't affect the family farm because you can't strike and you can't do this and you can't do the other thing, if they can't market their product, if they can't sell their product, in extension, to the companies that are out there that would be able to strike and that would be able to do all those things, then it has impacted the family farm.

I hope I've added somewhat to the debate; I've tried to add somewhat to the debate. I know there are some other people who hope to speak and will speak on the issue. I hope there are some people who will address this question of what would happen if the exemption stayed in place and get to the basic reasoning of why this change is being made. I know there is someone who will speak to that issue shortly.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Who's next?

Hon Fred Wilson (Chief Government Whip): Karen.

Mr Mahoney: Oh: Shakespeare. I'm giving you a compliment.

Mrs Karen Haslam (Perth): That's always rare. I'm sorry, Mr Speaker. It's not a good way to start out, having a private conversation with an opposition member simply because he pulls my chain too often and gets me going on issues.

I'm very pleased to take part in this debate on Bill 91, An Act respecting Labour Relations in the Agriculture Industry. There are a few things in this particular piece of legislation that I'd like to comment on.

One of the things is that we keep talking about family farms, but what we should remember is that we are also talking about workers. That's what this legislation is for: It's for labour relations in the agricultural industry. It is an industry and there are workers in this industry. For the first time ever in this province, there'll be a system of labour relations that will deal with agricultural and horticultural sectors. I think it's important that we have that in place for the workers who are involved in these sectors.

Agricultural workers have always been excluded from rights and from privileges that have been available to other workers under the Labour Relations Act. We so often talk about family farms. We have to remember that we're not just talking about family farms; we're talking about workers.

For instance, I have a chart from my county, for Perth county, and this is the number of companies in different economic sectors within Perth county. In the agriculture sector we have farms employing off-farm people at something like 1,300 farms, but there are 1,500 farms that employ only family members. This will not affect them; it affects workers.

When you look at farm suppliers, we have approximately 65 involved in that sector. We have food processing, which employs workers; we have 20 in that sector. For farm product processing, we have another 18. I think those are important to remember.

I have another chart that looks at food processing manufacturers in Perth county. We have places like Campbell Soup in Listowel and St Marys. They employ 780 workers involved in food processing, frozen foods, and those people need some protection. We have Millbank Cheese and Butter in Millbank. They are involved in cheese and butter processing and employ 32 workers. We have Atwood Cheese Co in the small community of Atwood, which employs 19 people. East Huron Poultry Ltd in Dublin employs 70 people in poultry processing. Blanshard and Nissouri Cheese Co in St Marys employs only one person, but they do employ a person in that cheese company. Conroys Meat Co, a processing plant involved with butchering and retailing of beef and pork, has 15 workers in its processing plant. We have Stonetown Cheese Ltd in St Marys. We have Vanderpol's Eggs Ltd, which puts dry eggs into powder, and employs 35 people. That's really what we're talking about.

I'd like to commend both the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Labour. After all, this is a labour issue, because we're talking about labourers, workers in an industry, in a sector like the agricultural sector. I'd like to commend them because they have put together a task force, and I'd like to commend the task force for coming forward with a consensus. It's not easy to introduce labour relations and labour legislation into an agriculture sector, but I'd like to commend the Task Force on Agricultural Labour Relations for coming to a consensus in this area.

The result is a package of proposals that is progressive for workers, but it also reflects the uniqueness of our agricultural industry and the perishable nature of the products we deal with in this industry and in this sector, the time-sensitivity around the processing plants and having fruits or vegetables or poultry. You don't have the time to let it sit, so you look at the time-sensitive nature of these operations and come to a consensus that is good for workers but good for processors, good for farming communities. I think that needs to be mentioned.

We've heard a lot about what happens to the sector, under the proposals, when you're looking at harvesting and time-sensitivity. One of the major proposals that will be beneficial is that agriculture workers will receive the right to organize. They have that right now, to organize and to bargain collectively. I am a firm believer in free collective bargaining and bargaining collectively, and they will be given that right -- finally.

On the other hand, collectively they're not going to be given the right to strike because of the sensitivity and because we're dealing with an agricultural sector. They're not going to be given that right to strike. In place of the right to strike, there are other avenues that were examined and other avenues that have been put into place: negotiation, mediation, arbitration. Those are things that can work.

If you look at the legislation, some of those things are indicated on page 5. When you look at the legislation, it's very clear. It's under "Dispute Settlement." There is a structured process in place that will look at the areas to settle disputes, and one of them is not a strike. There are other avenues, a very structured process, and I think this speaks well to what we have as a concern and what we've heard as a concern from the agricultural sectors.

We hear people say: "This isn't needed. Why are we introducing this?" We're introducing this because the agricultural sector does need a separate piece of legislation. That's what this is: Bill 91 is a separate piece of legislation around the agricultural industry, the agricultural sector. It's needed because workers work in an agricultural industry and they do need these rights. No one questions that this government believes that the right to bargain collectively should be available to people in the agricultural sector, and the right to farm workers and communities should be recognized, this right to collective bargaining.

1710

We hear a lot about legislation affecting the family farm. The proposed legislation is designed to ensure the continuity of the family farm by including a provision that family members cannot be prevented from working on the farm by collective agreement. The Agricultural Labour Relations Task Force felt strongly about this issue, and its recommendation is reflected in the bill. Again, if you look at the bill, it's right there on page 4, "Family Members," part III. It's very clear. We've heard the agricultural sector. We've heard the communities. We've heard their concerns. We put that into this legislation.

The agricultural sector, as I've stated, has unique needs and concerns. The two major differences between this and other sectors are the constant, ongoing demands of animal care and the extreme sensitivity to timing required for the successful harvest of various commodities. That's why we have brought in a separate piece of legislation.

We hear a lot about the Labour Relations Act and how horrible it is, and I don't agree with that. The Labour Relations Act is a very progressive piece of legislation. We hear it has cost many, many jobs. Wrong. It hasn't cost jobs. What it has done is bring some sense of worth to the workers. It also has brought in a sense of agreement and less violence on any picket lines. We haven't seen a great hue and cry out there over the Labour Relations Act. It's been very well accepted out there and it is working.

The proposed legislation in Bill 91 reflects the advice of both the employers and the employees and it's designed to address the special needs of the agricultural sector. One of them was that it prohibits strikes or lockouts. It sets out a structured process of negotiation, mediation and arbitration. It provides for a labour-management advisory committee that provides ongoing advice to the government on labour relations issues and on educational programs. Seasonal workers will be placed in a separate bargaining unit from full-time workers once the regulations have been developed. It restricts access to property for organizing purposes in order to protect the critical sanitary and safety conditions. These were recommended by the task force. The proposed legislation provides an absolute prohibition on strike action or lockouts. That's critical in that it addresses the unique nature of agricultural work and the perishability of products during the harvest and the demands for animal care.

We've heard talk that, "In my community, they don't want it, they don't see a need for it." I disagree again. In Perth county, my farm community does want Bill 91. They want it brought in and they want it brought in quickly. They understand it. They understand it because they have had a lot of discussion with me about it and they've taken part in a lot of the discussion at the OFA level. In particular, I want to read a letter. As a member of the opposition sent out his questionnaire and brought in his comments, I'd like to read a very interesting letter from a woman in my community, Kelli Crowley.

It says, "Ontarians for Responsible Government are not as responsible as their name implies." We remember the Ontarians for Responsible Government putting up the billboards and saying we were trying to unionize family farms, which is wrong, which is not true. This is in reply to a story around that group.

It says: "Either by ignorance or design, they have presented a flawed interpretation of the Agricultural Labour Relations Act, also known as Bill 91. If Bill 91 dies, farming comes under the Labour Relations Act proper," which is Bill 40. "That act won't give farmers protection against work stoppages. We can no longer wave our fists and stamp our feet like a spoiled child and demand continued exemptions for agriculture. As responsible business proprietors, we must be accountable for the safe, healthy working conditions of our employees. The myth that the right to collective bargaining will raise the cost of food is a very overdramatized prediction. Family farms which treat their employees with respect and consciousness will not be hurt.

"The thrust of Bill 91 is to curb an element of abuse of labour by businesses involved in farm processing. If these processing facilities were located in cities or towns, they would be a processor and under Bill 140 jurisdiction. But by being located on the farm and calling it a farm enterprise, there is no place for the employees to turn.

"The Ontario Federation of Agriculture, together with 20 other commodity groups, including the Ontario Milk Marketing Board, the tobacco board and the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers' Association, were consulted to provide the concept for Bill 91. However, when it was introduced the bill was flawed. With quick reaction from these organizations, we've gotten a commitment from Bob Rae to rework the bill and reintroduce it after a consensus has been reached with these groups, and that has been done.

"Only through the efforts of responsible, proactive, accountable organizations will we be able to achieve a law that will protect employees without compromising the family farm." That again is by Kelli Crowley, an OFA provincial director, Perth central area. She's on the executive of the Perth County Federation of Agriculture.

We are not about unionizing a family farm. It is not to the benefit of union organizers to go out and try and organize family farms or try and unionize family farms -- it's not worth their effort, it's not worth their time, it's not worth the hassle -- and they'll only come into processing plants if they are asked to. If the employees are unhappy and require some redress for the way they are being treated, they will want to be organized; they will ask for representation by a union. If they're being treated fairly, then they might not be interested at all.

When we look at this bill, we understand that it will extend the right to organize to about 14,000 seasonal workers and also 18,000 year-round employees in agriculture. That's where these proposals will apply. Workers gain the rights and benefits they have long been denied. Farm owners are protected against work stoppages, and there will be virtually no impact on the historical independence and character of the family farm. That's because the bill ensures that the introduction of collective bargaining will not override the rights of family members to work on the farm.

When I look back at some of the debate that's gone on about this, I look in particular to the Liberal leader's comments in April on their opposition day around this. Some of the things are: "We have up to now in this House raised only those issues that are causing the greatest concern to farmers: the failure to provide separate legislation for agriculture" -- it's been done; we have that; we have a separate piece of legislation -- "the failure to exempt members of the broader family from being forced to join a union" -- it's been done; in the legislation that exemption is there -- "and the failure to make provisions to prevent strike action against family farms" -- it's there; there is a structured process there.

Some of the concerns they raise: "Why have you refused to implement provisions to prevent strikes?" It's being done. "Why do you refuse to implement the task force's labour-management advisory committee?" That's being done.

All of the issues that are being raised in the community are being addressed and they're being addressed by this government in a consensus way with the community. I think that any legislation that builds on consensus and that addresses the concerns of the community, especially our rural community, is a piece of legislation well worth supporting, and that's what I will be doing.

1720

The Deputy Speaker: Any questions or comments?

Mr Crozier: I'd like if the member for Perth could clarify something for me in her summary of comments, or perhaps someone else can, and this is truly a question that I would like clarified. It's not intended to pull your chain or anything like that.

You have made the comparison that you have the Campbell Soup Co in Perth county, with 780 employees. Does it mean that if the 780 workers at Campbell Soup in Perth county are organized they will not be able to strike?

Interjection.

Mr Crozier: Okay, then in comparison, and this is why I bring the question up, we have an equal number of employees at the Heinz Co in Essex county who are already organized and have the right to strike. So I would just like the member to clarify that comparison for me, please, if she chooses.

The Deputy Speaker: Any further questions or comments? If not, the member for Perth.

Mrs Haslam: I think that is covered in Bill 40. They would be covered under Bill 40 because they are in a town. What we're talking about in the agricultural bill is more a processing plant, smaller processing plants on farms and out in some of the agricultural areas.

Just as Kelli Crowley has pointed out, when you put them on farms, they then kind of escape Bill 40. This is what this bill does come to terms with: that there still has to be employee rights in these processing type of facilities, but because of their location and because of the products that they deal with, they will have this bill also to protect the owners from strikes that would affect their processing operation on the farm.

I have appreciated the opportunity to participate in this debate. All too often we don't have the time because we find deals are being made --

Interjection.

Mrs Haslam: No, no. I've got 50 seconds, and I'm going to use it. All too often you find deals are being made and that they always say, "Gee, if you use less time and they get their chance to have their comments on record, Karen, then we can get off of this and get on to something else." Unfortunately, it's always those of us who have certain issues that we feel very strongly about and we end up not having the opportunity to debate it. So I appreciate the opportunity to spend some time on this piece of legislation. It's important to me, it's important to my riding and it's important to the Perth County Federation of Agriculture and the meetings that I've held with them. I'm glad I've had that opportunity, small amount of time though it was, to participate in this debate.

Mr Arnott: I thought the member for Perth perhaps was lost for words, but alas, I was mistaken.

The Deputy Speaker: Just a moment, please. Excuse me. The member for Mississauga North was walking in the House; I didn't realize he wanted to speak. So the member for Mississauga North, you have the floor.

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I'm pleased to speak on this particular piece of legislation. I've had occasion to listen to a number of members over the past days speak to the concerns that they have, and certainly I share in some of the concerns. I see that there are members saying, "Well, why would the member for Mississauga North wish to speak on a bill with this subject-matter, the agricultural community?"

Indeed there's no question that the agricultural community has played a very important part in the growth of the city of Mississauga and indeed the region of Peel. There is no question that the city of Mississauga and the region of Peel have, over the years, changed their focus in no small measure towards the commercial, the industrial, the retail and of course the residential sectors.

But the reason that I wish to speak on this particular piece of legislation was that I had the occasion to serve as the Labour critic for our party during the Bill 40 hearings -- some would call it the Bill 40 debacle -- and there were significant changes that were made to the Ontario Labour Relations Act that dealt with the agricultural community in those particular sections to which there were exemptions which were removed. One of the reasons that the government hung its hat on the actions that it took under Bill 40 was that it was going to introduce a piece of legislation, the subject-matter that we are discussing today. So I wish to take part, in a very limited way, in this particular piece of legislation, because I well remember the debate, heated at times, over many of the issues around Bill 40 and, in no small measure, the concerns of many in the agricultural community as to how their particular issues and interests were going to be addressed.

The government made some very definite commitments to the agricultural community at that time. They spoke about agreements, consensus, arrangements in principle that indeed had been reached. Though my area as a critic changed and now I stand as the Environment critic, I remember those commitments that the government made at that time to the agricultural community. They were commitments that the agricultural community believed the government was going to abide by, commit to.

I think over the time and, as this has now become legislation, there is some real concern that the statements previously made, through the Minister of Labour primarily, have not been founded in legislation, as was believed. It is for that reason that I partake in this legislation, because there were a number of times when we questioned what the commitment of the government to this matter was going to be.

From my limited experience, I have yet to hear of anyone in the agricultural community who applauds the work of the government in this matter. I have heard of no one who says, "The sections, the direction, the principle of this legislation are ones which we agree to." I have heard no one say that the agricultural community's interest is being promoted, enhanced or protected by this legislation. This is much different than what the government said during the debate on Bill 40.

As the member for Mississauga North, in the region of Peel people would say, "Why would this member speak to an issue that is of so much concern to the agricultural community?"

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): Because nobody else in your own party will.

Mr Offer: The reason I do that is that when I was the Labour critic speaking on Bill 40, there was, without question, a certain assurance that was given to the agricultural community, an assurance which was founded on a governmental commitment. I do not believe -- or let us say I have a suspicion -- that the commitment and assurance that the government made during the debates on Bill 40 have been carried over to this particular legislation.

I speak opposed to the legislation. I speak opposed because I do not believe that the interests in the agricultural community have in any way, shape or form been protected in this legislation. If that were the case, if the agricultural community were in favour of this legislation, then surely, after reading it, they would taking the time, as they always do, to inform members of this Legislature, no matter where their riding happens to be located, as to their position. But there hasn't been. All we have heard is opposition, not from the members, but from people who are involved in agriculture.

We have heard of concern. We have heard that this bill is something very much different than what was initially contemplated. I don't know if that isn't somewhat following the rugged course that the government charted when it was throwing through Bill 40. I don't know that this piece of legislation doesn't in large measure mirror the tainted approach to the passage of legislation that the government employed during the changes to the Ontario Labour Relations Act.

It doesn't take much to remember the very heated debate that took place. It is not far from one's memory when we recall how so many people felt so shut out from the process of legislation that the government was introducing, how people truly felt that the government wasn't listening, that it didn't have their best interests at hand, that it lacked the commitment to listen, that it lacked the commitment to act on concerns.

1730

That's in many ways in principle what we heard over the Bill 40 hearings, and we well remember the way in which the government rammed the bill through the Legislature. We well remember the debacle as to clause-by-clause of Bill 40.

Mr Sutherland: Oh, come on.

Mr Offer: I am now being criticized by members of the government. I can only take that as a compliment when members of the government criticize my position, because I feel I am more in sync with the general position of the people of the province, and surely the people in my riding of Mississauga North.

But this legislation before us -- Mr Speaker, I know you are looking at me saying, "Just make certain that you focus your attention on the matter at hand" -- mirrors the process used by the government in the changes to the Labour Relations Act.

I have some very grave concerns over this piece of legislation. My concerns are around how the rights of the people on the farm are going to be protected, how the rights of workers are going to be protected, how the rights of individuals to choose the way in which they are managed are going to be secured, how the commitment the government made to the agricultural community a year and a half ago is going to be maintained.

This legislation falls far short of what the government said it was going to do. It moves in the direction of the manifestation of suspicion that people have with this government over legislation of this kind. It is without question a continuation of the mismanagement and incompetence of a government not knowing how to deal with an issue, lacking the commitment to listen to individuals, refusing to meet and hear and embrace concerns, but rather turning your back on an incredibly important sector of our province and society and saying, "We know what is best for you, so we will just operate in that vacuum of government non-idea. We will just operate, knowing what is best. We will be the protector and the guardian of all those we say we are going to protect," notwithstanding their concerns that you are not operating and not acting in a proper and rightful course.

I have concerns on the legislation specifically and in substance over how it will affect the operation of the farming community; I have concerns in substance over how this particular legislation will affect the rights of individuals who are important aspects of the farming community; I have concerns over the process the government has employed on this particular legislation; and I have, fourthly, a very grave concern over how the government is not living up to the commitment it made to the agricultural community almost two years ago.

For that I am very much opposed to this particular piece of legislation, and for that I believe the government should rethink what it is doing here and compare that to what it committed that it would do. You will find this to be very much at odds, and I believe the agricultural community is not well served by the actions of this government in this piece of legislation.

For that I wanted to speak on this legislation, because I was there as the Labour critic when it was first discussed, and I am very much concerned that the government has moved in a way that is not in the best interests of the agricultural community and the many people who serve that community so well.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions or comments?

Mrs Fawcett: I want to commend the member for Mississauga North for putting his remarks on the record. Everyone needs to be concerned about agriculture, everyone needs to be concerned about where food comes from, and everyone needs to make sure that our farmers get the recognition of their concerns that they deserve.

As I have said before, and I will continue to say it, this legislation is badly flawed. The government says it has addressed the recommendations of the task force in amendments, but I really don't feel it has paid attention all along to what the farm community is saying.

The farmers were not in need of, nor did they want, Bill 91. They have expressed everywhere I go: "Who asked for this bill? Who wants it? We don't want it." So who out there said that Bill 91 was necessary? I have not yet run across that person, unless of course it is the minister, only to feed some long promise he made that this is what he would do should he ever get the chance.

I can understand why the bill wasn't thought out well, why it was badly flawed, because this minister does not know anything about agriculture. He does not know the sensitivity of agriculture. He does not realize that out there the farmers treat their workers extremely well and that Bill 91 is not needed. The agricultural exemption needs to be put back into the Labour Relations Act.

The Deputy Speaker: Any further questions or comments? If not, the member for Mississauga North has two minutes.

Mr Offer: I'd like to thank the member for Northumberland. The points she makes are very valid. She has, without question, brought her experience and sensitivity to this particular issue, as have many members from our caucus in this particular debate.

The questions remain: Who is to be best served by this legislation? Where is the need for this legislation? How is this legislation in the best interests of the agricultural community and the farmers of this province?

The government has yet to respond to these very straightforward questions, and for that I believe this particular piece of legislation is not in the best interests of the agricultural community, has not met with the concerns of the farming community, has not dealt with the rights of individuals in the operation of their farms. For that reason, I will be opposed to this particular piece of legislation.

I'm very cognizant of the commitments the government made almost two years ago and how they have not been kept in the legislation at hand. I believe the government has to be called to task for the failure to live up to the commitments it said it would make to the agricultural community. This bill is silent on that point, and for that it should be opposed.

1740

The Deputy Speaker: Any further debate?

Mr Arnott: I'm very pleased to rise this afternoon to participate in the debate on Bill 91, An Act respecting Labour Relations in the Agriculture Industry, which received first reading July 29, 1993, in this Legislature, and of course we're now into second reading debate, the debate on the principle of the bill.

I want to state from the outset that as a representative of a strong rural riding, representing a great number of farmers from Wellington county and privileged to be here representing them today, I am totally against this bill and I'm very supportive of our caucus position, which is that this bill ought to be repealed, should the Conservatives form the next government in this province, as an extension of the need to repeal Bill 40.

We've seen this government, driven by its ideology, bring forward legislation that diminishes our competitiveness in this province, labour legislation which is destroying jobs, labour legislation which is driving up wage costs, which again destroys jobs. We must speak against this legislation and again commit that we will repeal it should we get the opportunity to govern again.

The agricultural sector is really the most important aspect of our economy, I believe. Certainly that's the case in Wellington county. It's the agricultural sector upon which a lot of additional industry is based. If agriculture is flourishing, generally speaking, our economy as a whole flourishes. I feel that with this bill, the government is not recognizing some of the most important needs within our agricultural sector today.

Of course we've heard that during the course of the debate. The question has been raised by Liberal members and Conservative members, what was the need for this legislation? The government tells us in the preamble of the bill, as part of the bill, as if it needed to explain the reason, which of course I think has to be explained:

"It is in the public interest to extend collective bargaining rights to employees and employers in the agriculture industry.

"However, the agriculture industry has certain unique characteristics that must be considered in extending those rights."

The first statement saying it's in the public interest to proceed with this bill I dispute. I don't think it's in the public interest. It's perhaps in the government's political self-interest, although I don't fully understand how that even comes into play, but I think overall it will have a negative impact on agriculture and on our economy.

They suggest that "the agriculture industry has certain unique characteristics that must be considered in extending those rights." Yes, indeed. I agree with that statement. That's a little more accurate, because we have to recognize that farming is different from industry. With this New Democratic government that's so ideologically driven with respect to labour legislation, and its fundamental misunderstanding of rural Ontario and its inability to see rural Ontario for what it is, what it is trying to do with this bill is apply an industrial labour relations model on the family farm. That will not fit. It won't fit primarily because the family farm is not an industry, it's not a factory. There is a perishability to the net product of a farm, which is the crop or the food a farm family grows, and if it's not harvested or brought to market at the appropriate time, when it's absolutely ready to go to market, the product will perish and we will find that the product just won't be saleable. So it's different from a factory in that sense. I don't think the government fully understands that principle, and it's unfortunate.

We've heard the New Democrats indicate that there's a consensus among farm groups that this is a good bill. There may in fact be a consensus that the government was going to go ahead on a farm labour bill and that there should be an attempt to negotiate the best possible bill, given the government's ideological predisposition.

I think that in fact was the case. The farmers I speak to who are knowledgeable about the Ontario Federation of Agriculture's involvement in this bill say: "Well, what could we do? We've got a pro-labour government in power. They're intent on going ahead with unionizing the family farm, so we have to try and participate." Of course, we know the farm groups are very much non-political and see it as their objective to attempt to represent the views of the farmers. They try to keep politics out of it and they try to be respectful and work with the government of the day, but I think they realized there was no choice but to at least sit down with the government and try to moderate the government's bill to the best of their ability. I think they did moderate the bill, and I give them credit for that, but we also must understand that the bill must be repealed, because as far as it goes, it still goes too far.

The Liberal caucus has participated in this debate and has talked about this issue for quite a number of weeks and months. We've heard of the Liberals' intent to vote against this, and I commend them for that. We've not heard from the Liberal Party, to the best of my knowledge -- and I'm sure that if I'm mistaken, one of the two Liberal members presently in the House will tell me I am -- a commitment to repeal this bill should it become the government in Ontario after the next election. That's the primary distinction between our party's position and the Liberal Party's position.

The history of labour in agriculture in Ontario is that farming has been exempt from labour legislation for a number of specific reasons. I talked about the perishability of the farm product. Really, that's the key reason. I want to elaborate in a little more detail on that.

Strikes during a harvest and other vulnerable seasons would be absolutely catastrophic for farmers. I think we all accept and understand that. The already unstable economic climate in agriculture would be further threatened by modifications to the province's labour law. The right to strike, even if it's not exercised, would result in a higher industry risk factor, and this translates into higher insurance costs and lower farm-gate receipts. We've been told, of course, that the bill does not include the right to strike, but there are a number of other mechanisms that the government wants to give to farm workers to press their demands.

This bill will result, I believe, in higher labour costs. That's likely going to happen. These costs will ultimately be passed on to consumers because of the farm sector's inability to absorb the increase in these costs. I think this is particularly evident in Ontario's supply-management commodities where a cost-of-production formula is used to determine prices. We all know that changes are going to be coming in the supply-managed goods throughout the 1990s and into the 21st century as a result of the GATT changes. We have to be extremely sensitive to changes that may impact negatively on our supply-managed commodities. They're going to have to make a number of changes in the way that they operate to better compete with their American counterparts, the competition that's going to be coming.

I want to raise one point that our party's critic for Agriculture, the member for S-D-G & East Grenville, brought out in his debate. He talked about the budget of the Ministry of Agriculture. I think it's important that members are reminded of this, because the budget for OMAF has been reduced significantly since the New Democrats took power, about an 18% reduction since the New Democrats assumed power.

Many of the ministries that the government favours have actually seen an increase in their budgets. For all the tough times and all the rhetoric where the government says it's cutting back, many ministries have actually received significant increases in their funding. But other ministries that the government doesn't feel are as high a priority have had their budgets reduced and slashed. The budget of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food has gone down 18% since 1990.

I might add too that overall government spending has gone up 6%. The government's still spending more money, but certain ministries are taking a severe reduction. We see that as an example of the government's lack of interest and the lack of priority that it places on agriculture. I believe it's reflected in this bill.

I want to close at this point, because my colleague the member for Grey-Owen Sound wants to get a chance to speak this afternoon and I hope we can accommodate him. Let me say in summary that I think this bill is going in the wrong direction. I think it's unnecessary. I think it will have a lot of negative impacts on our farming community.

I would urge government members, who probably will go ahead and vote for this, to at least, if they represent rural constituencies, go back to their constituencies and speak to their farmers and speak to their constituents to see if there isn't another bill or another legislative priority that should be put ahead of this one. I think they'll find that their constituents, in the main, are opposed to this legislation. I would urge them to do that because I think it's important that other agricultural priorities are recognized by this government in the remaining time it has left in its mandate.

1750

Mr Murdoch: I'd like to thank my colleague from Wellington for giving up some of his time so I could speak on this, and also my colleague from Kitchener for keeping the other side under control and allowing me to speak today.

I'm very pleased today to rise in support of my colleague from S-D-G & East Grenville on his stance on second reading of Bill 91. As I am sure you're all aware, I have both a professional and a personal interest in this particular piece of legislation. I currently live on a farm in Grey county from which I run a cow-calf operation. Grey county is a beautiful place to live, with some of the best agricultural land in the province.

In my area, farming is passed down in families from generation to generation, but unfortunately, every year there seems to be less and less active interest in the agricultural lifestyle. In fact, just over 2% of the population continue to maintain an agriculture operation as their primary source of income. I have both a brother and a sister. Each of them live in a rural setting but neither of them are actively farming. Actually, they are both teachers, my point being that my own family is a prime example of how the passage of time has eroded a simpler, more basic way of life. As times go on and technology changes occur, there are fewer and fewer active people on the family farm.

In light of this, I would expect it to be common sense for the government to do everything in its power to promote the viability of agriculture in Ontario. However, as I've said on numerous occasions in the past, common sense is not a characteristic with which this government is particularly familiar.

The natural passage of time has reduced the number of active farmers in Ontario, a fact we cannot change, and this legislation will only make things worse.

I would like to repeat a statement my colleague from Lanark-Renfrew made yesterday. He said: "The wellbeing and success of our family farms reflects the overall prosperity of our province....We as legislators must be diligent in our promotion and support of the family farm." Touché. I cannot agree more. However, instead of acting to support and promote the family farm, this legislation will serve to discourage farming as it creates a whole new level of bureaucracy which will stand in the way of efficient farm operations.

I am not an economist, but it doesn't take Adam Smith to figure out that too much regulation and government interference disrupts the function of the natural market forces. Whatever happened to good old supply and demand? Everywhere I go, I hear a demand for less government, less government and even more less government, and what does our socialist government supply? More government, more government and more government.

Operating and maintaining a successful farming operation in the 1990s is not an easy task. I know this from firsthand experience. This piece of legislation will do absolutely nothing to make the task easier. In fact, as I see it, this measure will increase the cost of operating a farm in this province and further decrease the number of farms and farm workers. In effect, this legislation will kill jobs.

I recently attended a dinner in my riding hosted by the Grey county branch of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. The members of the federation expressed extreme concern about the logic behind unionizing the family farm. It makes absolutely no sense to them or to me why this government wants to put more unnecessary pressure on Ontario farmers who are already struggling to keep their heads above water.

As an extension of Bill 40, Bill 91 seeks to go all the way in this quest to kill business in this province. Bill 40, the job-killing crusade, by giving labour control in many business operations both large and small, has effectively closed the doors to investment in Ontario. Now our notorious government seeks to finish the job by shutting down what is essentially the basis of industry in our province. No farms, no food. It's as simple as that.

What I find most interesting is that the minister continues to maintain that the agriculture sector in this province supports Bill 91. I'm not exactly sure from which pool of Ontario farmers he's drawing this conclusion, as I have yet to come across a single farmer in my riding who agrees with this legislation. Perhaps the minister would like to visit Grey county for a day in order to contact the real agriculture people.

Bill 91 transfers power from those who have earned it, the farm owners, to the workers. Placing upward pressure on farm wages will ultimately result in fewer jobs, because who can afford to pay them? I certainly can't and my constituents certainly can't. I say enough is enough. Get your bureaucrats the heck out of the barn.

I tell all my constituents to stay alive until 1995, at which time they will give this province a government that understands the real needs of Ontarians, a government which promotes common sense. Make no mistake about it: Bill 40 and Bill 91 will be the first things to go.

It's about time for our Common Sense Revolution. Your ministers have lost all their credibility. Just look at some of the ministers whose livelihoods this government has ruined as politicians: Howard Hampton, the Minister of Natural Resources. He's taken it upon himself basically to kill conservation authorities by giving them no more money. It's not Howard's fault all alone. It's the Treasurer who says, "No, you won't get any more money." What they do, they take away his credibility.

Let's look at our Minister of Transportation. He has no idea what roads are even about, let alone he's the Minister of Transportation. You've just continually gone on to kill the ministers and their credibility. The problem is, I don't think this government over here wants their ministers to be re-elected, so they go on to bring in legislation that takes the credibility away from any of them.

Look at your Minister of Municipal Affairs. Today he even said that he's going to carry on with his silly plans about the Sewell report, one of the worst things he's ever done to this province: taken a person from Toronto that had no idea, once he was out of the city, where he even was, let him come up with a report, and then tells the people of rural Ontario they have to accept it. Here's another minister's credibility gone.

The Minister of Labour we've already talked about. Look what they've done to him with Bill 40, totally taken his credibility away from him, and now Bill 91. So, Mr Speaker, who was left? Well, it looks like all they had left over there was the Minister of Agriculture.

I want to tell you, the people in rural Ontario did like the Minister of Agriculture. He did have some credibility. But this government decided: "Hey, we can't have somebody in our caucus that has credibility. We're bound we're going to discourage this. We want to kill our credibility. Look at some of the legislation we've brought in." That only proves what they've done to most of their ministers. "We've got one minister left some of the people like out there, so maybe we'd better do something to make sure that they don't like him any longer."

What do they come up with? Bill 91. They tried to destroy his credibility on the farm legislation -- I'm trying to think of the bill last year that they brought in and they were going to fine all the farmers if they didn't join up. I'm sure there was conspiracy there. But fortunately enough, they kept Elmer's credibility by bringing the bill in right -- the farm stabilization bill I'm talking about -- and they fixed that bill up. Originally they had it all messed up, and I'm sure it was part of their conspiracy to defuse Elmer's credibility within the rural community.

Elmer was well liked up until this bill, and now they've just taken the credibility away from Elmer and I guess there are no ministers left. They could easily be on their way to an election now, because they've pretty well destroyed every minister over there that they've ever had. It's unfortunate that they've done this. The only one, as I say, you had left with any credibility was Elmer Buchanan, and look what they've done to him. I still have great respect for Elmer, even though he's been swindled into voting for something like this. I still do.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): You know, this is beginning to sound like an old Hank Williams tune.

Mr Murdoch: The member for Renfrew says a Hank Williams tune. If I could hold a tune, maybe it would be fine, but I'm not good at that. But I want to say, I still do.

You guys set your agenda a long time ago when you decided not to call an election until you've thoroughly ticked off everyone in this province. Well, I'm telling you now, you've finally done it. You finally have got rural Ontario and the farmers mad at you now, so you've pretty well got everyone ticked off at you. As one member told me once, there were still a few left that they hadn't ticked off. Now that member will know that you've got everybody. You've come to your conclusion. You can call the election.

I think you've finally accomplished your goal and everyone's mad out there. So I challenge you: Let's call the election. Let's get on with it. Let's put your policies out to the people of Ontario and let's see if they really like them. Let's put them out to them. Let's call the election and let's get it over with. I challenge you with that, because you have nothing left. You have no credibility left and this bill just finally took it all away from you in rural Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker: Any questions or comments?

Mrs Mathyssen: I must say that I quite enjoyed listening to the member opposite. I will confess, though, that I found some of the logic rather strange. I couldn't quite understand some of the correlations the member made.

But I would like to comment on a couple of things. One is that he did have it quite accurate when he said that farms have indeed declined in terms of numbers, and I think it's safe to say that the kind of changes in production and the new efficiencies have contributed to that decline in terms of absolute numbers.

But I think it's also safe to say that a great many of the farmers who left farming did so because of the long-term effect of the small returns they received at the farm gate for the commodities they produced. That had a devastating effect on the farming community, and that's why this government put in place measures so that farm incomes were preserved so that families could indeed survive and continue to farm.

What the member opposite has failed to understand, and I guess he just wasn't listening carefully when this bill was explained to him, is that it was generated and asked for by the farming and rural community, that the task force that recommended to the ministers of Labour and Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs actively worked on what was needed in order for the farm community -- and the difference in that particular industry to be recognized was part and parcel of what finally came out in Bill 91.

As my colleague from Perth quite accurately pointed out, the family farm is exempted, because it doesn't make sense to try to organize in smaller areas. What we are concerned about are the large factory farms where health and safety issues are of great concern, where we need to see improvements and where workers are very often at risk. This is a bill that affects the factory farm.

The Deputy Speaker: The member's time has expired. Any further questions or comments? The member for Essex South, if you wish. It is past 6 of the clock.

Mr Crozier: Very quickly, just to clarify something I said earlier today, I did in fact say farmers will not support this legislation if the minister fails to fix the bill and neither will we. It has been said a number of times by our co-critic of Agriculture from Northumberland that this bill should not exist, that it should in fact then be exempt under the Ontario Labour Relations Act. I think we are on record as to how we feel about this bill and the fact that it should not be passed and should not exist.

The Deputy Speaker: It being now past 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock tomorrow afternoon.

The House adjourned at 1803.

31 mai 1994