Journal des débats 1994-juin-08 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): I rise this afternoon to speak about an issue of concern to all Ontarians and especially people in my riding: crime.

I want to draw the attention of this House to one initiative which speaks not only to how to eliminate crime in our streets but also to how we as citizens, neighbours and friends can work together to restore safety to our streets. This initiative is the community witness program.

This morning I accompanied a great many people from my riding to the district courthouse to attend the first sentencing hearing arranged through my office under the guise of the community witness program. We arranged to have a witness testify on the impact of crime in the community but, as an indication of the impact witnesses have on influencing a judge's sentencing decision, the defence counsel used every argument he could to have the case adjourned to another date and was successful, this time. The adjournment of this case has strengthened the resolve of the community witnesses to strive even harder to attend more hearings.

I want to underscore one fact: 80% of the crimes committed in the Regent Park area are done by people who live outside the neighbourhood. That is why this program means so much to residents who live there. It gives them a way to claim their streets and their neighbourhoods as their own and provides a way to influence a justice system that so often seems to ignore them.

I would like also to take this opportunity to thank the witnesses and the community residents who came out in support of the initiative. Your work is sending a strong message to criminals, and even though not all of your neighbours realize it, your neighbourhood is a better place today because of it.

I hope that through a program like this one other members can encourage their communities to get involved in a similar initiative.

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): The board of education and the parents in my riding have recommended that any implementation of junior kindergarten be put on hold. They object very strongly to the cost of the program and find it unacceptable and irresponsible that the government would force the board of education to find the space, the teachers and the funding for this program. There are no funds to administer the present curriculum, and the facilities for the students currently enrolled are strained.

To implement junior kindergarten at this time is totally unrealistic. Where will the money come from? Will taxes be raised again? The total cost of this program is expected to be $4.9 million and the operational costs would be in the neighbourhood of $8 million. Minister of Education and Training, there is no money for this optional luxury. Why are you forcing it on the people of my riding?

BELLE RIVER MINOR HOCKEY ASSOCIATION

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): On behalf of my constituents I'd like to bring to the House's attention the terrific achievement of the Belle River Minor Hockey Association.

The Belle River Minor Hockey Association has recently celebrated its 25th anniversary, which is an achievement in itself when one considers all the voluntary hours that parents, coaches, trainers and managers give.

However, the Belle River Minor Hockey Association has more to celebrate than 25 years of teaching children the great Canadian game of hockey. The Peewee Minor Travel Team has a list of remarkable achievements that I'd like to share with the members of the House.

In 1992 the Peewee Minor Travel Team became the All-Ontario Champions. In 1993 the Peewee Minor Travel Team became the All-Ontario finalists and the North American Silver Stick Champions. In 1994 the Peewee Minor Travel Team became the All-Ontario Champions and the North American Silver Stick Champions again.

I believe that the players of this team deserve a special mention: Scott Nadalin, Christopher Bauer, Jason St Pierre, Ryan Klokman, Jeffrey Bialkowski, Mike Quinn, Stephen Hildenbrand, Ian Leavoy, Dave Poisson, Neil Barrette, Michael Reimneitz, Brandon Tootill, Craig Mahon, Joel Cecile, Ryan Decker, Jesse Fowler, Kevin Rivest, Steve Farrer and Kyle Raymond.

Also, the Belle River Canadians Junior C Team became the All-Ontario Champions in 1994 for the third time in 10 years.

More, the Belle River Minor Hockey Association has had two players go on to play in the NHL: Mike Natyshak, who unfortunately had to retire due to injury, and Tie Domi, who currently plays for Winnipeg.

I'm proud that the community of Belle River gives such tremendous support to its minor hockey association. The whole community shares in the work of running the association and shares the upset of defeat and shares in the glory of championship. Well done, Belle River Minor Hockey Association.

TOURISM

Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): As the past Minister of Tourism and Recreation, I'd like to talk today about some of the wonderful tourism attractions that we have in the province of Ontario and encourage our many citizens and those from around the world to come and visit us.

First, I'd like to touch on the Stratford Festival. People from all parts of the world visit Stratford to attend the plays put on by a cast of experts, and I encourage all those listening today to order their brochures. They have a beautiful brochure to pick up. Visit that area and take in some of the plays.

In the same area we have the Blyth Festival, the Elora Festival, the Grand Bend Festival in Huron county and the Drayton Festival Theatre. Another place that we really like to visit each year is Niagara-on-the-Lake, the Shaw Festival, with some great attractions there, great places to visit.

I'd be remiss if I didn't talk a little bit about the Quinte area. We have coming up on June 25 and 26 at Canadian Forces Base Trenton the spectacular Quinte International Air Show. Again, that brochure is available for anyone who would like to order it. I encourage them to get hold of my office or somebody in the Trenton area. It's a great air show, one of the best in the province.

We also have many other great attractions in the Quinte area, stretching from Picton, the Trenton-Belleville area, with a waterfront festival on July 8, 9 and 10 in Belleville and, in the latter part of July, the Trenton bathtub races.

Let's support our tourism industry in the province of Ontario. Let's get out and visit all these great communities.

1340

GREY-SAUBLE CONSERVATION AUTHORITY

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): This statement is for the Minister of Natural Resources. Last week I sent a letter to the minister on behalf of the Grey-Sauble Conservation Authority. In it I outlined the necessity of speeding up approval of the authority's application for fill, construction and alteration to waterways regulations. Without these regulations, the authority has no control over the filling or alteration of wetlands within its jurisdiction.

Grey-Sauble prepared the required maps and schedules and submitted them to the ministry for approval before Christmas last year. To date, they are one of the last authorities in the province waiting for approval. Both neighbouring authorities in Grey county -- Nottawasaga and Saugeen -- and also the Grand Valley have enforceable regulations for the protection of significant wetlands.

I realize only one week has passed since I wrote the minister. However, these regulations are extremely important due to the potential illegal situation in Collingwood township. There is currently an individual filling a wetland within this Grey-Sauble watershed. If the filling is illegal, the authority needs the regulations in order to prevent it from continuing.

Will the minister please look into this matter today. Approval of the regulations must be expedited to give the Grey-Sauble Conservation Authority the power to protect its jurisdiction from illegal fill, construction or alteration of significant wetlands.

CARROUSEL OF THE NATIONS

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Walkerville): The 19th annual Carrousel of the Nations, Windsor's multicultural festival presented by the Multicultural Council of Windsor and Essex County, will be held this Friday to Sunday, June 10 to 12, and the following weekend as well.

This year Carrousel will pay tribute to the United Nations International Year of the Family and will feature 29 ethnocultural villages, including British, Caribbean, Chinese, Filipino, German, Greek, two Hungarian villages, Indian, Irish, Israeli, Islamic, Italian, Japanese, Lebanese, Macedonian, Maltese, Polish, Scottish, two Serbian villages, two Slovak villages, three Ukrainian villages and Vietnamese. I want to welcome three new villages this year: Korean, Pakistani and Portuguese.

Most of these villages are located in my riding of Windsor-Walkerville and all will be presenting the best in traditional cuisine, entertainment and arts and crafts, and the best part is, admission is free.

I want to recognize and express my thanks to CBC, the sponsors of this year's Carrousel, and also say thank you to the hundreds of volunteers who make this event a success. At a time when there is violent conflict in many areas of the world, I'm proud to say that I represent a city where different cultures can not only coexist but can also celebrate together.

I invite all who are watching and who are listening to come to Windsor, tour the world, and celebrate Carrousel.

WATER EXTRACTION AGREEMENTS

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): While the world is quickly coming up with concerns about water, a current edition of the local municipal magazine, Municipal World, has a headline story called Water: Waste Not, Want Not.

In November of last year I introduced my Bill 126, which would deal with water extraction agreements and which provided for local municipalities a means for them to participate in decisions about water extraction. It also provided a very much more broadly based consultation process where the local citizens around the water-taking sites could be included in some of the determinations about what the extraction programs would do to the supply of water in their area.

There are, of course, other provisions associated with it, but all are based on the fact that the Ministry of Environment and Energy will continue to deal with the issues of quality and quantity of water.

I urge all of those people who in this House voted in support of this bill on second reading and ultimately sent it to committee of the whole House to bring this bill back on so that we can complete at least one step in a process in this Legislative Assembly to assist people locally to take charge of their local resource and one of the most important resources for all of us, that being water.

It won't take that much time, but it will be, for all of us who expect water to continue to become a growing and much more important issue, the most important first step that this Legislative Assembly could take in guarding and protecting our water resources.

GOVERNMENT'S AGENDA

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement concerns the government's continued abuse of the traditional democratic process in the province of Ontario.

Example 1: The government scheduled a free vote at 5:45 pm today on second reading of Bill 167, the Equality Rights Statute Law Amendment Act, and the vote has been cancelled. That's not democracy in action. I suspect the government discovered it needed more time to do some arm-twisting of NDP backbenchers rather than facing the embarrassment of a failed vote.

Example 2: The government has scheduled a time allocation motion today to cut off debate on Bill 91, the Agricultural Labour Relations Act. The government must invoke closure because it knows this legislation is seriously flawed. It is so flawed in fact that there are 25 amendments and 28 pages on which the government will allow only one hour of consideration in committee of the whole House. Why the rush? What are you hiding? Perhaps you should refer to the Common Sense Revolution, which clearly contains no cuts to agriculture.

Example 3: The government let the Sewell commission wander around the province for two years and then directs municipalities to respond within 90 days. I understand you plan to rush Bill 163 to public hearings this summer before any logical review and response can be prepared by the Ontario municipalities.

This government clearly shows little respect for the people of Ontario. Perhaps it's time for this government to step back from its partisan political agenda and start listening to the people rather than shutting them out.

STRATFORD FESTIVAL

Mrs Karen Haslam (Perth): I appreciate the member for Quinte mentioning the Stratford Festival. As a matter of fact, it was on Monday that we just opened the festival. We were able to see a wonderful performance of Twelfth Night directed by Richard Monette. It was a rich performance, well directed, with a lot of comedic highlights.

Also, this last Friday I attended the opening of Cyrano de Bergerac starring Colm Feore, another wonderful, wonderful production. It's one of the most engaging performances I have ever seen and I think this is one of his finest performances.

In between, we also had the opening of The Pirates of Penzance, again with Colm Feore, another wonderful musical that I am recommending to everyone that they take time to see.

We have three theatres in Stratford. We have the Avon Theatre, the Tom Patterson Theatre and the main stage, all of them with many performances scheduled for this year.

The Stratford Festival is one of the most prestigious cultural performing arts centres in Ontario --

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Agreed.

Mrs Haslam: I'm glad you agree. Thank you to the member for Mississauga South.

I encourage everybody across the floor and on this side to come to Stratford. We are ready for you. We have wonderful cultural shows for you to see. We have many antique stores in the surrounding areas. We are in the midst of a wonderful agricultural area. Come to Stratford and enjoy the culture that we offer.

ORAL QUESTIONS

INSURANCE TAX

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): My question is to the Minister of Finance. I'm waiting for the Minister of Finance to take his seat.

Minister, yesterday we brought to the public's attention that your government's pledge not to introduce any new taxes had been broken. It turns out that you were unable to resist the temptation to find a new way to tax consumers and that you had decided to tax the deductible on insurance premiums.

This is a mystifying turn of events. The insurance industries didn't ask for it and have said they don't want it. It's going to hurt their customers, and they don't think it's fair.

I have a very simple question to the Treasurer: Will you retract this policy and repeal the tax that you had indicated you would not impose in the first place?

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Take a little stroll while you're thinking about the answer. The mike will follow you.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I appreciate the suggestions from across the floor as to how I should prepare myself for these kinds of difficult questions.

I appreciate the member raising this issue yesterday. Since he did that, I've had some preliminary meetings with people in the ministry, particularly the revenue section of the ministry, from whence the memo came.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Is there another section?

Hon Mr Laughren: Yes.

Mr Mahoney: There is?

Hon Mr Laughren: Yes.

If I could get back to the question, Mr Speaker, the member asked about the sales tax on deductible for insurance policies. I just wanted to assure him that I have been meeting with the people in the ministry and we've established some preliminary consultations already with the industry.

I just want to assure the member that this is not a new tax. There is no new tax here. It's not a tax that was in the budget from 1993; it's not a new tax that was in the budget from 1994, although there has been a shift in the collection of the tax, but it does not bring in one --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Laughren: It does not bring in one new nickel to the Ontario treasury.

1350

Mr Offer: This is a new tax, and not only that, this is a matter of your credibility, because a tax is a tax is a tax. The insurance companies say that your new policy violates every single policy of insurance in this province. A deductible is not a deductible plus tax; it is just a deductible. No matter what spin you may want to put on it, consumers are now facing a tax where they didn't face one before.

Minister, in your last budget, the third-last line that you read in this place stated there are "no new taxes and no tax increases." In your memo of May 16, two weeks after this budget -- the ink had not yet dried -- you are imposing a new tax on consumers on their deductibles in insurance.

How can you justify slapping another tax on insurance and consumers when you said you would not increase the tax burden faced by the people of this province? How can you justify the position you took in your budget with the memo of your own ministry two weeks later?

Applause.

Hon Mr Laughren: I appreciate the applause. But I can tell you that what was stated in that budget, that there are "no new taxes and no tax increases," is absolutely and 100% correct. That tax was buried before and now is more evident, more visible, and I appreciate that, but that tax does not bring in one new nickel, not one nickel to the Ontario treasury. How can the member opposite say that this is a new tax, when it doesn't bring a nickel more into the treasury of the province of Ontario -- not a nickel?

Mr Offer: Let me try to explain to the minister how his new tax is a tax. A few months ago, if someone suffered damage to, let's say, their home -- their home was broken into or there was a fire in their home and damage occurred -- in the event that they had an insurance policy to which there was a deductible of, for example, $250, two months ago they would have paid the $250 and the insurance company would have looked after the terms of the policy and replaced the loss.

Now, under your new tax, that person doesn't pay just $250; they pay $250 plus 8%, or $270. Minister, maybe not you, but for every other person in this province, they are paying a tax on their deductible. This was an amount which previously was paid by the insurance company. Your policy has now changed it so that we, as consumers, are going to have to pay a new tax.

My question remains: Your budget stated there are "no new taxes and no tax increases." As far as the people of this province are concerned, there is a new tax: on their deductible. My question remains, why did you abandon your promise and why don't you just simply retract this tax burden which you have imposed on the people of the province?

Hon Mr Laughren: I'm very pleased and I want to thank the member opposite for clarifying his own previous comments, because what he's just said is that this tax was already there. It was buried; that's the difference. The member said it himself and knows full well that there's no new tax being imposed by the government to increase the revenues of the province in this regard. The member opposite said so himself.

Mr Offer: Consumers are paying the tax.

Hon Mr Laughren: Now he's tripping over his own explanation, because there is no increase in taxes to the treasury of this province. The fact remains that the tax was buried before and now it's not.

AGRICULTURAL LABOUR POLICY

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): My question is for the Minister of Labour. Late yesterday afternoon, your government filed a time allocation motion on Bill 91, the farm unionization legislation, to force it through committee without giving a chance to the public, and especially our farmers, of even the remotest possibility of being heard. After months of controversy, and with farmers across the province angry and upset with your unionization agenda, you have decided that you will not allow the public to have their say. Minister, why have you decided to refuse public hearings on Bill 91? What are you afraid of hearing?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I'm not the least bit afraid of hearings. We went through a year and a half --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: They don't want to listen to it, Mr Speaker.

Mrs Fawcett: You say that the Agricultural Labour Management Advisory Committee accepts this legislation, but what you don't say is that you didn't really offer the farm community any alternatives. First, you take away the agricultural exemption and make farmers face the full unionization provisions of Bill 40. Then you said that farmers wouldn't have to face the full strike provisions of Bill 40 if they only agreed to the more moderate unionization provisions of Bill 91. Of course farmers prefer Bill 91 after you hog-tied them to Bill 40, but it is not accurate at all to say that any farmer wants Bill 91. This is purely a figment of your labour-saturated imagination. Minister, what farmer has asked for this legislation, or were you downtown in Hamilton on a main street corner taking your survey?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: It seems to me, if I'm remembering my schedule correctly, that I spoke at an OFA farmers' convention just a matter of months ago and I think we had two people in the audience, and there was quite a large audience, who raised questions about the bill, but I certainly didn't get chased out of that hall by the farmers at all when we raised it.

I might also say that we've gone through two sessions, the best part of a year, and we reached a consensus between farm groups, between the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and the labour movement, and we got a consensus recommendation on this legislation. I don't know where the member across the way is coming from.

1400

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): Minister, if you are intent on forcing your anti-business and anti-farm agenda on the province, why don't you at least allow farmers to have their say in public hearings on Bill 91? Farmers in Ontario need help in understanding how this will help them to be more competitive, more productive and how it will help them to be more profitable.

I have been speaking to farmers in S-D-G & East Grenville, Prescott and Russell, Renfrew, Middlesex, St Catharines-Brock, Welland-Thorold, Huron, Lincoln, Carleton, Prince Edward-Lennox, Victoria-Haliburton, Bruce and Grey and many others, and I haven't had one farmer tell me that he supports your plan in Bill 91. Minister, your agenda for agriculture is about as helpful as a late spring frost or a flood.

Minister, why don't you start to listen? The farmers don't want your Bill 91. Who wants Bill 91? Please answer the question.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I take it that the member across the way is writing off totally the OFA and the people who sat on that committee for the best part of a year and reached the consensus that was reached. I have to admit I'm not a farmer, but I can tell you that I've had a fair number of discussions on this and I suspect I'm as close to some of the farm communities as the member across the way who asked me about what I knew about farming. I've sat down with my kid brother, who is a full-time farmer, and discussed many of these issues.

The Speaker: New question, the leader of the third party.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Come on boys, let's go.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Mississauga West. The honourable leader of the third party with his question.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I too have a question for the Minister of Labour. Following up on the question of the member for Northumberland, let me say that I thought it was an excellent question, very well put. I was a little disappointed that the farmers of Nipissing were not mentioned in the supplementary, but I can assure the member for Cornwall that not one farmer in Nipissing has told me that they support this legislation -- not one.

I wonder if the minister could stand in this Legislature and, other than his family -- I was surprised there are some in farming; I thought most of them worked for the government -- put on the record the name of one farmer in Ontario who wants this legislation.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: The usual process, when you're looking at a new bill, is to go through a consultation process. This particular bill went through two consultation processes and reached a consensus. There were representatives there from the farm community as well as the ministry and as well as the labour community, and they reached a consensus on the bill. There wasn't a division; there was consensus on the legislation.

Mr Harris: I take from the minister's answer and from the lack of notes coming in that neither you nor your colleagues, nor your researchers nor any of your staff know one farmer -- probably not even your brother -- who believes that this legislation is better than no legislation.

Minister, I want clearly on the record that one of the first things we will do, along with scrapping Bill 40, is to scrap Bill 91, which you are ramming roughshod through this Legislature and through the agricultural community of Ontario.

I would ask you this: Rather than have a piece of legislation that we're going to scrap at the very first opportunity, would you not suggest, and think about this, that it would be far better, for the next six months, year, or however long you last over there, for the farmers of Ontario, for agriculture in this province, if you simply withdrew this bill, stop this nonsense, instead of jamming it down the throat of every farmer in this province?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: You would almost think it was something new that the leader of the third party was raising.

When we went through the Bill 40 debate, which is long over now -- and which, incidentally, is working; something else he wants to scrap -- we put in place two stakeholders that said we were going to proceed with a construction labour bill and an agricultural labour bill. That's been out in the public agenda for two, three years. We then went through the process of consultation, we reached an agreement on this legislation and that's what we're proceeding with.

Mr Harris: I tell you, Bill 40 is working all right. It's working to sell memberships in our party. That's the only area where I've seen it working. Not only that, it's working to sell memberships in our party from union members all across this province, because the bill is not working for them either. It is costing them jobs. It is costing them decision-making power. It has put power in the hands of a very few, élite, vested-interest few, not the working men and women of this province. That's why, time after time, somebody has to stand up in this Legislature and speak on behalf of the brothers and the sisters who want jobs in this province.

I am standing in this Legislature, along with the member for Northumberland, along with the member for Cornwall, along with every single member of our caucus on behalf of every farmer in this province. Since you can't name one -- you cannot name one -- who wants this piece of legislation, will you withdraw this legislation and listen once and for all to what the people of Ontario are telling you?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I guess if I was a Tory, then I might be willing to take a look at withdrawing legislation that protects workers in the province of Ontario. I'm glad that every time the leader of the third party gets up and makes it clear to workers across the province of Ontario, "If you elect us, you're going to see the legislation that's there to protect workers" -- and is doing a good job of it -- "destroyed in the province of Ontario" -- I'm not sure that's what workers in the province of Ontario want.

If it came to naming farmers, I think that's a con game, but we've got one right in our own caucus who supports this legislation.

JUSTICE SYSTEM

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): My question is for the Attorney General, and I think I should also emphasize the minister responsible for women's issues.

The minister will be familiar with press reports today related to an appearance by Gabrielle Lavallee -- I'm not sure if I'm pronouncing that correctly -- who appeared before the Ontario Criminal Injuries Compensation Board in Toronto and "told how Roch Theriault used pliers to pull out eight of her teeth, severed her arm with a dull knife and used welding equipment to 'cauterize the wound.'"

Many Ontarians know about these incidents. What they don't know is that the OPP catalogued another 84 atrocities and that your ministry cut a plea bargain covering up this monster's additional crimes. Minister, how could this happen? How could you agree to a deal with the devil?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Women's Issues): What the member neglects to say is that on the charges on which the perpetrator was convicted, he was sentenced to a life term. We have in Canadian law a practice where you can't get longer than a life term. It's not like in some of the states in the United States where you can pile up life term after life term and get 340 years or whatever the total is. There are sentencing principles in this country that prevent that, and it is not unusual for the strongest cases to come forward for convictions to be registered. In this case, there was more than one conviction registered against this person.

I would say to the member that indeed this was vigorously prosecuted. This person was sentenced to a life term and, contrary to press reports, a 15-year wait for parole, which is the top amount that's allowed.

Mr Runciman: It's 10 years.

Hon Mrs Boyd: That's what the press says, but that's not what my notes tell me.

1410

Mr Runciman: That's a simply despicable response. With all due respect, I want to say that this minister is standing here today defending the decision. She doesn't even talk about the fact that the OPP were preparing a dangerous offender application. If anyone should qualify for the status of dangerous offender, it's this particular individual.

In the preliminary hearing five former cult members testified against Mr Theriault. They were prepared to do so at a trial and at a dangerous offender hearing. There are medical records on file that illustrate the injuries inflicted to cult members. We're talking about women victims here, at least nine women victims: one murdered, one with her arm cut off, and the rest with disfiguring mutilations. And this minister can get up and stand here today and defend the actions of her crown and her ministry in this respect.

I once again ask you, how in the world can you allow this individual, five years from now, to walk the streets of Ontario? How can you justify that?

Hon Mrs Boyd: First of all, it is crown attorneys who apply for a dangerous offender application. If that was not done at the time of conviction -- they do that in conjunction with the police, obviously, and bring together all the evidence. I would remind the member that if he looks at my record as Attorney General, I have been considered extraordinarily vigorous in terms of dangerous offender applications.

I agree with him that in very serious cases, and we have instructed crowns on this, they must consider dangerous offender applications, and where the tests are met -- there are four tests that need to be met -- indeed those will be seriously considered. If the tests are met, they will be applied for. That is the policy I have applied as Attorney General.

I must say to the member that his gratuitous attacks on crown attorneys are very difficult to defend when I don't have the full facts in front of me as to the prosecutability of these things. There are 4.5 million charges in this province and no crown attorney shares all those details with an Attorney General. It is extremely important for this member to understand that the facts of the particular case are the facts that are gone on in this situation, and it is extremely important for us to recognize that crowns have both have strong encouragement --

Interjection.

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

Hon Mrs Boyd: -- and indeed direction to prosecute vigorously in these very serious matters.

Mr Runciman: Indeed they are serious matters, and the Attorney General did not respond in a like manner in terms of the responsibilities she has as the Attorney General. It's her role to review what all crowns in this province are doing, and she's not admitting to reviewing this particular situation. She's also the minister responsible for women's issues. I talked about how nine of the 11 people involved in this were women. We talked about burning breasts with a welding torch, using vise grips to squeeze two women's nipples until they bled, using acetylene torches to roast a woman's flesh, cutting off a woman's finger with wire cutters; nine mind-numbing atrocities, including a murder, cutting off an arm. Those are the kinds of things where this minister is standing up and saying, "The crown did well."

No one in Ontario accepts the fact that you swept these 84 additional charges under the rug. You tried to hide them from the public. That is the reality. You had a dangerous offender application being prepared by the OPP. That as well was swept under the rug.

I ask you today, at the very least, to commit to turning over the crown's files on these additional charges to the federal parole board so that this animal is kept behind bars and does not further jeopardize public safety.

Hon Mrs Boyd: I would remind the member that the sentencing in this case occurred in January 1993, which was before I became Attorney General, and the conviction was registered well before I became Attorney General.

I would also tell the member that I agree with him. In terms of the issues that have been uncovered by the police in the investigation and so on, I believe there ought to be some way for the federal parole board to take that into account when the time comes to consider parole. We have pledged ourselves to work with the federal government on how to deal with those kinds of high-risk offenders and how to deal more effectively with exactly the issue he's raising. We are also very concerned and have expressed that concern, as have our colleagues in other provinces, about the need to deal with those matters a bit more effectively.

SPECIAL SERVICES AT HOME PROGRAM

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Another success story is undergoing serious cutbacks, a program which supports families as they meet ongoing challenges. Members of the Special Services at Home Family Alliance, representing 9,000 families with chapters right across this province, many of whom are here today, requested a meeting with you, Minister, in November 1993. Since April, they have called your office every day for a three-week period, calls placed time and time again. These families have already saved this province and your ministry millions of dollars. These families want me to ask you why you will not meet with them.

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): The association to which the member refers has been meeting regularly with officials of the ministry. In fact, they've been involved in a working group with ministry officials, which has resulted in a report that I have seen and have discussed with my officials -- we are reviewing now a more detailed response to it -- in which they have set out for us very clearly some very good suggestions for ways in which we can improve the special services at home program.

I can tell the member, as we've already indicated to the association, that we are taking those recommendations very seriously and we are going to be responding to them in very short order. I think they will be pleased to see we have taken those issues very seriously and the advice they have given to us quite seriously.

Mrs O'Neill: That answer of the minister may be comforting. We will like to see what it really means. I still think the political will -- the minister himself could have given some authenticity to this by meeting with this group of 9,000.

In Mississauga there are no special-services-at-home dollars for respite care. However, if respite care is required by families in Mississauga, they're offered a one-week minimum stay at Bloorview at a cost of $300 to $600 a day. The more favourable option, the option preferred by families, respite care at home to satisfy the same need, would cost between $10 and $25 a day. What a difference.

I remind the minister that there are many qualified graduates both from colleges and universities who are available to provide these services in these homes.

Minister, in this International Year of the Family, why have you chosen the most expensive option, the most disruptive option, to provide respite care for the functional families that need this support?

Hon Mr Silipo: Once again I can tell the member, as I'm sure she knows, that this was clearly one of the issues the working group discussed and about which they put together some recommendations.

What the member has of course failed to mention is that we have, every year since we've become the government, increased funding to the special services at home in significant proportions relative to what has happened to other areas of our budget. I can tell the member today that when we announce the funding for this program for this year, there will continue to be an increase in the amount of money we will spend this year as opposed to last year. That is in addition to looking at the kinds of inequities that exist throughout the province and looking also at the kinds of areas that are covered under this program in keeping with the kinds of recommendations that have come from the working group.

Far from being unsupportive, we are being very supportive to the degree that our fiscal abilities allow us and, quite frankly, even beyond in this area, because we recognize the importance of a service like this that allows people to be served at home with some assistance for respite and other kinds of help that do allow people with needs to be served in their own communities and in their own homes.

1420

CORPORATION FILING PROGRAM

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Minister, today at the leaders' debate sponsored by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the Premier stated that the corporate filing fee is a responsible user fee concept and that this charge is in line with what it costs to provide the service. We know the corporate filing fees are $50 for for-profit corporations and $25 for non-profit. How much does it in fact cost your ministry to administer this service?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I don't have the figure, but I imagine the member is going to give me that in his supplementary, so I will wait until his supplementary to follow up.

Mr Eves: I would have thought the minister would know the answer to the question, because during the estimates committee hearings of November 3, 1992, her assistant deputy minister, Mr Art Daniels, was asked this exact question. He revealed that the corporate filing fee would generate income to the province of some $10 million a year, that the cost to your ministry to file these fees and send them out was $2 million a year, and that the province of Ontario would net $8 million a year.

How do you justify this with the statement your Premier made this morning, which was that this was a user fee concept, and all you were doing was recouping what it costs you to do this? In fact, that is not the fact. You are scooping eight million bucks a year off the top. Is that not correct?

Hon Ms Churley: I think there is something being left out of the equation here. The member may or may not know that the ministry is in the process --

Mr Eves: Only your lack of knowledge. Your deputy knew this two years ago. Sixty seconds ago you didn't know the answer. Now you know it.

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

Hon Ms Churley: The ministry is in the process of investing substantially in something called OBNIS, which is computerizing all the companies' databases and up-to-date information. That does cost the government and therefore the taxpayers, whom he is so greatly concerned about all the time, money. It seems to make sense to this government and to this minister that as we are in the process of updating and computerizing and modernizing this system so that the public --

Mr Eves: The net profit to the province is eight million bucks a year, no matter how you slice it. That's what it is. Art Daniels said so.

The Speaker: Could the member for Parry Sound please come to order.

Hon Ms Churley: When you realize that this system is searched between 240,000 and 350,000 times a year, we have to make sure, for the public, that the database is up-to-date and computerized. The money should come from the users of the system, and that's what we're doing.

TOURISM

Mrs Karen Haslam (Perth): I mentioned the opening of Stratford and I want to now switch to Stratford the city. We do rely heavily on the cultural festival and the tourism industry in general, so my question is for the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation.

I recently heard some good news about the number of tourists --

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): There are no commercials allowed in here. This is a commercial-free Parliament.

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

Mrs Haslam: It's nice that the member could finally join us here. There are some of us who keep this as a full-time job.

To the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation, naturally I'm interested in tourism, because tourism plays a very important part in my region, particularly in Stratford and particularly around the cultural entities in Stratford.

I'd like to have the minister tell me what she's doing to enhance and take advantage of -- because I do think this is important -- the tourism potential of the Stratford Festival, since it is such a well-known cultural entity in Ontario.

Hon Anne Swarbrick (Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation): Since domestic tourism is tremendously important in Ontario, I would hope the opposition wouldn't mind once in a while joining along with the former Minister of Tourism for that side in helping to promote it.

I was recently pleased to join the member for Perth at tourism night at the Stratford Festival, so I'm certainly delighted to confirm the importance that the Stratford Festival plays to tourism in the Ontario economy. Some of the many things our government has been doing to promote it include supporting many familiarization tours to the Stratford Festival for international tour operators and promoting the Stratford Festival as one of the principal participants at our annual Ontario theatre marketplace. And of course I'm delighted that our government has fully protected the funding of the Ontario Arts Council so that we're able to continue flowing $1.6 million per year to support the Stratford Festival.

Mrs Haslam: I'm in the county of Perth, one town I have is Stratford, one of the largest cultural theatres in Ontario, but I also have a large county area, and I'm very interested in other ways of enhancing tourism in southwestern region.

I'm asking the minister if there is support for tourism -- not just cultural tourism, because I know how you're working in cultural tourism now. But have you also looked at other kinds of tourism in the southwestern region that can build on the successes we have?

Hon Ms Swarbrick: There are a number of aggressive public relations activities my ministry uses to help promote the Stratford and Perth area, including having been successful recently in receiving a very high-profile article in the prestigious American magazine the Atlantic promoting the area.

We've also been delighted as a government to use the Jobs Ontario Community Action program to help promote many tourism projects, including in the Stratford and Perth area the agri-tourism pilot project. We've also been delighted to continue supporting the marketing and administrative grant to the Southwestern Ontario Travel Association to promote the area as one of Ontario's key tourism destinations. We're also delighted each year to give marketing seminars to the visitors bureau there.

In closing, some of the new initiatives have included developing for the first time ever in Ontario the Ontario Tourism Education Council --

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

Hon Ms Swarbrick: -- to train hospitality staff in improving hospitality and service in this province. We're now listed on the World Travel File, including the area of Stratford.

The Speaker: Could the minister please conclude her response.

Hon Ms Swarbrick: We've retained a public relations firm in Germany and Britain to help promote it --

The Speaker: Would the minister please take her seat.

CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION BOARD

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): In true non-partisan fashion, I have abbreviated my question to accommodate that lengthy response.

My question is to the Attorney General. Minister, the just-released annual report of the Ontario Criminal Injuries Compensation Board revealed a backlog of 6,678 cases. This is an addition of almost 1,000 more cases to an already unacceptable backlog, a backlog which forces victims of crime to face lengthy delays with added emotional strain. As the minister responsible, why have you let this happen?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): The member refers to the 1992-93 annual report, which was recently tabled. It is true that in 1992-93 there was a growth in the number of cases that were backlogged, and we responded to that with great concern. We have made some very strong administrative changes. We've added a number of people to the board to change that. In fact, in 1993-94 we increased the number of hearings we had by 33%. We changed many of what used to be oral hearings to documentary hearings so that people did not have to go through the testimony kind of return.

1430

The issue that the member needs to know is that although we began the year of 1993-94, the most recent year, with that backlog that the member talks about of 6,678 files and we received 3,880 new ones -- which, again, was an increase over the previous year -- we managed to complete and close close to 5,000 cases. Therefore, the total active case load at the end of 1993-94 was actually reduced. It's still too high, it's still over 6,000, and that is a real concern to us, but we made a decision that we wanted to put as many of the dollars that were allocated to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board into compensation as possible.

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

Hon Mrs Boyd: We did increase the amount of awards that were there by about $2.7 million and we will continue to work at the backlog as we go along, changing our processes as quickly as we can to deal with the backlog.

Mr Chiarelli: The minister is a walking, talking oxymoron; she says one thing and the facts and her ministry say something totally different. The year-over-year figures show a 15% increase in the number of cases. These are people who have been injured through crime and who are suffering emotionally by these delays. The whole justice system is sinking into a swamp. When you look at the Human Rights Commission and the backlog in the courts and now look at the criminal compensation board, it's getting worse, as all the other areas are, year over year. Clearly, you have failed to do your job as the minister responsible.

Will you please tell those 6,678 victims of crime specifically what you are doing now to expedite their cases?

Hon Mrs Boyd: Mr Speaker, I'm not sure whether I ought to ask you to call the member to order for calling me an oxymoron. I'll leave that to your judgement.

I think that the member was not clear on what I said to him. I told him very clearly that we had reduced the number of total active cases at the end of 1993-94 by 6%, that indeed although our case load increased by 12% during 1993-94, we managed to handle 33% more cases than we did in the year before. We are succeeding in whittling down a very serious problem. It is a problem and no one is trying to claim that it isn't a problem to wait for compensation if you've been injured as a result of a criminal action by someone else.

The member needs to recognize, however, that we have the same problem in this area as we do in many other areas, of ensuring that the technological support is there. It was not there when we came into office and we have made enormous strides in improving the technological support that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board has. We have put a good deal of our resources into administrative streamlining and investigative streamlining. We have tried to streamline the process for the victims and witnesses so that fewer hearings need to be held with those individuals.

We are taking those actions. We are seeing an improvement. We expect to see a great deal more improvement. I would say that we are seeing constant reduction of support from the federal government in this area and yet we have increased our support by almost $3 million to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.

The Speaker: Could the minister please conclude her response.

Hon Mrs Boyd: We believe we are doing the best that we can and we will continue to do so.

EMERGENCY SERVICES

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): My question is for the Minister of Health. Minister, as you should be well aware, 42 small rural hospitals are facing the withdrawal of physician services in their emergency rooms unless a solution is found to this growing crisis. In addition, 14 hospitals in this province have been forced to reduce emergency room coverage, which means that a total of 56 communities in this province are having or will soon have their access to critical emergency care reduced considerably.

Recently the small hospital section of the Ontario Hospital Association passed a motion demanding a resolution to this crisis within 60 days. Minister, the people of Ontario want to see some leadership on this vital and important life-and-death issue. What real guarantees can you give to these threatened communities that you'll be able to resolve this critical matter on or before July 31 of this year?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): As I think I have made clear in the House on many occasions when this issue has been raised, it is an issue of long standing, it is an issue that cannot be resolved by action on any one person's part, whether it be the doctors themselves can't solve it, the hospitals themselves can't solve it, the minister can't solve it. It has to be as a result of discussions among all three who are partners in the provision of this service.

I'm delighted to be able to repeat to the House what I said last week, that the Ontario Medical Association, after having spent some time not being prepared to discuss an alternative payment mechanism that would resolve this issue, has, as of May 25, written to us indicating that it is prepared to enter formal negotiations with the Ministry of Health on this subject. The Ontario Hospital Association, as the member has pointed out, has also urged us to resolve it.

I remain committed to the fact that through those discussions we will resolve it and as quickly as possible.

Mr Jim Wilson: The minister will recall on many occasions over the past three years that you have promised patients, hospital administrators and the associations involved a solution and you've not come forward with any solution on behalf of the government side. You've simply said that there are other partners involved and that you're unable to get to the bottom of this matter and to resolve it.

For the past eight months you've fallen back on the tripartite discussions that have produced nothing but talk and more finger-pointing, and we see more finger-pointing from you today. So I'm going to give you a way to reach a solution and some action that you can take as the government, and that is, would you agree today to appoint an independent arbitrator?

Since the tripartite discussions are on-off, they're going nowhere, would you agree to appoint an independent arbitrator, an arbitrator who's agreeable to the OHA, the OMA and the government, and have that arbitrator sit down and find a solution to this matter? Will you agree to that today, Minister, on behalf of the patients in this province who are not going to have the emergency care they need when they need it? They expect that from your government and from any government, frankly, that's in office in this province.

Hon Mrs Grier: I was interested when the member said he was going to give me a constructive solution. I would welcome that to what has been a difficult problem. But with all due respect to the member, I think the appointment of an arbitrator is not a solution.

In fact, the Ministry of Health has put forward a suggested solution. Our proposed solution is that the funds that now go to those physicians on a fee-for-service basis, which means that they are paid according to the number of patients whom they see, and so when only one or two patients a night are in an emergency room, it doesn't generate enough money to make it worth the doctor's while to be there -- our suggestion and solution is that instead of paying doctors based on the volume of people whom they see, we revert to an alternative payment plan which enables them to be paid according to the time they are on duty, according to the volume of services over a year that they provide and that we use the OHIP funds that are currently going to those doctors and redistribute them in a way that makes it worth their while to see their patients both at 3 in the morning and at 3 in the afternoon, which I believe is their responsibility. We want to find a way to pay them in a way that enables them to continue to live up to those responsibilities.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): Under the category of "here we go again," my question is to the Minister of Environment and Energy. I have read with some horror articles in the paper, especially the one where the survey of the Ontario Waste Management Association was published. The reason I'm horrified is because they suggest there is no garbage crisis. I'm not horrified that there's no garbage crisis because we know that Metro will turn a garbage crisis on and off at its whim, but why I am horrified is that these private haulers can suggest that every landfill site in the province of Ontario become a potential site for Metro's garbage.

1440

My question to the minister is this: Does he believe that the people of Hamilton, of Halton, of Flamborough, of Clarington or any other place, for that matter, will openly and gratefully be recipients of Metro's garbage? After all, what they are --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): You are.

Mr Wiseman: We are? When you were sitting on Metro council, you apologists of Metro garbage coming to Pickering --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Would the member for Durham West --

Interjections.

Mr Wiseman: -- you did nothing. You hid behind papers. You did nothing.

The Speaker: Will the member please take his seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the member complete his question to the minister.

Mr Wiseman: I will do that, Mr Speaker, if the banshees across will just be quiet.

I would start again in the sense that what we're talking about --

The Speaker: I asked the member if he would complete his question.

Mr Wiseman: How can we be sure that the private sectors will be held accountable, especially when we know that in Pickering, Metro cannot be held accountable? Metro has violated their certificates of approval and have not shown a good custodial nature. I would like to know how we can expect the private haulers to do better when Metro is not even accountable.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): I know the member's interest in this matter and I must say that the announcement by the Ontario Waste Management Association was surprising and disappointing in that of the sites that it counted in its so-called survey, it's our understanding over 60% of that capacity haven't received any kind of approval.

It really would be rather risky and, frankly, absurd for us to just assume that all of these sites could be approved and available for greater Toronto area garbage. It just would be unacceptable. Specifically in regard to the member's question about other communities, I heard a quote yesterday on the radio by Mayor Don Granger of Flamborough in which he stated emphatically that his community does not want greater Toronto area waste and doesn't want to share the landfill the town uses with Metro either. There's no reason to believe that other communities would accept this waste, and it's quite an assumption, particularly when most of the sites that were counted in the so-called survey are not approved.

Mr Wiseman: It's rather difficult to explain in this place how difficult it is for the residents of Ajax and Pickering to be constantly under the threat of Metro's garbage. I often speak of the three Brocks: Brock north, Brock south and Brock west. What I'm concerned about now is that Metro continues to have grotesque garbage plans for the communities in my riding. As a matter of fact, I have come across information that reveals that Metro is currently negotiating for access rail lines in Ajax at the Pickering-Ajax border. This is the document; this is the map.

Will the minister confirm for me once again that this government will not be relaxing the restrictions on interregional transportation of waste, and that the section of Bill 143 that offers the people of my riding assurances that Metro's garbage will not be coming to Durham or to Ajax and Pickering will be kept up?

Hon Mr Wildman: I can assure the member that Bill 143 remains the law, and it will remain the law as long as this government has a say in how we will deal with greater Toronto area garbage. It's important to recognize that this government is committed to ensuring that there are environmentally sound methods of dealing with landfill questions as close to the source of the waste as possible and in the greater Toronto area.

We believe that it is the responsibility of the areas close to where the waste is produced to deal with the waste, and we're also committed to ensuring the 3Rs will divert as much waste as possible from landfill.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): Before I ask my question, I'd just like to acknowledge the presence of the grade 8 students from St Josephs school in Dryden. I know they'll be interested in this question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

It has to do with the unacceptable price of gasoline in northern Ontario. This is an issue that must be dealt with immediately, because I have been receiving many calls and letters from a good number of constituents, especially in the Dryden-Kenora area.

Madam Minister, on January 30, 1991, your colleague the Minister of Northern Development and Mines was quoted in the Northern Life magazine as saying the following: "The provincial government is examining five or six options to regulate the price of gas in northern Ontario." That's "examining five or six options to regulate the price of gas in northern Ontario."

Minister, could you tell the House and, more importantly, the residents of Dryden why they are paying 20 cents -- that's 20 cents per litre -- more for gas than residents in southern Ontario? I must ask you, Minister, if you feel that 60.9 cents per litre for gas, which the residents of Dryden had to pay yesterday, is acceptable, and if not, what are you doing about it?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I'm very concerned about the matter which the member brought up, but I think it's better answered by the Minister of Environment and Energy.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): The member has put forward this issue very well, and as he knows, the government is concerned about the high cost of gasoline in northern Ontario.

We have moved to try to alleviate some of the burden by eliminating the vehicle registration fees for northern Ontario in order to try to offset the impact of higher gasoline prices. But as the member will know, the current market is such that where you have a smaller number of retail outlets with lower volumes of sales, the market allows for higher prices. Unfortunately those of us in northern Ontario who drive longer distances and experience colder weather through most of the year end up paying a substantially higher amount for gasoline. That's why this government has attempted to alleviate the problems somewhat by forgiving the registration fees.

Mr Miclash: That's not what you said when you were in opposition when the issue of the price of gas was raised and you were asking for equalization. In fact, some of the campaign literature from the 1990 election stated very clearly that gas prices must be equalized across the province. Minister, you will recognize that quote as being one that was in the campaign literature of the Minister of Northern Development and Mines.

This is a commitment that your party had made and a commitment that all of you were elected on. Clearly you and your government are long overdue in living up to this promise to address these inequities in gas prices between northern and southern Ontario.

Mr Minister, the people whom I represent, in places like Dryden, Red Lake, Sioux Lookout, Kenora, Ear Falls and many other communities across northern Ontario, are demanding action from you and your government at this time.

Let me also refer to what your colleague the Minister of Transportation, yet another minister from the north, the minister representing Lake Nipigon, stated in the March 11, 1991, edition of the Sudbury Star:

"Above all, what I would like to see is the assurance that I, as a northerner, am being treated fairly in terms of gas prices. What I want as a consumer and for the people I represent is that I get a fair shake for my hard-earned dollar."

Mr Minister, do you feel that northerners are being treated fairly and getting a fair shake for their hard-earned dollars in terms of gas prices?

Hon Mr Wildman: In terms of the retail cost, I must say I have a great deal of sympathy with what the member is saying.

As a matter of fact, my ministry carried out a study of the effects of the lowering of crude oil prices on gasoline retail prices across the province. We found that the retail price for gasoline in southern Ontario declined far more quickly than it did in northern Ontario, and in some small communities in the north, it did not decline at all.

So that indication is that the prices are indeed higher and that my colleague, in wishing that the consumers in the north were treated more fairly, was expressing a concern that all of us have in northern Ontario. It's again for that reason that we've forgiven the registration fee.

PETITIONS

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I'm tabling this petition on behalf of a constituent. It says:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the proposed Bill 167 would grant same-sex couples the same status as heterosexual couples;

"Whereas we believe that a family with parents of opposite sex is in the best interests of the child;

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

"To reject the proposed Bill 167."

This is signed by constituents from Oriole riding.

1450HEALTH INSURANCE

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition of 32 signatures from my riding of Dufferin-Peel. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the provincial government has slashed health coverage by 75% for Ontario citizens who are hospitalized out of the country; and

"Whereas this will mainly affect the seniors who travel south in the winter for health reasons; and

"Whereas this is an indisputable violation of sections 7 and 11 of the Canada Health Act; and

"Whereas Mike Harris of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party makes preservation of medicare a priority in his Common Sense Revolution policy document;

"We, the undersigned, petition the government of Ontario to act in a fair manner by preserving the sacred principles of medicare and restore the out-of-country hospitalization coverage to the rates charged by hospitals in Ontario."

I have signed this petition.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

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

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

"Whereas Canada was founded on Judaeo-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 people from St Thomas, London, Middlesex, Oxford, Woodstock, Tillsonburg and other areas.

Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I have a petition here from a number of people in my riding of Muskoka-Georgian Bay and also from a number of people in the riding of Parry Sound. The petition reads:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has seen fit to introduce legislation concerning same-sex spousal benefits, which is a matter of extending equal rights to a minority in our province;

"Be it resolved that we, the undersigned, support the Equality Rights Statute Law Amendment Act, Bill 167."

Mr Jean Poirier (Prescott and Russell): I have four petitions consisting of 53 names against and 499 names for various aspects of same-sex legislation, and I've put my signature on these four petitions.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly. It was signed by many people from Owen Sound and the Owen Sound area. It's to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas in our opinion a majority of Ontarians believe that the privileges which society accords to married heterosexual couples could 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 for couples in Ontario."

MOTORCYCLE AND SNOWMOBILE INSURANCE

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

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

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

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

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

There are about 34 signatures, mostly from my riding.

TOBACCO PACKAGING

Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): I have a combined petition here from the Council for a Tobacco-Free Hastings and Prince Edward, located in the city of Belleville, and the Lung Association of the Hastings-Prince Edward region, in support of plain packaging of tobacco products. It reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"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."

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I have a petition dealing with Bill 167, dealing with rights extended to same-sex relationships. The people who have signed it believe such relationships are morally wrong and they are concerned about the legal right to adopt. They also ask us not to pass this legislation because they do not believe it to be correct. I have signed my name to this petition.

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): I have a number of petitions to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. The petitions are signed by 1,335 constituents of my riding of Sarnia and the neighbouring riding of Lambton county. The petitioners oppose amendments to the Human Rights Code that are contained in Bill 167, the Equality Rights Statute Law Amendment Act, 1994.

I do not support these petitions, but to comply with our standing orders I have affixed my name to the petitions.

SPECIAL SERVICES AT HOME PROGRAM

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"In the International Year of the Family, we, the undersigned, call upon the Minister of Community and Social Services to support and strengthen families in Ontario by significantly increasing the funding allocation to the special services at home program.

"This most cost-effective program provides essential supports to children and adults with disabilities so that they can remain with their families in their communities."

This petition is signed by over 1,600 people, and I too have affixed my signature.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Chris Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): I have a petition signed by over 150 people from my riding.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas the term 'sexual orientation' is vague and undefined, leaving the door open to the demands of 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:

1500

TOBACCO PACKAGING

Mrs Karen Haslam (Perth): This is 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 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:

I've affixed my signature to this petition.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas we, as God-fearing people, are opposed to the victimization of persons on the grounds of sexual orientation; and

"Whereas we, however, believe that attempts to establish and/or promote homosexual relationships as viable alternatives to heterosexual-based family do not conform to God's will for society; and

"Whereas Canadian law as established by the Ontario Court of Appeal prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to enact legislation to prohibit homosexual persons from adopting or raising children."

I signed the petition also.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have two petitions but they're the same wording. One's from Jay's Barber Shop in Brockville, the other's from St Francis Xavier Church in Brockville. There were several hundred names, over 500 names compiled over the weekend.

"Whereas the Ontario NDP government has introduced Bill 167 granting significant benefits to same-sex couples, including the right to adoption;

"Whereas Bill 167 has passed first reading in the Legislature with support of NDP and Liberal members;

"Whereas we are strongly opposed to this initiative and believe it is an inappropriate measure designed to undermine the traditional family;

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

"Please convey the wishes and feelings of the overwhelming majority of Ontarians: Do not give in to special interests, defeat Bill 167."

I'm signing my name in support.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario from the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, which petitions the Legislative Assembly as follows:

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

This petition has about 420 signatures.

HEALTH INSURANCE

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I have a petition that's signed by several hundred people, ranging in age from 18 to 80, who adamantly want to express their views to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. The petition reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

I heartily concur with this petition and have affixed my signature to it.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): "Whereas Bill 167 will change the definition of 'marriage' and allow homosexual couples to adopt children; and

"Whereas it does not reflect the mainstream priorities of the people of Ontario or the priorities that the Ontario government should be dealing with; and

"Whereas this bill passed first reading with NDP and Liberal support; and

"Whereas Lyn McLeod has stated a future Liberal government will move to enact this legislation; and

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

"Whereas this bill caters solely to the demands of local special-interest groups; and

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

"We, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to withdraw the same-sex bill and encourage all MPPs to vote against the bill on second and third readings."

I've affixed my signature to that as well.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Ms Haeck from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the committee's report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr106, An Act respecting the County of Victoria

Bill Pr111, An Act to revive Oaktown Property Management Limited

Bill Pr112, An Act respecting the Town of Picton.

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill Pr98, An Act respecting the City of Ottawa.

Your committee recommends that the following bill be not reported:

Bill Pr97, An Act respecting the City of Ottawa.

Your committee further recommends that the following bill be not reported, it having been withdrawn at the request of the applicant:

Bill Pr62, An Act respecting the City of Stoney Creek.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mr McLean from the standing committee on government agencies presented the committee's 22nd report and moved its adoption.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Do you wish to make a brief statement, Mr McLean? No.

Pursuant to standing order 106(g)11, the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Mr Mackenzie moved government notice of motion number 30:

That, pursuant to standing order 46 and notwithstanding any other standing order of the House relating to Bill 91, An Act respecting Labour Relations in the Agriculture Industry, when Bill 91 is next called as a government order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill without further debate or amendment.

That one hour be allotted to consideration of the bill in committee of the whole House. At the end of that time, those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved and the Chair of the committee of the whole House shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto and report the bill to the House. Any divisions required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put, the members called in once and all deferred divisions taken in succession. All amendments proposed to the bill shall be filed with the Clerk of the assembly by 3:30 pm on the sessional day on which the bill is considered in committee of the whole House.

That upon receiving the report of the committee of the whole House, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith, which question shall be decided without debate or amendment.

That one hour be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill. At the end of that time, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment.

That in the case of any division relating to any proceedings on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to five minutes and no deferral of any division pursuant to standing order 28(g) shall be permitted.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Are there any members who wish to participate in this debate?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I understand that there is an agreement that there will be a two- or three-minute opening statement and a 10-minute windup for our party, and the remaining time will be divided between the two opposition parties.

1510

It is time to move ahead with this legislation, based on the consensus of farm and labour groups we have built over a lengthy period of debate and consultations. This bill has been considered in this House for almost a year, giving every member ample time to debate all the issues involved.

Let me remind the honourable members of the extensive public consultation process we have followed. I established a task force in January 1992, with representatives from labour unions, agricultural employers and farm workers. In the fall of 1992, that task force submitted a consensus report recommending a separate act to provide for collective bargaining in the agricultural sector. The recommendations included a number of provisions to take account of the unique characteristics of this industry. Bill 91 was drafted to reflect these recommendations.

In January 1994, I established an advisory committee to provide advice on labour relations in the agricultural sector. Labour unions in the agricultural industry were equally represented. This committee submitted a consensus report in April, recommending a series of amendments to Bill 91. In May, this government released draft amendments incorporating all of these recommendations.

The members of the advisory committee have reviewed these amendments and have advised me that Bill 91, amended in this way, would meet all the concerns raised in the consultation process. I would remind my colleagues that on the agricultural side in particular, the members of the committee have a mandate to speak for the Labour Issues Coordinating Committee, which represents the majority of agricultural organizations in Ontario. No one can say this bill has not been fully debated both inside and outside the House.

It is time to bring Ontario in line with the majority of provinces in this country by extending the rights to organize to farm workers which exist in the other provinces.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any questions? Are there any comments? If not, further debate?

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): Once again, Bob Rae's NDP government is moving a time allocation motion, just as they have done on numerous occasions, just as they did last June. Ever since the Bob Rae NDP government changed the rules that govern this House back in June 1992, the NDP has been quick to use them whenever a controversial bill comes forward and it wants to shut the public out from participating.

Certainly, along with my colleagues, I voted against these rule changes, as did, as I said, all of my colleagues in the Liberal caucus, for we knew that the NDP government would use them to shut out the public and any further debate in the Legislature. I am sure that by now all the members of the Progressive Conservative Party, who voted for these changes in rules and who supported the NDP government in its efforts to shut out the public, can realize the big mistake they made.

Perhaps, though, when it comes to a time allocation motion that deals with a major bill in the agrifood industry -- well, they don't care, for we all know that the word "agriculture" was not even used in the Progressive Conservative Party's platform, that Common Sense Revolution. In fact, a closer scrutiny of the Progressive Conservative document would indicate that they intend to cut agriculture by about 40%.

But this particular motion is the most draconian of all. The NDP government is trying to sneak this agricultural labour bill through, a bill that will have significant impact on the family farm and rural communities when the farmers are out there cultivating their fields, trying to eke out a living.

Interjections.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): You guys are about farming. They don't like it being rammed down their throats either.

Mrs Fawcett: To hear the members opposite talk, the government members, you would think we had been debating this bill every day for a year, and that's not true. You know that. How many actual days of debate have there been on Bill 91? Not 365 days, as you would say.

Mr Murdoch: Let's ram something down some labour throats.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: If you want to interject, I suggest you do so from your chair. The member for Grey-Owen Sound, I would also ask you to remain quiet.

Mrs Fawcett: This just further displays the NDP's lack of knowledge or understanding of the agrifood industry. If they truly understood agriculture, they would get rid of this bill and restore the agricultural exemption under the Ontario Labour Relations Act. They would know that farmers have to plant when the sun is shining because of the seasonality of the industry. They have to harvest when the crop is ready. They can't wait or even stand any kind of slowdown. They cannot keep regular, ordinary hours that possibly industry plants can keep, one of the very reasons -- all of these are reasons -- that we in the Liberal Party oppose this bill.

How can the NDP justify bringing in a major piece of legislation that will dramatically affect labour relations in the agriculture community and not even give farmers the chance to voice their concerns at public hearings? Bob Rae's NDP government has put such severe limitations on this bill that there will be no -- that's right -- no public hearings on this bill. I would have thought that this government, which purports to be an icon of public consultation and consensus-building, would at the very least send this bill to the standing committee on resources development for, at the very least, two weeks of hearings.

Right now, I don't see that the resources committee has a bill coming before it. We certainly have the time to have the public come in so that this government could listen to all the farmers who would be available to come in and give us their views. I know there currently is no government business on this committee's agenda. All the government has to do is really look at the agenda and see that the time is there to do it.

If the government wanted to push this bill through before the House rises, we would have time to hear the farmers' views on Bill 91 at committee. We could actually go out and hear what the farmers had to say about this bill, much as my leader, Lyn McLeod, did, and my colleague and co-critic and I continue to do.

Under these rules the farmers will not be heard. Now, instead of the House leaders mutually agreeing on how long a bill will be debated, the Minister of Labour comes in and says: "Shut off the debate. No public hearings. Just push this through as fast as you can. I don't want to take any more heat from the farmers before we go to the polls."

I would suggest that you have taken a great deal of heat already from the farm community. Ever since the Liberal Party brought this issue to the forefront, when we used the first opposition day to debate this bill, the NDP government has invoked the wrath of rural communities.

Yes, the Liberal Party was the leader in this agricultural debate and we continue to be the only viable alternative for the agricultural community. We have no apologies for our 52% increase in funding over the five years we were in government. Surely you must be ashamed of the NDP's $100-million cut to the agricultural budget in the three years. Of course, the Tories are going to practically eliminate the ministry with their reductions.

1520

Even when Bob Rae's government brought in Bill 42, the stable funding bill, there were at least some public hearings, and with almost every other bill that has been time-allocated, we have had public hearings. The NDP government has left the agricultural community without an exemption for almost two years and now won't even give two weeks of public hearings to this major agricultural bill.

What are you afraid of? What are you afraid you're going to hear? If you think you will avoid the farmers' wrath by doing this, you're wrong, you're absolutely wrong. Rural communities right across this province will vote with a resounding no to Bob Rae and his NDP government when we go to the polls. Rural members of the NDP caucus had better enjoy their last few days here, for none of them will be returned, not one. You can't shove this type of legislation down farmers' throats and expect them to support it, especially when you won't even give them a chance to comment on it at public hearings.

We in the Legislature have had an opportunity to debate this major piece of legislation that has significant ramifications for the agricultural community. The debate that we have had has allowed the public at large, and certainly those involved in the agrifood industry, an opportunity to canvass this issue, to become better informed of the numerous restrictions and ramifications this bill will impose on them. Now that farmers have had that opportunity to hear, they want a chance for their say on this issue. They want to tell the NDP government that the family farm does not need to be unionized. They want to tell you that not one of them supports this bill.

You've had your say. I've had mine. Now why can't you let the farmers have their say?

Every time the Minister of Labour is asked about Bill 91, he tries to confuse the issue by saying it's had wide consultation. He always refers to these two reports: the Task Force on Agricultural Labour Relations. It was June 1992 when the first report came out, and then in November 1992 there was another report. But he doesn't seem to have listened to any of those. I can't understand why he would keep referring to this wide consultation. I wonder if he even read it. Did he even read the reports? Did he really listen? He keeps saying there were farmers on the task force. Obviously he completely ignored them, because I know that when the bill came forward, everybody wondered, "Just where did all this come from?"

I don't know whether the minister would ever get a chance to pick up any of the farm and country newspapers, but it's rather interesting, and I would like to quote from an editorial in Farm and Country by John Muggeridge:

"Despite two carefully worded task force reports, when Bill 91 was introduced for the first reading, the farmers on the committee hardly recognized it."

What does that say? Obviously, nobody paid attention in the Ministry of Labour.

"The no-strike provision was there, but not enforced. The bill was merely an appendage to the Labour Relations Act. Absent was any definition of 'agriculture' or provision for an agricultural labour relations board. Family members were exempt, but 'family' refers only to the immediate family, with a minimum 50% share in the business.

"When the farmers went public with their concerns about the flawed Bill 91, top agricultural ministry bureaucrats reportedly blew a collective fuse. Labour minister Bob Mackenzie was 'somewhat surprised.' Agriculture minister Elmer Buchanan said, 'Things seems to be getting stirred up unnecessarily.' In any event, with Bill 91, there was obviously a slip 'twixt the cup and the lip.

"Let's hope everyone got the message. With the mood farm employers are in, if some of our political leaders were up for re-election today, Australia would be too close."

This is what the farmers really felt about Bill 91. To me, it says it all here, that the Labour minister was "somewhat surprised." Even in the questions that were asked of the minister today, he admits that he doesn't know very much about agriculture, that he has to count on people in the field who do know about it to at least try to explain what the problems are with this Bill 91.

Yet when they do, he doesn't pay any attention, he doesn't care, which only says to me that his agenda is all-important, that his labour agenda is the only thing that's on his mind. He doesn't know and he doesn't realize that farmers treat their workers absolutely with care and really with --

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It's a pretty important issue and I think we should have a quorum in this House.

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

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

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

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

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Northumberland.

Mrs Fawcett: This is a very important debate. This is a debate on a closure motion, really, on restricting debate in this House, on restricting the opportunity for the public to have their say on a very important piece of legislation that will affect the family farm and farmers right across this province, and the government members know very well that it is up to them to keep the quorum in this House. It is up to them to pay attention.

I, of course, have always felt that the present government does not understand the farming community, and in many instances it doesn't seem to really care what happens. They know that the farmers --

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): We've done more for agriculture in six months than you did in five years.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Huget: Why don't you go out there for a while? These are programs we put in because you didn't have the courage or the brains to put them in.

The Deputy Speaker: I'm asking you to come to order, and if you don't, I'll use the means to bring you to order.

1530

Mrs Fawcett: I really seem to be pushing a few buttons over there that make them feel a little sad that over the last three years of this government $100 million has been cut from the Agriculture ministry. That's how much they care about agriculture.

The really good programs we started, like the Ontario Farm-Start program, like land stewardship, a lot of the good farm programs that addressed and helped farmers to get along were axed because this government cannot balance its budget. They are so concerned with the deficit that it would seem that even the farmers are going to have to carry the burden on their backs.

But getting back to this minister and his intent to bring in labour legislation for the farm community, he purports that he has all these wonderful amendments he's going to bring forward, and we're supposed to take this giant leap of faith and say once again, "If we say yes to this second reading debate, they're going to bring in all these wonderful amendments and everything is going to be happy out there."

Minister, I can tell you, amendments or not, the farmers out there don't want your bill. There is not one of them I have spoken to or that my colleague from Cornwall has spoken to who wants this bill. Farmers keep asking me: "Who brought this piece of legislation forward and why? Who asked for it?" I guess one name that comes to mind is Gord Wilson, and another one that comes to mind is Bob Mackenzie, because certainly the farm community out there doesn't see any need for this.

As I was saying before, when we decided that possibly there wasn't a quorum in the House, the farmers must have good workers because their livelihood depends on it. They don't treat their workers shabbily. They have to treat their workers fairly; otherwise they don't get the job done. I really take exception when the minister thinks he has to bring in legislation like Bill 91 so that he can look good in the labour community and it doesn't matter about the farm community.

I will say in no uncertain terms that our party is against Bill 91. We are against this kind of closure motion, this kind of action to cut off debate, to cut off any kind of public consultation, all aimed at satisfying his ego.

In closing, I would say it's really hard to realize why we are all of a sudden debating this issue even today. Where did it come from even to be brought in today? Why the rush? Why can't we at least prolong it and have some public consultation? Why all of a sudden does everything have to be done in such a short period of time?

The Liberals have said right along: Get rid of this bill. We don't need it. Restore the agricultural exemption under the Ontario Labour Relations Act and agriculture can be allowed to go on the way it has for all of these years and do very well.

The minister has not, in answering any questions that have been asked of him in the House on this bill, ever given a straight answer, ever given an answer to the question. The only thing he can get up and say is, "Oh, after consultation, we've listened to the people."

Well, if this is the way you listen, that when people give you reports you don't even follow them at all, and then they have to bring in 11 recommendations for you to address once again, and now we're expected to take the leap of faith that you really will do that, I say no, I don't trust you. I don't trust you and I don't trust your government to do these things.

I say the only thing you could do would be to withdraw this bill and put the agricultural exemption back into the Ontario Labour Relations Act.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions or comments?

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): Just a comment to the member's remarks with respect to the Progressive Conservative Party on the Common Sense Revolution. She seems to take great delight periodically on this issue in attacking our party in terms of lack of interest with respect to agriculture. Our party has always put great importance on agriculture, and she knows that.

If she reads the Common Sense Revolution, which I doubt very much that she has, I'd refer her to page 19 of the document which refers specifically to the amount of cuts we will be putting. We say we would put $5.53 billion in cuts, specific proposals, on the table. That is all documented in the Common Sense Revolution -- which she has not read, obviously -- and agriculture is not part of those calculations.

I invite her to read this document. The Progressive Conservative Party continues to support agriculture. In fact, I question whether the Liberal Party does.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): To reinforce the point that was just made, I do not object to members opposite or members in the Liberal Party speaking to issues of the agricultural community and the Conservative Party's position on those with respect to the Common Sense Revolution.

But to be fair, in the Common Sense Revolution we have outlined a significant number of reductions, a significant number of cuts. We've taken a lot of heat from groups that are being reduced on the amounts of money we're asking for from within each sector. We're talking about 13,000 public servants, we're talking about social welfare cost reductions and so on. But the good point I'd like to make about this document is that we talk about the more than $5 billion in cuts we're going to make and then we itemize those cuts specifically within the document. If the member were truly being fair, she'd realize that and would say that agriculture is one sector that was not cut.

You can say there are many that were cut, and I accept those challenges from the members opposite and the Liberal Party; there are many cuts in here, many direct, actual, documented reductions. But to start charging us and this document with further cuts that are not mentioned over and above the $5.3 billion is not being fair or reasonable when someone puts out a document that itemizes cuts.

If the member believes a 40% reduction in cuts in the agricultural community is included in this document, I ask her directly to point to them. Tell us where that 40% is, and tell us, of the $5.3 billion we're calling for in reductions, exactly one dollar we've called for in agriculture cuts. If she cannot do that, I ask her to withdraw that comment.

1540

Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): I've listened to some of the debate. I've been busy with agricultural stuff, but I've enjoyed the debate.

Today we're talking about Bill 91, a labour bill. The Liberals are making statements that the Tories are making cuts. All I can go by is what I see on TV, and this certain Mike somebody says, "We're cutting everything except health," and I think that is true. I guess he's picking up numbers. The fact is, that needs to be stated.

The issue around the labour bill has been that we as a government, the Minister of Labour, talked to farmers, consulted with farmers, set up a committee. That committee, along with union representatives, sat down and talked as frankly as farmers -- if anyone knows anything about farmers -- will. Over the last year and a half the minister kept his word. The Premier was asked at the annual meeting when the farmers get together with the Premier to talk about issues, and it clearly came out, "Are you going to really follow what that group's going to do?" and the Premier said yes.

I can understand why the farmers have been concerned over the years. I lobbied very hard as a federation member and as a Huron county federation person, and yes, I understood that Liberal and Tory governments would say one thing and then later on it was, "We had to make changes; you just have to trust us." I understood that and that's what we told the minister. We told the Premier and Elmer Buchanan, who understood it, and many caucus members understood it.

After long and open debate, the farm community came to a consensus. That is what this is all about, and I'm proud of the work that's been done by the minister.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I want to comment briefly on the remarks of the previous member with regard to the revolution that's on in Ontario. I heard very clearly the comments she made, at one time that 40% cuts were taking place, and then she said they were cutting the whole ministry out. Well, as my colleagues have said, I would like you to show us that in the document. My leader has said very clearly that there will be no cuts in agriculture. I don't know how much clearer you can get than that.

Yes, we have read the NDP Agenda for People that was put out on March 19, 1990. The member was talking about the two previous administrations. I think he should reaffirm his position with regard to agriculture in the Agenda for People and show us what you have done.

I say to the member for Northumberland, with regard to the comments on Bill 91, that she is so right in many issues she talks about: Who, and what farmer, has agreed that this bill is right? What farmer?

You would not name one today who agrees. The parliamentary assistant has said there are so many people who agree; that they have travelled the province and have gone across this province. The parliamentary assistant is a farmer himself, and I guess he's about the only one who would probably want to agree with it.

Mr Klopp: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr McLean: You see, he's now got the message, and he's gotten a little upset.

The Deputy Speaker: Your point of order, the member for Huron.

Mr Klopp: Mr Speaker, he said he doesn't know of any farmers who agree with this bill. I'm a farmer and I agree with this bill.

Mr McLean: That's why we're having problems in this Legislature with this government: They just don't listen and they never did listen to the people on this bill.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Northumberland, you have two minutes to reply.

Mrs Fawcett: With the Common Sense Revolution, basic math would indicate -- they're not going to touch health, they're not going to touch education, they're not going to touch justice, and that takes up about 65% of the provincial budget, so that means the $5.3 billion in cuts must come from all of the other ministries. I did not hear agriculture mentioned.

Mr Tilson: Read the document. The document is very specific about what the cuts are.

Mrs Fawcett: Well, yes, I guess if you read between the lines, but I don't.

Mr Stockwell: You don't read it. Admit it.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Dufferin-Peel, the member for Etobicoke West, you both had your chance.

Mr Cleary: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think we should have a quorum.

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

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

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

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

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Northumberland.

Mrs Fawcett: To the member for Huron, I wonder how he has the nerve to stand up and say he is a farmer and that he is in favour of this legislation which farmers right across this province are not in favour of. They don't need it, they don't want it. They keep asking, "Who wants it?" If the member for Huron is the only farmer in Ontario who wants it, I don't think that's sufficient enough reason to put forward the legislation.

Mr Tilson: The subject today, of course, is the closure motion with respect to Bill 91, which I must say the members of the Progressive Conservative Party find rather strange. We've had two speakers debate in this House, and to restrict us in this party to one hour for committee of the whole, at which time you're going to put forth I don't know how many pages of amendments, which I don't know whether we've seen yet, and one hour with respect to third reading, is incomprehensible.

The government, particularly the Minister of Labour, has indicated that he's not afraid to discuss this further, that he has consulted. I can tell you he hasn't consulted, because there are many farmers, certainly in my riding of Dufferin-Peel, who don't understand what you're doing. They don't understand the purpose.

At least one member in the NDP caucus has told us he's a farmer and that he's in favour of the legislation. I suspect he's been told to say he's in favour of the legislation.

Mr Klopp: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The honourable member should know that when it comes to the agricultural issues, I am not told to do anything. We discuss things and we communicate and we make decisions --

The Deputy Speaker: It's not a point of order.

Mr Tilson: I guess we're getting back to the question as to why this motion is being put forward. Our leader --

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: The guy comes to our bench and heckles.

Mr Tilson: I'm getting heckled from about five feet away, for heaven's sake.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Dufferin-Peel, address the Chair, please.

Mr Tilson: Mr Speaker, I'm being heckled by a member five feet away. I'd like at least the courtesy of the space between myself and the government.

Our leader of the Progressive Conservative Party raised a very good question today, which the Minister of Labour simply did not answer: to name one farmer, other than someone in his caucus, who supports this legislation. I don't think there are any.

I know he's had discussions with people in the OFA, for example. The OFA, no question, did have some part in the drafting of the legislation, because otherwise --

Interjection.

Mr Tilson: I'm simply telling you what members of the OFA have told me. We were told that your government, Mr Minister, would simply pass an order in council that would add agricultural workers under Bill 40. That was the threat given to the members of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and that's why they had to do what you told them to do. In other words, you put a gun to their heads.

Here we are, on this day, debating a closure motion that's going to allow only two more hours of debate, and part of that two hours is going to be seeing amendments that we have no time to debate. We're not even going to go to committee.

This province of Ontario has been based on agriculture in the past, and it still plays an important role in our life around this province. The farmers want to discuss it. The farmers want the right to come to public hearings around this province and debate and express their concerns about what you're doing to agriculture in this province and specifically with respect to this bill.

They don't want it. I have not heard one individual in my riding of Dufferin-Peel, either in the town of Caledon or the county of Dufferin, indicate that they support this bill. In fact, quite the contrary: They all oppose it.

1550

So the process of this has simply been that there's been a threat put by the government that if the Ontario Federation of Agriculture didn't participate in this bill, the NDP would simply pass an order in council that would add agricultural workers to Bill 40.

We in the Progressive Conservative Party have promised to repeal Bill 40 when you people are thrown out of office, which I hope will be very soon. I can tell you that we have promised to repeal this bill. It adds nothing to the progress of agriculture in this province.

The farming organizations in Ontario have simply told us, Mr Minister, that Bill 91 doesn't live up to their agreement with the government. You know that. They are most concerned and want the right to have public hearings to appear before a committee of this Legislature to express their concerns. You, with this motion, are simply not going to give that to them.

I guess initially I intend to spend part of my time expressing our concerns with Bill 91. I can tell you that we would like more time and it appears that we're not going to get that time. When I say "we," the members of the opposition and the people in the agricultural community simply are not going to have that right, and that is regrettable, but seems to become more and more common with the practice of the New Democratic Party as to how they intend to govern in this province. Almost every piece of legislation that they put in this place is passed under closure. They simply shut down debate and they don't allow the people of this province to come forward and put forward their views.

Bill 91 allows the Ontario farm to essentially become a union shop. That is no question. I understand that there are four unions, including the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, that are already salivating at organizing unions in the farm community around this province. I can tell you that that is of concern to many of the farm organizations and many of the small farmers, the small people who are trying to stay alive in this province, and specifically in the agricultural community. They simply don't like what you're doing and it's just another nail in your coffin and you'll never surface ever again.

Ontario farm employers, Mr Minister, as I'm sure you're aware, spent approximately $668 million last year on labour, some unskilled and some requiring skill to operate everything from automated greenhouses to dairy barns and combines. So it still plays a very active part in the economy of this province, and yet looking at what you have done in your budgets -- and I don't mean you, Mr Minister, but I certainly refer to the Treasurer, your government -- it doesn't show your support of the agricultural community.

There were two task force reports, and my understanding, from speaking to people who were on the task force, is that when Bill 91 was introduced for first reading, the farmers on the task force hardly could believe what was being put forward. It wasn't in the agreement. That's what they're saying to us, that what you said you would do and what you have done are not the same thing. So I can tell you, your coming to this place and suggesting that the farm organizations support what you're doing is simply not what the farm organizations are repeating.

The no-strike provision certainly was there, but was not enforced. The bill is, from submissions that have been made to me by members of the farm organizations, merely an appendage to the Labour Relations Act. I wonder, what in the world are you, the Minister of Labour, doing standing up and telling farmers what to do in this province? What do you know?

You may tell me you're a gentleman farmer, but I'm telling you, your expertise supposedly, and hearing your history and your biography in the past -- you have had a great deal of experience in the labour movement, no doubt about that, and many people congratulate you for that, but you have had absolutely no experience in the agricultural community, and you have no business, as Minister of Labour, coming forth and passing this type of legislation and imposing it on the agricultural community of this province. At the very least, it should be something that should be being presented by the Minister of Agriculture. I don't know; he hasn't said very much on this. It's all you, as the Minister of Labour.

It's all very strange as to how this comes about. Is it really the suggestions that are being made, that it's the union leaders who have come to you and manipulated this whole process for the whole idea of increasing unionism in this province? Farm agricultural people say, "My goodness, now they're going to unionize the family farm." How far will you go? Are you going to unionize everything? I hope not.

"Absent from the bill was any definition of 'agriculture' or provision for an agricultural labour relations board. Family members were exempt, but 'family' only refers to the immediate family, with a minimum 50% share in the business."

I haven't seen your amendments. I don't know whether you're going to deal with these types of things, but that's a concern that has been put forward by the agricultural community and simply has not been expressed.

The farmers in this province have had a difficult time, going back many years. It's becoming more and more difficult to compete in the international market, yet they are now -- just flipping through this bill and looking at the regulations and red tape that the farmer is now going to have to put through, why would you do this? Why would you do this at this particular time, when the farmer is having a difficult time simply staying alive?

I look at everything you do with respect to agriculture. When I say "you," I mean the government. In the last budget, the Finance minister didn't mention the agricultural economy in his budget speech, notwithstanding, of course, that Bill 91 was first read last year, on July 29, 1993. This seems to be the saving grace of the farmer, Bill 91. This is what's going to save the agricultural community. Yet in the last budget of the Finance minister, the agricultural economy wasn't mentioned once in his budget speech.

The budget reveals that in the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs -- which is an interesting twist, to make the name so long we get tired saying it -- its operating budget will be reduced; will be reduced, Mr Minister. I know you don't know anything about this, because you're the Minister of Labour. You don't know anything about agriculture. But I'm going to tell you what the farmers are saying. The budget is reduced by 6% to $487 million before the ministry is required to absorb its share of the $400 million in expenditure savings and restraints.

When you look at the Agenda for People, or power, whatever it was called, as to what you say in your Agenda for People, if I can find it, it talks about --

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): You've got it memorized, have you, David?

Mr Tilson: No, I haven't got it memorized. I'm trying to forget it. It's such a bad dream. In fact, your whole government is a bad dream, and everything that you've done, and Bill 91 is a prime example.

On page 3 of the Agenda for People of the New Democratic Party, on August 19, 1990, they talked about how:

"Sky-high interest rates are hurting farmers. Each 1% increase in interest rates adds $9 million in interest charges to Ontario farmers' costs."

But what have you done to help that? Is Bill 91 going to help it, with all the red tape and all the problems the farmers are going to be put through with respect to operating farms in this province?

The second thing the Agenda for People, which was put forward by the New Democratic Party, says:

"New Democrats propose making long-term debt financing available to farmers at the government's long-term borrowing cost. Up to $100 million would be made available."

That's it. That's it as far as what the New Democratic Party thinks about farmers in this province. I can say that the first hint of relief to the farmer appears to be Bill 91, for which there isn't exactly a great deal of support among the agricultural community.

1600

The agricultural budget that was put forward in the budget of 1994 is over $100 million below its level of 1991. Of course, this is just before the Premier of the province changed the name of the Ministry of Agriculture to reflect its expanded role, so not only is there no new money, there's less. Now we have Bill 91, which appears to be going to be rammed through this House.

The other thing that we can't forget is the difficulty in the operation of farms in this community. This is just one more headache that you're putting on the operation of farms.

I asked some of the people in my riding where they stood on this issue and I received some comments from the president of the Peel Federation of Agriculture, Mrs Frances Johnston. She said, "The agricultural community would like to be treated separately as it relates to the labour laws and the farming community," and that is one thing, Mr Minister, that you have simply overlooked. Your job is to unionize the province of Ontario, whether it's farming or anything else, and that's what you're going to do, notwithstanding the fact that the Ministry of Labour knows absolutely zip as far as agriculture in this province is concerned.

Mrs Johnston says, "The definitions in the bill are too broad and there is some concern over who would be included and who would not." She goes on to express her concern about the fact that "Bill 91 isn't detailed enough in its definitions."

She acknowledges that "The family farm will supposedly be excluded from Bill 91." But then what is a family farm? In my riding I can think of specifically one in the town of Caledon where there is a large number of families who are all related, whether they be cousins, uncles, brothers, sisters, in a very large operation. The bill is going to apply to them even though I think of them as a family farm. I doubt if you do, because you've probably never seen one of these types of farms, but that is a family farm.

Mrs Johnston continues as she asks, "What is the definition of a family farm?" She says, and she knows certainly far more than I on this topic, in her position as president of the Peel Federation of Agriculture: "There are many examples of cousins working with cousins. Extended families are quite common in smaller rural communities where families have been living and working together for many generations." That's quite true.

There are many century farms in my riding, in the town of Caledon, in the county of Dufferin, yet by the definition that you have put forward in this legislation of Bill 91, they are going to be subject to this legislation. I haven't seen your amendments. Hopefully, you're going to clarify all that. Somehow I doubt it and somehow I doubt if I'll have an opportunity, because of this closure motion, to speak about it further. I certainly won't have an opportunity to hear from many of these farmers. I'm sure there are many members in your own government who represent farming communities who would like to hear from these types of farmers who are concerned with this particular point.

Mr McLean: They don't want to hear from them.

Mr Tilson: The member says, "They don't want to hear from them," and I think that's the real reason. You want to get this out of the way. It's something that you've had enough of. It's been dangling around. You really haven't pushed it too hard. You know the resistance is increasing, "So let's put closure and slam it down." The member is certainly correct. You have no intention of hearing from the farmers and members of the agricultural community as to what they really think about Bill 91.

Mrs Johnston continues. She asks a number of questions: "How will the enforcement of Bill 91 happen? Who will be the arbitrator in disputes?" One of the concerns that she raises, which is something I'm sure you thought of, is, "Will the arbitrator be a Toronto bureaucrat who has never been north of Highway 401?"

You shake your head, but that's the concern in my community. If she's wrong, why don't you give her an opportunity to come to Toronto? Better yet, hold a hearing in my riding or a similar riding in the area and hear from these people. If they're wrong, tell them how they're wrong. But you're not prepared to do that.

Those are some of the comments that came from Frances Johnston, the president of the Peel Federation of Agriculture.

I also spoke to Philip Armstrong, who is the provincial director in the region of Peel for the federation of agriculture. He certainly speaks for a large number of farmers in the region of Peel, which includes my riding of the town of Caledon, which is the north half of the region of Peel. He says that without a doubt, "Farmers have a problem coming under the Ontario Labour Relations Act."

At the very least, why is the Ministry of Agriculture being diminished? Why, when the Premier expands the definition for the Minister of Agriculture as having the responsibility for rural affairs, is he assigning all of this dastardly stuff to you as Minister of -- I should be directing my comments to you, Madam Speaker, and I apologize, but the concern is that this minister simply doesn't care.

The other comment that Mr Armstrong had made was: "Workers should have rights just as workers have in other industries. A strike or a work-to-rule campaign, no matter how short, could mean an end to a season's worth of work and profits."

I know the legislation precludes lockouts and strikes. The difficulty is, quite frankly, that farmers don't trust you; they don't trust this government. They've looked at your record and they're afraid of what you're going to do in the future, either through regulation or otherwise, and they simply don't trust you. That's one reason why Mr Armstrong made that comment.

He also said that, "Because farmers are price takers, not price setters, things such as minimum wage increases and union demands could make their product uncompetitive and therefore their produce would not be sold."

That's something that I think your government forgets, whether it be for Bill 40 or many of the other pieces of legislation that you have put forward: that this is a global economy. The province of Ontario, whether it's farmers or any other profession, has to deal beyond our borders. We have to deal with the Americans, we have to deal with the Europeans, we have to deal with people all around this world, and yet this is just another difficulty that they have to deal with, this piece of legislation that is going to make their chances of being competitive that much more difficult.

I honestly don't think that you've thought of that. I suspect that you have consulted and I suspect that you've talked to the union leaders, who want to, naturally, expand their union membership. I can tell you that our leader, Mr Harris, is quite right. He doesn't believe that you've been talking to the workers, but that you're talking strictly to the union leaders. I don't think that's quite fair, and that's why I emphasize --

Interjection.

Mr Tilson: Well, the minister didn't like that and that's why I emphasize: If I'm wrong, what would be the harm of having public hearings? What would be the harm of going to all of the various agricultural communities around this province -- and I realize we would have to restrict that to "some" -- but going to many of the agricultural communities around this province and listening to what the farmers, what the farm workers, what the people who are involved in the agricultural industry think of what this bill does and how it's going to affect not only the agricultural economy but the economy of this province?

But no, you're going to give us one hour in committee of the whole, which is in this place, and one hour on third reading. That's not enough on these issues to satisfy the concerns of farmers in this province.

Mr Armstrong also indicated that: "A better alternative is to improve employee relations through education and peer pressure. Farmers cannot get workers to work on their farms if they are uncompetitive with other industries in their area, manufacturing or otherwise."

That's another thing: Farmers do find it difficult to get workers. Not only are farmers now going to find that difficulty, encouraging people to work for them, but they may stop hiring. That's the whole issue of this province right today, the issue of jobs.

What efforts is the province of Ontario doing to increase employment in this province? I know you're going to yell out "Jobs Ontario" and the wonderful things Jobs Ontario is doing in this province, but I'm telling you that you need more than that. You need to go to the farmers, the manufacturing community, the private enterprise people and encourage those people to start hiring again. Bill 91 isn't going to do that. Bill 91 is going to discourage farmers from hiring, whether it be full-time or part-time workers.

1610

Mr Minister, I doubt if you're aware of this, but according to Mr Armstrong and according to my knowledge as representing a rural community -- I know you don't represent a rural community -- "Most farms have only one or two employees and are already providing competitive wages and benefits to their employees."

This is someone who represents the agricultural community of one of the largest regions in our province, the region of Peel. This is a statement that is made through consultations. Other people do consult. This is made by the provincial director for the region of Peel for the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. If you're saying he's wrong, I don't think he is. I don't think you've considered that.

He says: "Increased costs cannot simply be passed on to the consumer. The agricultural community competes with American and worldwide producers so every new government-imposed regulation or law is making it more difficult for the farming industry to compete globally."

That of course is what I said at the introduction of my remarks. That's exactly what you're doing. You're making it more difficult for the farmer to compete in the North American and the global economy, simply by more add-ons. Those were the comments by Philip Armstrong.

The third person I spoke to is a farmer in my community. I did consult. I don't know whether you did or whether you spoke to individual farmers. My understanding is that you literally gambled and forced the federation of agriculture to do what it did. Now they're simply explaining how you went about that.

Allan Thompson, who is a dairy farmer outside Georgetown, made comments similar to Mrs Johnston and Mr Armstrong. I'd like to relay some of them to you because I doubt if you've heard some of them.

"The agricultural industry has been going through some very tough times in the last few years. It has not been spared from the worldwide depression in markets and prices." That applies not just to agriculture but to everything. This has been a tough time. Gosh, you in this government know it's been a tough time, whether because of the recession and problems in the economy in this country and global-wide. But at the same time, having heard that, you must appreciate specifically the problems that farmers are going through in this particular time.

One of the saddest things, Mr Minister, which I doubt you've seen, but I've seen it in my own riding, is to drive by farms that used to be farms and they're not. They're just empty. People may live there but the fields are just lying there. There are no farming operations going on. Why? Because it's become tougher and tougher to operate as a farmer in this province.

Farmers need as much encouragement as possible from the government. You and your ministers and your government have not given the encouragement they need to stay alive in this recession. What is my proof? The proof, and I can't believe that mine is the only riding, that if you drive by farms all across this province, you see empty farms, empty farm land. They're just not farming.

Mr Thompson added a few other comments. He said, "Governments cannot help the family farm as they have in the past, but they do not need to hurt that same farm with additional regulations and controls such as Bill 91."

The farmers know that it's difficult, that there's a shortage of funds. Many of them have read our platform that we're putting forward for the forthcoming election. I was going to say "the forthcoming revolution," which is what I think it will be. They know there are going to have to be considerable cuts in all aspects of our community because it's simply a debt that's out of control.

Much of it has been caused by your Treasurer and your government. I can still remember your Treasurer standing in his place in 1990 and essentially saying that he was going to buy his way out of the recession. And buy his way out he has done: He's just put us in debt. The predictions in this province are that we're going to have a debt in 1995 or 1996 of something like $98 billion, a provincial debt of that amount of money, and a deficit which he says is now $8.5 billion and I suspect is closer really to $11.5 billion or $12 billion.

The farmers know the difficulties that the province of Ontario is going through and that government is going through, whether it be municipal, provincial or federal, but they don't need this stuff. They don't need this Bill 91. They're finding it difficult to operate, but you are making it far more difficult by putting this piece of legislation at this particular time.

Mr Thompson said that farms will not be able to compete if their farms are forced to unionize. I have been to his farm. It's a very successful dairy farm outside Georgetown. I know he doesn't fool around. What he says is the truth. He's very worried about what you're doing to the farmers of this province. In that area there are a number of farms and they all have the same concerns with this type of legislation.

Owners of farms, Mr Minister, as a result of your legislation, will be forced towards mechanization instead of hiring additional labour. You're going to force them to do that. That's what you're going to do. You're going to force them to become more mechanized, so there'll be fewer and fewer jobs, whether it be part-time or full-time jobs. That's what you're forcing them to do; you, a government that says you're trying to create jobs in this province.

Madam Speaker, there are considerable other areas I'd like to discuss in this closure motion and hopefully in the future, but there are other members of my caucus who wish to speak. I therefore thank you for allowing me to speak.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Questions or comments to the member for Dufferin-Peel?

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I listened to the member for Dufferin-Peel. He quoted someone from the local federation of agriculture, from the riding he represents. I want to make reference to my local federation of agriculture, when the issue came up regarding some signs that had been put up by Ontarians for Responsible Government. The group has put up some signs across the province expressing its opposition.

I want to point out that Ontarians for Responsible Government are an arm of the National Citizens' Coalition. We know very much that this group does not support supply management. We've never heard of them before supporting any issue to support agricultural farmers in the province.

I want to say quite clearly that my local president of the federation of agriculture was very clear in her response to the comments by Ontarians for Responsible Government, that they understood what had gone on in the process of developing this bill in terms of the task force. They did have some concern about the initial wording of the legislation, that was fair enough, but they felt confident that through some of the amendments that were being talked about and that would be put forward, it would meet their concerns and this bill would not have a serious impact on the family farm.

I want to put that forward, because the member for Dufferin-Peel was citing some people involved with his local federation, and to say that there is a difference of opinion among the province, that it isn't clear-cut opposition. Maybe on first wash people are very concerned, but I think that when they look at what is actually being proposed, at what is being put forward in amendments, and realize that one of the groups that opposes it -- fair enough, they have the right to do that -- really doesn't have any track record of supporting farmers, of supporting agricultural issues -- it's pretty hard to say you support farmers when you say you're against the supply-management system, as the National Citizens' Coalition has said for many years.

1620

Mr Cleary: The member said he was speaking to his federation of agriculture, and I was too, as late as 11 o'clock last night. They cannot believe that what I told them was going to happen today is happening. They said that they cannot find any support for this Bill 91. I was speaking to some others this morning. As I travel around the province, I still find no support for Bill 91. It's just another burden for agriculture that they have to bear, along with competitiveness, productivity and profitability.

They are also very concerned about the hit that agriculture has taken in the past budgets and the true figures of this year's hit of $34 million-plus. Some think that will be a lot more. They're also concerned about some of their money for agriculture maybe going to added responsibilities in rural affairs. As we've travelled around the province and been in many areas, I still can find no support for this bill.

Some of the members across the way have stood up and spoken. I've been in some of their areas too, and I'm hearing somewhat different things than they're telling us. I'm very concerned about this piece of legislation because the agricultural community doesn't need to be hit with any more paperwork and legislation.

Mr McLean: I want to comment briefly on the comments from my colleague the member for Dufferin-Peel. I'm concerned because the minister is here today and he's not making any two-minute statements, which would give him the opportunity, if he feels there's something that's not clear in this bill, to get up and make it clear to us here.

I would like a clarification with regard to a bargaining unit. All dairy farmers in one county: Can that be classified as a bargaining unit? The member talks with regard to the family farm and there are a lot of people who are concerned about that. Are all the beef farmers in one county to be classified as a bargaining unit? Are all the hog producers classified as one bargaining unit? And that's especially if you have one or two employees. How many employees do you have to have in order to be able to form a bargaining unit? Is it two employees, or five or six or 10?

I wish the minister would get up and clarify that. I wish he would also clarify the part with regard to the provision with regard to the arbitrator. Who's going to appoint the arbitrator and the board and who's going to look after that? We're not hearing that. Part of it's in this bill, but is that part of the bill going to be amended?

My colleague was up speaking about many aspects of the farmers who wrote to him and told him. I would like some clarification from the minister if what he has said is right? He's not telling us that what he's saying is not right. Therefore, the minister is not, in my estimation, being part of this. I know it's a closure motion, but we're dealing --

Hon Mr Mackenzie: Wouldn't believe me anyhow. I told you several times.

Mr McLean: Well, certainly we would believe you if --

Mr Tilson: Here's your chance, Bob.

Mr McLean: That's your chance, you see, to get up and say it. Are two employees a bargaining unit, or is one employee? All the dairy farmers? My son and his wife, if they have two hired help on our dairy farm, are those two people classified as part of a bargaining unit? I would like that clarified.

Mrs Fawcett: Interesting: I've just received a copy of a letter that was given to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs on this very bill. It's from the Ontario Cattlemen's Association and it says:

"Dear Mr Buchanan,

"Re: Agricultural Labour Legislation:

"We understand debate is taking place on Bill 91, legislation that could lead to unionizing family operations.

"The purpose of this letter is to state the opposition of Ontario cattlemen to any measure which would have the end result of allowing unions to become established for farming operations. This issue was debated at the annual meeting of the association attended by approximately 225 delegates representing every agricultural area in Ontario. Delegates to the meeting passed the following resolution with overwhelming support:

"Be it resolved that the Ontario Cattlemen's Association lobby for the continuation of the farm exemption in labour legislation.

"I would urge that you reconsider implementing any legislation which would lead to establishing unions on Ontario farms."

"Ken Summers,

"President."

I am sure that the member for Dufferin-Peel, if he has any of the cattlemen's association in his riding, would agree that farmers out there just do not see the need for this legislation. Why the minister can continue to purport to have consulted with these farmers, who say that he thinks they need this legislation, is beyond me.

The Acting Speaker: Now the member for Dufferin-Peel has two minutes to respond.

Mr Tilson: The member for Oxford made some comments about the billboard politics, which I know the Premier doesn't like. I'm glad he raised that, because that is a prime example of how the agricultural community is simply enraged with this government. In case some of you forget, on the billboard that was put up by the citizens lobby, there's a picture on one side of a jackass and a picture on the other side of the Premier of this province, Bob Rae, and the sign said, "Which one wants to unionize the family farm?"

I think we all know what the answer is. We all know who wants to unionize the family farm, and it's not the jackass.

Mr Stockwell: I'm not sure you're right.

Mr Tilson: The member for Etobicoke West says maybe I haven't got that right. Yet the Ministry of Transportation came along and said, "Take all these signs down." You're not even going to allow members of the public to demonstrate against this bill. You won't even allow them to put up a simple sign on the highway that says your Premier is a jackass for putting forth this legislation. You won't even allow them to do that.

Number one, you won't allow public hearings. You won't allow the farmers of this province to come and make presentations either in this place in the city of Toronto, at this Legislature, or, better yet, around the province. I suspect you're worried about that. I suspect that to go into a farming community and debate this with farmers -- you know what's going to happen? You're going to get thrown out.

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired. Further debate?

Mr Cleary: I wish I could start my comments by saying what a great pleasure it is to have the opportunity to address the motion on Bill 91 respecting labour relations in the agriculture industry today, but I cannot.

I am very disappointed because I don't know of any support for this bill, and what aggravated everyone more was the time allocation motion. I was speaking to agricultural people as late as 11 o'clock last night and early this morning. These were federation members, and they think it's a joke, what's happening here today.

I cannot say this, because I disagree with the premise of this legislation and I don't understand and am unable to get answers from any minister or anyone across the way about how this will help competitiveness, productivity and profitability. I cannot find why it's going to exist. No one seems to know the answer. The minister sure doesn't know the answer. I don't understand where the Minister of Labour gets off forcing this damaging legislation on farmers. I don't understand why the Agriculture minister is not defending the family farm. I cannot understand why he is not.

Who outside the NDP caucus wants this legislation? The member for Huron just mentioned that everybody supports the legislation. Yet I see a letter here from the Ontario Cattlemen's Association addressed to the Honourable Elmer Buchanan, and it has the member for Huron's name, Paul Klopp. They're not supporting the legislation. I think there's something wrong there, and if people aren't telling him, he should at least read his mail.

1630

The minister's laughing, but he should get out into rural Ontario and see what's going on. As I said earlier, I've consulted with many farmers, farmers in S-D-G, Leeds-Grenville, Prescott and Russell, Renfrew, Middlesex county, St Catharines-Brock, Welland-Thorold, Huron, Lincoln, Carleton, Prince Edward-Lennox, Victoria-Haliburton, Bruce, and as we heard today, many others said they cannot find support for this bill.

We all know that Ontario family farms have traditionally been exempt from the provisions of the Labour Relations Act in order to minimize the impact of labour disputes which could be devastating to many operations.

Things were going very well on the family farm until this NDP government came along. The questions we've asked the minister, he's never been able to give us the answers to. One of the first steps the NDP government took to hamper the provincial economy was to introduce Bill 40, a job-killing bill which provided unions with more power and limited the ability of business to survive during labour disputes.

We, as Ontarians, consumers and farmers, could only wish they stopped there, but they didn't. We don't know exactly why they brought along Bill 91. We've heard all kinds of stories, and when we ask the minister, he doesn't seem to know.

Under Bill 40, the NDP removed the long-standing agriculture exemption from the Labour Relations Act and promised to enact separate farm labour legislation. In light of all the broken promises and major flip-flops, it is amazing they pulled through on this one; amazing perhaps, and also unfortunate, because we cannot find out who wants this bill. The message is not getting through to this government, which more or less brings us to where we are today and why we are being forced to consider this senseless legislation.

What farmer wants this legislation? The legislation is not what the agricultural community wants. At no point did farmers want the NDP to pull through on this promise, especially as farmers are still waiting for the financial assistance promised by the NDP during the 1990 campaign.

Instead the NDP government has introduced detrimental farm legislation, dropped a major financial assistance program, failed to implement the agriculture investment strategy, shrunk the Agriculture budget by over 8%, robbed farmers and consumers of dairy inspectors -- and this reality will hit later on; I think it's already started to hit -- pursued restrictive land development policies, threatened rural development, closed agriculture colleges and stripped young farmers of their future.

The NDP government has now turned its guns against the farmers of Ontario, the men and women in small, predominantly family-run, agriculture businesses. The legislation currently before us, Bill 91, will place another burden on the industry that is already struggling with weather conditions, marketing uncertainty and many others. Again, the farmers in the province do not need this legislation.

My colleague has already referred to the letter from Ken Summers. That's a loud and clear message to this government, and it was sent on June 8. That should have reached the ministry and the parliamentary assistant should have had copy of that too.

All I can say, as I said earlier today, is that this legislation is about as popular as a flash flood or a late frost in the spring. Why can't the minister tell us who is supporting this legislation?

I can't understand a government that says it supports agriculture, and it's been mentioned today by the members for Huron and Sarnia, yet hits them with a $34-million to $47-million cut in the past budget, with added responsibilities for rural affairs and some of that money from Agriculture going to Rural Affairs.

I have always said that if the government changes and we happen to become the government, what we will do is bring in all the players and we will listen to people, and we will scrap the bad legislation and keep any good. In my opinion, unless there's something I find out later on, Bill 91 is bad legislation.

I would like to move, Madam Speaker, that the government delete subsection 2(2) of the Labour Relations Act; that clause 2(b) of the Labour Relations Act be amended by striking out the phrase "except as provided under subsection (2)"; that a full exemption from the Labour Relations Act be reinstated --

Mrs Fawcett: On a point of order, Madam Chair: I really don't believe there's a quorum present for this very important debate.

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

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

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

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

The Acting Speaker: The member for Cornwall may resume his debate.

Mr Cleary: I intend to amend in committee: delete subsection 2(2) of the Labour Relations Act; that clause 2(b) of the Labour Relations Act be amended by striking out the phrase "except as provided under subsection (2)"; that a full exemption for the Labour Relations Act be reinstated for the family farm and not call Bill 91 for second reading.

1640

The Acting Speaker: Now we have questions or comments to the member. Are there any questions? If not, further debate. The member for Simcoe East has the floor.

Mr McLean: I want to take part in the debate today and I want to welcome my colleague the critic for Agriculture back to the Legislature after a few days off. We wish you well.

I welcome the opportunity just to comment briefly with regard to the motion before us today, this closure motion, which is about the fifth or sixth this government has brought in. I'm not so sure why we need closure motions when you have legislation that is proper and good legislation that the people have had input into. When you go out and travel the province and talk to people and you have legislation that the people want, I have no idea why you want to bring in closure motions.

There have only been two people of our party who have spoken on this Bill 91 to date. I think the reason he's bringing this closure motion is so that he doesn't have to listen to the people. I have no idea why he doesn't want it to go to committee to let the farmers come and have full input into a bill that he thinks is important for the agricultural industry.

There are letters that we have got and people whom we have heard from who don't believe that it's of importance at this time. They don't believe that it's necessary. I own a dairy farm which is run by my son and his wife. I hope I haven't got a conflict here, because I feel that the operation that we had and the farmers that I know in my community don't have to have legislation such as Bill 91. There's just no need of it. It's uncalled-for.

Why the government is so intent on bringing this forward is totally beyond comprehension. I can't believe that this would be a priority of any administration: the farmers who supply the food; the farmers who work from 5:30 in the morning till dark at night; the farmers who are out there doing the labour that we're enjoying -- and now you want to say to them, "You must organize."

When I was on the farm we had rainy days and we would take the time off on the rainy days and work a little extra on the sunny days. Now what are you going to have when you get a bargaining unit that says, "You work so many hours a day"? They say, "Well, you know, it's not affecting the family farm." I can assure you that it probably will affect the family farm, one way or another. If they don't think it's going to affect the family farm, then why don't we have public hearings? Why don't we have the people in who are going to be part of this whole outfit and find out what their concerns are, what they want to talk about?

There are very few members on the side of the government who are farmers. I don't know why you don't listen to the people out there who are involved with regard to the farm operations.

Once again, we have a government, a party that not long ago brought in closure for photo-radar; they're cutting down and putting the lid on free speech; they're overregulating the people of the province. We see in this morning's clippings where they're going to send out 600,000 notices to corporations that haven't paid their $50. Somebody said today, "Is that a user fee?" Well, is it a user fee? What about those corporations? What are you going to do with them?

This overregulation of labour laws in the form of Bill 91 and Bill 40, that job-killing bill which is driving people out of this province, closing down businesses -- why would somebody want to come to this province and start up a new business with the labour attitude of this government?

You're not happy with Bill 40. Now you want to unionize the farmers. I say, shame on you. You're anti-business, anti-agribusiness. You're anti-job. You're anti-worker. The anti-prosperity agenda that has prevailed with this government is totally uncalled-for. We have dealt with the issue of the successor rights, this portion of the NDP's Bill 40, the Labour Relations Act. It's sending an unfortunate pro-union message to business and it will make it uneconomical for short-line operators to take over abandoned rail lines in this province.

The minister has indicated: "We're working on it. We're talking. The ministries are working on it." What have they done? There seems to be no conclusion. Will we be able to keep the company that has 80 jobs, Stepan Canada near Orillia? They have 140 cars that come in there annually. The only way the material can be shipped is by rail. They're closing down these lines. CN has made the announcement. It's going to happen, a $3.5-million payroll out of that one industry, and all indications are that it will be closed down.

They have these collective agreements, which is about 17 different unions that are involved with the CN rail lines. What's going to happen?

Mr Stockwell: What's it worth when they close?

Mr McLean: What's it worth when they close? It's not worth anything.

Why is the Minister of Labour not concerned with regard to the successor rights portion of that bill? Well, he is. He said yesterday to a question from my colleague, "It's important that it should be there and it's going to stay there, because we want to keep those people in the union." What does a union do with regard to the agricultural industry? I don't think it needs to be there.

My family used to have farm help. They don't have farm help any more. The family does it now. They cut back. Why? Because they were so sick and tired of filling out forms every month, sending into the federal government, sending into the provincial government. The Workers' Compensation Board harassed them for about a year with regard to billing them. They'd already paid their bill, but they still got another one.

So I say to the Minister of Labour today, I have no idea what you're trying to do with regard to unionizing farm workers. You're not listening to the people.

Farm operations have nothing in common with industrial sectors that have traditionally been subject to the Ontario Labour Relations Act. The perishability of products is the cornerstone of distinction between the two sectors. A factory can generally shut down for two weeks and resume operations without any significant damage to the product. A similar scenario cannot be presented for food production.

You know something, Minister? Dairy farmers milk cows Christmas morning. I bet you didn't realize that. Farmers milk cows every day, morning and night. Some of them milk them three times a day, but most of them milk them twice a day.

What regard do you have for these types of operations? What are you going to say to the people in the bargaining unit with regard to the conditions that are going to be put on?

I hate to do this again, but I want you all to think back to the news release issued by Bob Rae on August 19, 1990. This news release was about a document entitled An Agenda for People, and the second paragraph reads:

"This is a great province. But how much greater it would be if it truly belonged to the people. Instead, we have a government today driven by a narrow and self-interested agenda, ignoring what needs to be done."

Was Bob Rae talking about the former Liberal government or the current NDP government? It's really getting difficult to tell them apart. I must be thinking back to the old Liberal-NDP accord days, and I remember those accord days, the agenda that was dictated by the socialists at that time, implemented by the Liberals.

Supporters of the reform of Ontario's agricultural labour law point to legislation in neighbouring jurisdictions and note that the majority extended bargaining rights to farm workers. However, the Ontario agricultural sector is far larger in terms of the volume and variety of products generated. The Ontario agricultural industry is composed of sectors such as tobacco and vegetables, which are very labour-intensive. The dollar value of Ontario agricultural production exceeds that of all other Canadian provinces. To arbitrarily make comparisons is presumptive and illogical.

The economic reasons for not introducing a new bill at this time are compelling. In general, the farm economy has never recovered from the economic devastation of the early 1980s, caused primarily by rising interest rates. We all remember those 19% and 22% interest rates.

The 1990s have been characterized by international subsidy wars and price supports, which for the most part have left Ontario farmers hung out to dry. Furthermore, Ontario farmers are faced with the potentially disastrous prospect of supply management being destroyed and other major structural changes through trade negotiations. The general feeling in the farm community indicates that higher wages and other costs associated with organized workforces are not needed.

Today on the 12:30 news on CKVR-TV they did an interview with about three different farm families. There wasn't one farm family there that was totally making a living off that family farm. There was one father and two sons; the wives were working. There was the head of the OFA in the county of Simcoe, and his wife works off the farm. He says she's the one who puts the food on the table.

1650

I often wonder where we're going to get off with regard to agriculture. We know the cost of providing the services. We know our electricity goes up, the costs of all the operations of the farm. What he does goes up and his wages do not. The cost of what he sells is not going up. The cost of an animal or the supply management with regard to the dairy industry has been holding firm. I think the dairy industry has been one of the most fortunate ones of the whole aspect of the farming area, along with their feathered products, which are under the marketing board.

When we look at the climate we're in and we look at what's happening here today, we're really debating a closure motion which is going to bring in Bill 91 to unionize the farm workers. Is that what the priority of this government is? I don't know why it's a priority. I know there are other things that I would think would be more of a priority. We're having 25 amendments and 28 pages, but the government will allow only one hour for consideration in committee of the whole.

Madam Speaker, could you imagine, if we were in government and they were in opposition, that they would allow us any such form or type of legislation as closure motions? I remember in this Legislature when Bob Nixon, the Treasurer, wanted to present his budget and the NDP was in opposition. They closed down the House. He couldn't present the budget in here. These people have done more to take away the rights of people in this province than any government that I can ever remember.

Not only that, but when we look at what's happening with regard to the Sewell commission, the municipal affairs report, the municipalities across this province, they've given the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and the Rural Ontario Municipal Association 90 days to comment on something that Sewell took two years to put together. That is not fair. They're not listening to the people. They don't want to listen to the people.

That's why the minister doesn't want this bill to go to committee. He doesn't want to have to sit there and listen to what the farm people in this province have to tell him. I wish there was an opportunity for him to be able to say something, because today he has not got up on the two minutes yet to talk about what my colleagues have discussed and what they have asked and what they want clarification for. He has not done any of this. He's sitting here. He wants to bring in closure. He doesn't want debate. It's a disgrace to the people of this province to have to put up with what these people are doing.

The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments to the member for Simcoe East?

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): I want to certainly congratulate my colleague from Simcoe East for bringing the real truth and reality to this Legislature today.

Agriculture, as he mentioned, is unique in nature. We used to have pretty good plans to get young farmers to go into the business: the beginning farmers assistance program, the Ontario Farm-Start. That all died, wasn't renewed; nothing at all to promote and enhance the replacement of our aging farm population. Yet we have in this legislation, Bill 91, very much all sorts of interference with farmers.

I have a letter here signed by Ken Summers, president of the Ontario Cattlemen's Association. I received it by fax this afternoon. The delegates at a recent meeting, 225 of them representing every agricultural area in Ontario, passed the following very short and precise resolution, which reads, "Be it resolved that OCA lobby for the continuation of the farm exemption in labour legislation."

That's fairly simple; no frills attached. Just continue as it's been in the past: exemption for agriculture.

Agriculture is unique in nature. Many times, the vast majority of times, the employee lives in the employer's residence on the farm. They talk. They don't need an arbitrator to come from God knows where to settle a dispute. They live right there. At 6 o'clock, 5 o'clock in the morning they're at the barn together. The employee lives in the employer's residence on the farm, the farm labour residence. Why do we need a bill like Bill 91 to simply complicate and create friction that doesn't now exist?

I hope the minister, and he's here today, reconsiders that exemption for agriculture. That's all we need.

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): I just want to comment on a couple of the things the member for Simcoe East has said, not only now but other times when he has spoken to Bill 91. First of all, he well knows that in most committees the minister rarely sits in through the entire committee.

Certainly, in the resources development committee, which this bill would more than likely go to, the parliamentary assistant, in this case the member for Kitchener-Wilmot, would be carrying this bill. He knows that's the case.

Also, the minister has already spoken and answered many of the questions that the member has already asked, so that to infer or state baldly in this House that he is not answering is really, I think, reprehensible on the member's part.

I would also like to say that it is very well known that under the Labour Relations Act, in terms of forming a union of any kind, you have to sign up members and you have to get certified, no matter how you do it. I suppose it is possible that if you had a family farm with five or six people in the family working on it, or even other members, cousins and whomever -- because my relatives are farmers as well -- I guess some organizer could come in and get them all to sign membership cards. I find that highly unlikely.

It is for the manufacturing and processing in the agricultural industry that you have to allow them to do it, because the reality is that when you look at mushroom farmers or tomatoes, you are sitting there and looking at a processing farm in the agricultural industry. It is not for the purposes of unionizing family farms across the province. You have to have willingness to have that done.

Mr Stockwell: I think the member for Simcoe East, and afterwards the member for S-D-G & East Grenville, probably offered up what I would consider to be a very long and historic view of the farming community in Ontario.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Have you ever been on a farm?

Mr Stockwell: I don't claim to have any experience in the farming community. That's why when farming issues come forward, people like Noble Villeneuve and Al McLean offer up what I think are opinions that may well be as accurate and reflective of that community as you can find.

It seems to me that when those questions get put about a farmer or a farm family that supports this piece of legislation, it's very difficult to think of one farmer besides the member for Huron who supports it. What it says to me is that probably the people who are being spoken for here are being spoken for by the member for Simcoe East and the member for S-D-G & East Grenville. I personally feel that the kind of attitude they've brought forward and the arguments and responses they've elicited seem to me to be the kind of responses that are necessary when dealing with a bill like Bill 91.

"If there was a large section out there who were calling for this kind of legislation," they have said to the minister and the government, "if that's the case, show us who these people are. Please allow us to debate the people who are in fact asking for this legislation. Give us the opportunity to face down those people in opposition. Allow us the opportunity of debating at first hand with the people who say this kind of legislation is needed." But they can't. They're debating ghosts; they don't exist.

You're saying today that they don't understand the legislation, that there's processing involved, that they don't really know what they're talking about. It's a sad commentary when you've got the member for Sudbury and a member from Hamilton telling these two gentlemen that they don't know what they're talking about.

1700

The Acting Speaker: We have time for one more question or comment. Seeing none, the member for Simcoe East has two minutes to respond.

Mr McLean: I would like to take my two minutes to respond. I'd like to thank the member for S-D-G & East Grenville for the remarks that he made. I'd like to thank the member for Sudbury for getting up and speaking on behalf of the minister, but I find that rather difficult because the minister's sitting in the House today. Is he not capable of getting up and speaking for himself? I can't believe it. It's just totally unbelievable.

Of course, my colleague the member for Etobicoke West, the greatest farmer in Etobicoke I know of, has the answers we need. He summed it up pretty well when he was talking about Noble and I. He's probably right; I think he was right. We have a Minister of Agriculture who's a teacher. I'm not so sure what his background was in agriculture, but I do know that the people of this province must be concerned.

Can you imagine a Minister of Agriculture allowing the Minister of Labour to bring in Bill 91 as part of Bill 40, its kind of compatible legislation? I can't believe that this is happening today. I cannot believe that the Minister of Agriculture, who is supposed to be acting and speaking on behalf of the farmers of this province, is sitting here, not being part of this debate. The Minister of Labour has brought in closure to cut off the farmers of this province and the Minister of Agriculture is not doing anything to stop that. I find that a total disgrace.

There have been several people who have referred to Ken Summers, the president of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association. Does he not say it all in just a very short, one-page comment that he made with regard to this? The Minister of Labour, when we had ministers, when we were in government, they were in the committee, they had the hearings, they listened to what the people had to say, and this government sends in the quackies to listen to it.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Mahoney: They refer to the member for Etobicoke West as being the best farmer in Etobicoke, and I guess I'll claim to be the best one in Mississauga. But I don't necessarily look at this debate today as a debate on agriculture. This is more a debate on democracy.

Mr Sutherland: Oh.

Mr Mahoney: It really is. It's a debate on democracy and the way that the NDP has chosen to run the province. It's the way that you've decided -- you see, you can't get your legislation through the normal process, and there's a reason for that: You can't line up the support you need both within the community and within the Legislature to pass the bills. So you resort to a couple of tactics that are the only thing you can do to get your bills put in place, many bills, by the way, that are nothing more than paybacks that either the Minister of Labour or the Premier or perhaps the Minister of Finance or others -- they have debts they have to pay back to people, oftentimes people in the labour movement.

It's interesting to me that while this is a debate that is carried quite eloquently by the co-critics for Agriculture for the Conservative Party and certainly for my party, Mrs Fawcett and Mr Cleary, they are, it appears, as the member for Mississauga West has pointed out, the only four people in this place who are speaking out on behalf of farmers.

Mr Stockwell: You're from Mississauga West.

Mr Mahoney: I know, but I'm speaking out on the principles of democracy, the closure, the tactics this government has used heretofore not experienced in this place, the level, the number of bills that have been closed down by a government with a massive, arrogant, uncaring majority.

Mr Sutherland: Look who's talking.

Mr Mahoney: I'm talking, that's who's talking, and you're the ones doing it. Madam Speaker, to the member for Oxford --

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Mahoney: -- just a little bit of a lesson in history: This is the 14th time. I heard one of the members for the Conservative caucus say that they had invoked closure four or five times since the --

Interjection.

Mr Mahoney: Fourteen times, the 14th time. Let me lead you through the litany of bills.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Mahoney: If the Minister of Agriculture feels so strongly, why doesn't he get on his feet and talk to the farmers of the province and tell them why he's trying to unionize the family farm? Tell them why you're selling out to Gord Wilson as a payback by the Minister of Labour. That's why this bill --

The Acting Speaker: Order. Would the member take his seat for a moment.

Mr Mahoney: What did I do?

The Acting Speaker: I would ask the member not to be provocative. It would be very helpful to the decorum in this House.

Mr Mahoney: I'll try not to be provocative, but I must tell you, Madam Speaker, it was the somewhat incessant chirping of the member for --

Mr McLean: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I'd like to take the opportunity to correct the record. I spoke earlier and indicated it was five or six times they brought in closure. I've been informed it was actually 14 times, so I wanted to make sure my record was correct.

The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of order. I ask the member for Mississauga West to continue.

Mr Mahoney: As in your admonition to me, I will try not to be provocative, but I think my microphone was off, so I would again reiterate to you that it was the -- what did you call him? The shill from Oxford? I wouldn't want to call him that -- the honourable member for Oxford and the Minister of Agriculture who indeed were the provocateurs on this day. Don't tease the bears, as they say.

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): You've got 25 minutes left.

Mr Mahoney: Oh, don't worry, I can fill that without a problem. And if you decide you want to jump in and help, you go right ahead, because that just makes it easier.

The Acting Speaker: Would you address your remarks to the Chair.

Mr Mahoney: The government has brought in 14 time allocations. Let me give you an example, because I hear the yelling and everything about what our government did. During our three years in government, we brought in --

Mr Villeneuve: I thought it was five.

Mr Mahoney: No, it was three when we were the government when I was here. Let me speak from 1987 to 1990, when I was here. I wasn't here in 1985, unlike some of you guys. From 1987 to 1990, twice did we introduce time allocation.

Mr Stockwell: Twice?

Mr Mahoney: Twice.

Mr Stockwell: On what?

Mr Mahoney: On auto insurance. I remember the member for -- what's his riding? Peter. He's never in here any more -- Welland-Thorold standing up here, right here, for 17 hours reading the phone book. That was the level of his debate. He would stand here and say, "Madam Speaker, I have a complaint from Mr Jones on such-and-such a street in such-and-such a riding." He would simply read the phone book in people's ridings to try to determine the level of support, and he did 17 hours of uninterrupted filibuster to try to stop the bill, to try to stop the government from putting in place its legislation. It was only after suffering 17 hours of a filibuster, of nonsense, that we actually felt compelled to introduce time allocation.

We did it twice. These people have done it 14 times, and let me give you some examples. This debate may be, to some of the members who have spoken heretofore, a debate about Bill 91 and about agriculture, but the reality is that today's debate is a debate about government action, about style of governing, about the democratic process, about the fact that we in opposition have spoken against this labour bill, which is an assault on the family farm in the province, and as a result of being requested to ask, on behalf of farmers and people in this province, we asked the government to do the democratic thing and put this bill out into committee in the intersession.

Madam Speaker, you well know that's the way it's supposed to work around here. You introduce a bill, it gets debated, people talk about amendments, we get lobbied in our offices -- whatever; we get phone calls, we get letters -- we introduce suggestions to the government, we have a debate in this place under parliamentary procedure, and then the bill generally, if it's of any controversy whatsoever, goes out to committee.

And why does it do that? It goes to committee to allow the people to be informed. People don't live and die this stuff like we do around here. It might come as a shock to some of you to find out that in your own ridings you are not a household name. They don't know what you're doing, because they're busy trying to survive the recession, the economic downturn this province has experienced. They're trying to raise their families, to educate their kids. They're not busy saying: "What are they doing at Queen's Park today? I think I'll turn on the television and see what kind of bills they're ramming through today." They can't do that. Anybody who has a job often has two jobs to try to survive. If you have a husband and wife together, they're both working to try to survive. They don't know what's going on, and you can't expect them to know what's going on.

1710

Hence all these debates, that I refer to as kicks at the can. Think about it. Why do we have three readings of a bill? Technically the first reading is just to introduce the bill in principle and put it on the table for debate. We've only had a couple of instances where we've actually recorded votes on first readings. One was very recent, on the same-sex legislation, Bill 167, but normally it's just introduced for debate. Then it's up to the House leader, after negotiating with the House leader of the official opposition, the member for Bruce, and with the House leader for the third party, the member for Parry Sound, and the whips involved and the staff, to sit down and negotiate what the order of business will be.

The reason you do that is to ensure that there's proper notification, to ensure that if an item is coming on, you have an opportunity to inform people around the province, in your constituency, that we're going to be debating a certain bill at a certain time and place and that amendments are going to be introduced. This is not new stuff. This is the way it's supposed to work. It's particularly supposed to work that way with bills of a controversial nature.

Mr Stockwell: Like this one.

Mr Mahoney: Well, this is controversial. The thing that's so puzzling to us is that we hear the Minister of Labour telling us he has a consensus on the bill. Why do we get all these phone calls? Do we make these up in the middle of the night? The farmers are calling our Agriculture critic saying: "I don't know where he gets this idea of consensus or who he's agreeing with, but he sure isn't agreeing with us. We sure don't agree with it."

I've talked to them at the OFA to find out what their position is. Their legal people are still working on the 11 points that were in dispute from the first go-round. Well, they haven't communicated that. If we had a chance to go to committee, I say to the Minister of Agriculture, or if you had the decency to read something you might have into the record and make a speech so that opposition members are privy to the same information you are, maybe we could deal with some things, maybe we could accomplish some things. But that doesn't happen.

Mr Stockwell: They're muzzling Elmer.

Mr Mahoney: It appears that Elmer's being muzzled, and I don't understand why. Well, I think I do. I think I understand why the Minister of Agriculture is not being allowed to address us on this matter. It's because this really isn't about farms. This is about labour. This is about debts that Bob Mackenzie owes to Gord Wilson. I don't know what else to think. I heard the question in the House today. I heard my colleagues the Agriculture critics ask, I heard the leader of the third party ask: "Who wants this bill? Name names." One name, I think, was the request. Is that unreasonable?

Mr Stockwell: Paul Klopp.

Mr Mahoney: Paul Klopp. One name other than an MPP might be nice. I don't understand why you wouldn't just stand up and do that. You could have shut up the leader of the third party with one name --

Hon Mr Mackenzie: Impossible.

Mr Mahoney: Well, maybe it is impossible, but you could have embarrassed him at least, which I wouldn't mind. I've been known to try to do that on occasion --

Mr Villeneuve: It's not working very well, is it?

Mr Mahoney: -- sometimes with success and sometimes not.

Mr Villeneuve: But it's good publicity.

Mr Mahoney: You think it's good publicity. I'm glad. I'm glad you're happy with my work.

We believe this must simply be an attempt to give the Ontario Federation of Labour a new frontier to move into. If it isn't, then tell us who wants this and maybe it will satisfy us. But no, we can't get that answer, so it leaves us to look for hidden agendas. Why would we do that? We have immense faith and trust in this government. Why would we doubt them?

The Minister of Labour chuckles. We don't trust you because everything you've done since you've been elected has had a hidden agenda. Everything you've done has been to further the ideology, the dogma, that governs the New Democratic Party. It's not been for the benefit of the people of Ontario; otherwise you'd come clean and tell us who's asking you for this legislation.

That isn't the first bill we've asked that about. There are others where time allocation was brought in. My favourite, of course, the Minister of Labour will fondly recall, was the debate on Bill 80, which was a bill that required time allocation. Again, you have to ask yourself why. I asked the question to the Minister of Labour during that debate: Who is driving the ship here? Who wants this? It created such unhappy times within the construction unions, and I couldn't get an answer.

Oh, yes, we had some people come to committee. At least on that bill they allowed some committee hearings. At least there, there were opportunities, even though they shut it down and limited the time available in committee to the point where they attempted to stop me from being able to put my viewpoints across at committee. Several of the hearings on Bill 80 were taken up with the deputations, you have to give them their time, and there was not time for questions to be placed by either of the opposition critics. That was part of the modus operandi: "Shut down the opposition. We don't care what you think."

Interjection.

Mr Mahoney: What the member for Oxford may learn at some time in his life is that we are Her Majesty's loyal opposition.

Mr Sutherland: No kidding.

Mr Mahoney: It is our job, I say to the member, to point out --

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): But do you have to yell?

Mr Mahoney: I have to yell because I can't seem to get anything through your thick skull.

The Acting Speaker: Order. I ask the member to be respectful of all members in this House. Please continue.

Mr Mahoney: If "thick skull" is not a respectful comment, I'll withdraw it.

Interjection.

Mr Mahoney: It may be. In any event, I can't seem to get the message through. What was the phrase I heard today -- "labour-saturated brain"? Actually, it sounds fattening if you think about it.

Mr Murdoch: Is that a fathead? Are you saying it was a fathead?

Mr Mahoney: I don't know what that means. The reality is that your entire agenda has been driven --

Mr Murdoch: By fatheads.

Mr Mahoney: That is terrible. I wouldn't say such a thing.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Grey-Owen Sound, please allow the member to continue.

Mr Mahoney: It's been driven by a need to pay back and to expand horizons for organized labour. There should be a balance. The next government in this province is going to have an enormous job. Never mind the fiscal mess they're going to inherit, never mind the lack of confidence in the investment community that exists and permeates throughout the province, those are serious, serious problems, but the biggest problem in my estimation that the next government is going to have to deal with is to bring some form of calm, rational existence within labour-management relations.

The scale has been tilted so dramatically by this government, and they like it, there's no question. They have lived up to that part of the philosophy and the dogma. Labour bill after labour bill, amendment after amendment, sellout after sellout, payback after payback. Will it ever end? It will. It will end with the election of Lyn McLeod as the next Premier. We will then embark upon the mission of trying to bring some calm.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): I was there today, Steve. I saw it too.

Mr Mahoney: We know that when we're in government, by the way, the Conservatives will be the official opposition. We actually are quite confident of that. We think you might wind up phoning Audrey to see if she still has any appointments she might be able to swing your way before she leaves town. So good luck to you.

Mr Murdoch: Goodbye.

Mr Mahoney: Goodbye is right.

Mr Stockwell: Don't be provocative.

Mr Mahoney: I'm not being provocative. I am really telling you what I hear in the community every day, everywhere I go in this province. What I hear all over this province is that the people are truly fed up with Bob Rae and Bob Mackenzie. They're fed up with the New Democrats, with their ideas, with their supposed vision of Ontario, with what they've done to this province. They're fed up with the damage they've caused in every single facet of life in Ontario. They want to get back to the days when they had opportunities for their sons and daughters, when they had jobs that were available, when they had opportunities to make investments. They want to get back to a sense of confidence with a balance.

1720

They don't want the Reform Party; I can tell you that. They don't want Preston Mike; I can tell you that. They don't believe in simplistic, simple-minded solutions. How many people around here want their taxes cut by 30%? All in favour? Absolutely. Perfect.

Mr Stockwell: How many people around here are in favour of same-sex legislation?

Mr Mahoney: I absolutely want my taxes cut by 30%.

Mr Stockwell: How many times will Lyn McLeod vote on this?

Mr Mahoney: You see, they're chirping about the same-sex legislation. If we didn't have this motion here today, we could indeed be debating that bill and we could be voting on that bill, because that's what the public's been waiting for. The member for Etobicoke West could join me in voting against that bill and defeating it, and Lyn would absolutely defeat it.

Mr Stockwell: What time is it?

Mr Mahoney: Our leader will help defeat it. So don't be making --

The Acting Speaker: Interjections are out of order.

Mr Mahoney: -- up cockamamy statements about who stands where and on what position. But we can't even get to that legislation. You know, there's lots of things --

Mr Stockwell: Cockamamy?

Mr Mahoney: Cockamamy is just outside of S-D-G & East Grenville -- Cockamamy, Ontario.

Mr Murdoch: Is it in Mississauga?

Mr Mahoney: Madam Speaker, they're being the provocateurs at the moment and I am trying to address the seriousness of the attack by this government on the democratic process. Let me get back to that.

I talked about Bill 80. They rammed that through. Remember Bill 4, which brought you rent control retroactively? Remember that? Not only did this government find it necessary to invoke closure on a new rent control bill, one that I went on committees around the province and people said: "Why are you doing this? Why are you trying to fix a problem in Sudbury or in London or in Parry Sound or in Hamilton because of a problem in downtown Toronto?"

We know the answer. We know that the housing activists who just recently helped jam through Bill 120 in this place were pulling the chains of the Housing minister and the Premier and the entire NDP. You couldn't get it through with any kind of consensus, so what did you do?

Mr Stockwell: Closure.

Mr Mahoney: Closure is the name of the game. Imagine invoking closure on a bill that was retroactive as well. It was retroactive. I mean, you guys have no shame. It's truly unbelievable. I don't know how you sleep at night. Some of you sleep in here; I wish more of you would sleep in here and stay asleep.

Then Bill 143 -- well, can you imagine? This wasn't a very important bill. This was only a bill --

Mr Stockwell: Dumps.

Mr Mahoney: -- that dealt with dumps.

Mr Murdoch: Jim Wiseman, he knows about that bill.

Mr Mahoney: Mr Wiseman knows about it, whatever his riding. This was a bill on the environment that dealt with how we are going to manage our garbage, probably for the rest of our lives and maybe our kids' lives, and what did you do?

Mr Stockwell: Reduce, reuse, recycle and beat it.

Mr Mahoney: You couldn't get a consensus within the municipalities, you couldn't get a consensus within the environmentalists, you couldn't get a consensus within your own party.

Mr Stockwell: So what did you do?

Mr Mahoney: You brought in closure; the second time. It's the only --

The Acting Speaker: Order, the member for Etobicoke West, interjections are out of order.

Mr Mahoney: -- way that this government is capable of governing. Then you went on to, of course, the mother of all bills in this place: Bill 40. The mother of all pieces of legislation, the number one payback. Thank you, Mr Rae, Mr Mackenzie, from Bob White, from Leo Gerard, from all the boys in the labour movement. They appreciate it.

You know, the rank and file are worried about their jobs. The rank and file are concerned about whether or not the plant they work for is going to be there on Monday morning to open up again. They don't care about your philosophy. The rank and file are going to boot your tails out of office.

Let me tell you, they've rejected you, they've cut off your funding --

The Acting Speaker: Would the member please take his seat. I would ask the member to respect the dignity of this House and continue his remarks. Thank you.

Mr Mahoney: Madam Speaker, you talk about respecting the dignity of this place. I wish this government would respect the dignity of democracy. That's what I wish.

You wonder why we get a little hot and a little angry in this place, and perhaps a little bit unparliamentary? People ask me, "Why do you guys shout and yell at each other so much?" When we see them jamming legislation down our throats, when our job is to defend the people who can't defend themselves because you shut it down, you wonder why we get a little angry and a little passionate about this job? This government has no respect for the Ontario Legislature, and it has less respect for the people of this province, or they would not continually use closure as a tool to ram their ideas down our throats.

Bill 40, if I could go back to where I was, was a bill where they used this particular legislative tool. It was the only way they could get it done.

To one of the View Brothers, what are you twirling?

Then we go on: We had Bill 150.

Then we had one that was interesting. Imagine this: the advocacy package. This wasn't one bill that closure was put on; this was Bills 74, 108, 109 and 110, all in one closure motion. Unbelievable.

Mr Stockwell: More amendments than sections.

Mr Mahoney: More amendments than sections, the member for Etobicoke West tells me. Imagine. We've got four bills: advocacy. People concerned about health care. People concerned about their loved ones. People concerned about access to health care and taking care of their family and who makes decisions in troubled times. And what do you do? You invoke closure.

The people honestly don't understand what it's all about, but what it is about is that when this government runs out of patience, it simply decides it's going to slam the door shut. They don't care who has had an opportunity to talk. That's what they're doing on this bill today, on Bill 91. They're saying to the farmers out there: "Look, we've heard all this stuff. We had a couple of groups together."

They had a task force. Here's the task force: comprised of three representatives from the agricultural community -- I presume they'd be farmers -- two representatives from organized labour, one representative from farm workers, and two staff. Imagine that: a bill that will ultimately affect the quality of life for the farm workers and they set up a task force and they appoint one representative of the farm workers to sit on the task force and two from organized labour. What does that tell you?

Mr Stockwell: Union.

Mr Mahoney: And two staff. I wonder if those staff were NDP. What do you think?

Mr Stockwell: I think so.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Mississauga West, address the Chair.

Mr Mahoney: Do you think, Mr Speaker, that the staff who were on that might have taken their marching orders from the Minister of Labour or the Minister -- is there a modicum of chance? I think they were. So here you've got one poor farm worker representative sitting there going: "Whoa. What are you trying to do to me? What are trying to organize the farm for?" Then you've got all these organized labour guys and the staff people from the government.

There's a book out called Winning by Intimidation. That's what it's called. What you do, in winning by intimidation, is that if you're going in to make a presentation, you find out how many people are going to be there who you're presenting to, and then you bring twice as many on your side --

Mr Stockwell: And then you beat them up.

Mr Mahoney: And you just beat them up. That's what this government believes in: winning by intimidation.

Then, of course, they had already done one retroactive Rent Control Act, and in 1992, just to show they weren't finished sticking it to the landlords in this province, they decided to do another one and they introduced Bill 121 on rent control. Again, closure. Again, retroactive. Real democracy. Real fairness.

Then, of course, regulated health professions.

1730

Ah, here's the bill we all really loved: Bill 8. Bill 8 introduced casino gambling in this place. Imagine, Bob Rae's Ontario with casinos all over the place. It's really quite interesting. It's quite phenomenal when we look back in Hansard and we go, "No, that couldn't have been Bob Rae saying those things."

Remember when he was against Lottario?

Mr Stockwell: Yes, it was a tax on the poor.

Mr Mahoney: It was a tax on the poor. Imagine. "Oh, my God, a tax on the poor. Their lives are going to fall apart. Their kids are going to go out and rob corner stores because they're buying lottery tickets."

Now, it's ba-boom, ba-boom, put your quarter in a slot machine and you'll get a picture of Bob Rae and probably a little music coming back and you might even make a few bucks down in Windsor. What do you think?

Mr Stockwell: Sure.

Mr Mahoney: That's where we are. Mr Speaker, I can't help it. They draw me in, you know.

That was Bill 8, but aside from the issue itself, which received very little discussion in this place or in this province, the only way the government could pass it was to put in closure once again. That was Bill 8.

Mr Stockwell: Read them all.

Mr Mahoney: I told you about Bill 80. Here's one you're going to love. Here's how we're going to solve the crisis of getting photographs on health cards. They brought in Bill 47, photo-radar. Now they're going to use the photo-radar to snap your picture as you're going by and they'll put it on your health card. I think it's perfect. This is called government efficiency. This is called eliminating duplication. "We're going to use photo-radar to take your picture, yes, sir, and $66 million will roll in to the Finance minister's coffers as a result of that". Again, closure. Social contract, closure; auto insurance, closure; Ottawa-Carleton; agriculture labour we're dealing with -- all closure. These people don't know what the word "democracy" means.

The Deputy Speaker: The member's time has expired. Questions or comments?

Mr Villeneuve: Just in the short time that I have in response to the member from Etobicoke -- for Mississauga West. They're a little bit the same, Etobicoke and Mississauga West, but the member from Etobicoke is much more articulate.

It's a crying shame that we have closure brought in here. Back in the days when the NDP was in opposition, the word "closure" was a terrible word. Now they call it "time allocation," but what's happening here is that these are the amendments and they will be dealt with in a very limited time so that no one will have any input on whatever is coming through in Bill 91.

It's of great concern because, I've got to re-emphasize -- and I know the member for Mississauga West didn't look at the heading -- that the preamble says, "It is in the public interest to extend collective bargaining rights to employees and employers in the agriculture and horticulture industries."

Where in the world did they get this? It makes no sense. This is in the preamble, leave alone the 28 pages of amendments that have to be dealt with under time allocation, under a very, very non-democratic method of operation. The agricultural community is being told: "We know what's good for you. Big Brother in Toronto is in charge."

There is a story about the animal farm where, all of a sudden, the animals become in charge and take over the farm. The animals are somewhere within the Ministry of Labour and they will have taken over the farm. I hope that the good folks from the Ministry of Labour realize what happens when you're subject to the whims of nature, the whims of the weather and the whims of bureaucrats, and the last are by far the worst.

Mr Sutherland: It's interesting listening to the theatrics of the member for Mississauga West as he goes on and on in his very sanctimonious way and tries to give us lessons on democracy. The member knows that not all bills go out for formal public hearings. There are many bills that get passed in here, many controversial bills, that don't go out for hearings.

But the question I want to raise, and also to the member for S-D-G & East Grenville, is, why is it that just about every other province in this country allows farm workers to unionize? Why is it that Alberta is the only province? You know what? Many other provinces have never had NDP governments. Liberal governments and Conservative governments have allowed farm workers the right to organize.

The member for S-D-G & East Grenville almost implied that every farm's going to be unionized. He was almost red-baiting with his comments, with the reference to Animal Farm. But if we look at the track record, that isn't the case: On average, it's between 3% and 5% in the other provinces. They're trying to imply that there are union organizers behind every bush, on every farm, ready to pounce as soon as this legislation passes. The track record doesn't support what is being said by the members of the opposition and the member for Mississauga West.

It's very unfortunate, because I know the member for Mississauga West knows a lot about labour history and labour background, and it's very unfortunate to listen to such an anti-labour stance coming from a Liberal Labour critic. He wanted to hide what he said, but if you're reading between the lines, it came out very clear that the Liberal Party has moved to an anti-labour stance. He's sounding more like Mitch Hepburn when he should go back and try to sound like David Croll, who stood up for labour in the Liberal Party at one time.

Mr Stockwell: The point the member for Mississauga West was trying to make, and I don't think it was necessarily lost, is the democratic process. What it says when 14 bills have to have closure moved is that the government really isn't finding tremendous success in this place or outside this place when it has to move closure on 14 separate bills.

You can see some of the bills they offer, Bill 80, Bill 40, this piece of legislation, but when you go through the list of casino gambling and photo-radar and those kinds of issues, as well as today's -- this I don't think was spoken about during the election -- it causes concern not just to the people who are affected by a piece of legislation, but all those pieces of legislation that came before you.

Opportunity for public, open debate wasn't there. Opportunity for committee hearings wasn't there. Opportunities for people like yourself to come forward and tell a government what you think about a piece of legislation weren't there.

What's democratic about that? What's fair about that? Why is it that you say to me this is a fair process to go through, it's equal and up front, when people in this province don't get a chance to tell you what they think? What is more fundamentally democratic than that? For heaven's sake, if you can't let the people comment on your legislation, then I say your legislation will not stand the test, and that test will ultimately be an election.

If you are frightened to hear from them at committees, then you're going to be very frightened to hear from them at election time. The good people of this province, some who are here today, have every right to tell this minister and this government what they think about the legislation, and if you don't give them that right, like today, then they will let that message ring loud and clear when your Premier finally has the guts to go back to the people.

Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): Talk about the issues. Never mind the rhetoric.

Mr Stockwell: You're the biggest hypocrite I've ever seen.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Etobicoke West, order, I ask you to withdraw that remark.

Mr Stockwell: I withdraw that, Mr Speaker. I withdraw the remark.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mr Perruzza: Just a two-minute response to some of the comments made by the member from Mississauga. I've sat here almost nearly four years and I've listened to the member from Mississauga speak on a number of occasions. I have to tell you, each and every time, you see he's a comical speaker and all the rest of it, but he has never once offered a millimetre of concrete advice on how to deal with some of the real, harsh, substantial problems in the province of Ontario.

He makes fun of the government's policy about where to take garbage. Well, garbage is a serious problem. It may not be for the member from Mississauga, because he takes it out to the curbside and then he doesn't have to worry about it ever again. It doesn't matter to him whether there's a mine up somewhere in Kirkland Lake or that we find a mountain in BC and we fly it out to BC and dump it on the mountain. But somebody has to make a real, hard, substantial, decisive, concrete, cost-effective, reflective decision about where you put it and where you dispose of it, and I think this government has done that.

1740

He mocks Bill 40 and he mocks the whole idea of what we pay and the kinds of rights that employees across the province have. It doesn't matter to him that there are some people out there making $4 an hour, $5 an hour, $6 an hour, who can't make ends meet, don't have a job. It doesn't matter to him. He can mock the entire process and mock Bill 40 and say: "Look at what they did. They allowed some workers to have some rights. What a God-awful shame that was." But he doesn't talk about the real people involved and the real decisions involved, and I hope that windbag over there --

The Deputy Speaker: Your time has expired. Order.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Take your seat. The member for Downsview.

Interjection: Kick him out, Mr Speaker.

Mr Mammoliti: But Mahoney was asking for it, Mr Speaker.

Mr Mahoney: I don't think I can recover.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Mississauga West, a little respect for the House, please. The member for Mississauga West, you have two minutes to reply.

Mr Mahoney: Only two minutes. It's interesting to me how when you say things about the government and when you say things about the process this government puts in place, invoking closure and time allocation all the time, their response is personal attacks. That just rolls off the back, and I just consider the source.

I also find it quite fascinating when I hear members opposite, both during their response and in their chirping, invoke memories of my late father and my labour background and the fact that they can't quite believe the things I say. Well, let me tell you, I grew up with Bill Mahoney, vice-president of the Canadian Labour Congress and national director of the Steelworkers of America, a very proud trade union man and a terrific man in that; with people like Larry Sefton; with people like Johnny Barker. These are real, true labour people, who would find it very difficult to tolerate the nonsense you people have foisted not only on the people of this province but specifically on the labour movement. So don't talk to me about my labour history. I'll match it beside any one of you, any time, any place, any day, let me tell you.

Let me tell you also, when I talk to somebody like Shirley Carr, a very wonderful woman who has a great history in this province, who tries to understand where you're coming from with a bill like Bill 80 -- don't tell me our party's anti-labour. Let me tell you what we are. We're anti-NDP, through and through. We're anti the nonsense you people keep introducing that hurts this economy. That's who we're against. The rank and file know. The rank and file understand. You don't.

Mr Mammoliti: With better makeup, you could become a clown.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Yorkview.

Mr Mahoney: Oh, George, stop it. You're really hurting.

The Deputy Speaker: I hope the next speaker will be a little more calm. The member for Grey-Owen Sound.

Mr Murdoch: I will try to be a little calmer than my farmer friend from Mississauga, but we'll see what happens.

Here we are again -- what is this? The 14th time we've had bill closure, 14 times. They call themselves the democratic party -- bill closure. I wonder when you're going to take the "democratic" out of your party name. You've got to get rid of that word, guys. It doesn't suit you any longer.

I thought for a while maybe our Minister of Agriculture did have some democracy in him, but after this we've seen he's fallen short too. He did have some friends out in the country, but I guess he didn't like having friends, so now he's got rid of them. He brought in Bill 91. He said: "I want to be like all the other ministers in this House. I don't want anybody to like me either. I'm going to do something about that." We heard him speak quite eloquently yesterday and he managed to hang himself very well. "Bill 91 will do it for me. I won't want any friends. I want to be like the rest of the buddies I've got over here." Now he says: "Nobody likes me."

What a way to be. I thought he was a good guy, and then he brings in 91 and tries to tell us there are farmers out there who like this. Our leader asked you today to name one, and nobody over there who could figure out who one was. Maybe the Minister of Agriculture's going to go into farming on his own, I don't know, and maybe he'll be the farmer who likes this bill. I'm not sure about that. I know we have supposedly a farmer from Huron, but we're not sure whether he likes this bill or not either. I see he's not in the House to tell us, and he disappeared with all this talking was going on. I haven't heard him speak on Bill 91 either.

Interjection.

Mr Murdoch: Yes, he's trying to get me to shut up. No, we won't do that.

So here we are again debating a bill to cut off debate. This seems to be one of the serious things you guys have had. This is your biggest bill you've ever brought through -- 14 of them, and I guess you won all 14. That ought to be a pretty good notch in your gun, won't it? You can tell all your people back home: "We killed 14 bills by bringing in debate that there would be no more debate. We're a democratic government, though." That will be fun when you try to tell people about that.

Now we go back to, why is this bill here? Again, the government says, "Well, the farmers want it." Then again, we can't find those farmers who want it.

So we wonder why they brought this bill in. I guess it was to feed Bob Mackenzie's ego. He had to get another labour bill in. He'd only gotten one in through four years, and it was a disaster, so he said, "Maybe we'd better try another one. Let's get all the farmers unionized, and then we can get more money into our coffers." Isn't that right, that each union pays a little bit into the NDP? Is that a little bit behind this? Maybe you have to fund your campaigns --

Hon Mr Buchanan: Not any more.

Mr Murdoch: The Minister of Agriculture hollers over, "Not any more." I can believe that. Even those friends you've lost.

Hon Mr Buchanan: Treat everybody equally.

Mr Murdoch: He says he treats everybody equally. I agree with him; they crap on everybody. There's no doubt.

I talked to one of the members over there; I won't mention his riding, but this is some time ago and we asked him, would there be an election this fall? He said, "No way, there are still a few people who like us out there." I didn't quite believe him on that, but I guess he was right, because I think there were some farmers who used to like the Minister of Agriculture. What happened? He said, "Well, we better get that."

So maybe you're going to call an election this fall. You're certainly getting ready for it. There's nobody left out there to vote for you, and now you tell us that they're not paying into your coffers. That's unfortunate too.

Interjection: Is it?

Mr Murdoch: We'd like them around to get a few votes. But unfortunately I don't think they're going to be here. They're going to be wiped off the map.

They keep bringing in these silly bills. I mean, what is wrong with you?

Then we get a bill in here -- okay, that's fine. You have the right to do that as a government. But then when you get upset with us because we ask you a few questions: "Well, we're going to close off debate. We're not going to let you talk about it any longer." You won't even take it out to committee.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): Listen to the speech and you will understand why.

Mr Murdoch: The member from Windsor, Mr Cooke, has something to say, and maybe after I'm done he'll get a chance to speak on this. But I doubt it, because they brought in closure. They wouldn't want to set him loose because he would be able to talk quite a bit about farming, I'm sure. He seems to understand nearly everything else, so I'm sure he's a great farmer. At least he lets on that he does.

So anyway, we get a bill in here and we want to debate it. We've had 14 of them and you've said, "No way. You're not going to debate this." Then the worst part is: "We're not going to let anybody else in the country debate it either. We're not going to send it out to committee. No way. We might find out we were wrong."

Boy, that would be dangerous, wouldn't it? Somebody might tell you it's wrong.

Interjection.

Mr Murdoch: Now we have another minister trying to tell us -- I guess they're coming in. There must be a vote coming, because I see they're finally coming into the House and now they're trying to get into the debate. Maybe you'd like to reconsider this motion, Minister. I see a lot of your members are starting to chirp up. Maybe they'd like to speak on this debate.

They have a few members in the House now, and maybe they will talk after this. Maybe tomorrow we'll have to talk on this bill some more. Or maybe they'll find another bill they don't want us to speak on and bring in another closure motion. Who knows with these guys? There's no consideration for anybody else but yourselves. You don't understand democracy.

Mr Mammoliti: Hurry up. Stop being --

Mr Murdoch: Now the member from Pizzaville wants me to be quiet. He doesn't even want us to debate it on closure. This is even worse than bringing in closure. So it is really --

Mr Mammoliti: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would ask the member to withdraw the remark that he had made. I would say it's unparliamentary, "Pizzaville." I'm hoping he's not referring to me. I'd be really disappointed if --

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Please take your chair. I must admit that with the noise, I was not able to detect quite clearly what he said, but I know that if the member did say something wrong, he will correct himself.

1750

Mr Murdoch: Yes, if I offended the member. I'll withdraw that if the member's offended. Okay? Just to point out, Mr Speaker, if that member was talking out of turn, then I wouldn't have had to say anything. Maybe he's guilty himself and maybe, Mr Speaker, you could have mentioned something to him that he was out of place.

Mr Mammoliti: It's no excuse to be a bigot, Mr Speaker. No excuse at all.

Mr Murdoch: Oh, now he called me a bigot, Mr Speaker. Maybe I would like you to ask him to withdraw those comments.

The Deputy Speaker: You're making it extremely difficult for the Chair to control the debate. The member for Yorkview, please, you know the word that you said. It's quite offensive. I would not accept the word myself. I would ask you to withdraw that word.

Mr Mammoliti: No, I'm not withdrawing it, Mr Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: Would you please remove the member from the House.

Mr Mammoliti: He called me a name.

The Deputy Speaker: I name you to please leave the House, Mr Mammoliti.

Mr Mammoliti left the chamber.

Mr Murdoch: I've been led to believe that some of our House leaders have made a deal that we would let the Minister of Agriculture speak on this topic, as he has not to this date. Being that there is not a lot of time left in the House, I will just say it is unfortunate that this government is ramming this bill down the throats of the farmers without any consultation and it's typical of what they've been doing. Mr Speaker, with that, I will give up the rest of my time so that the Minister of Agriculture can give a few remarks.

Hon Mr Buchanan: First of all, let me say I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words, so I therefore appreciate the member for Grey-Owen Sound not taking the rest of the time, because I know there are only a few minutes left.

There are a few comments I wanted to put on the record. The first one is that I wanted to welcome the member for S-D-G & East Grenville back to the House and we're very pleased that he's able to be back with us.

A few things that were said earlier today I want to comment on and then I want to talk very quickly about some of the fundamental issues around the bill. First of all, I heard the member for Mississauga West talk about our government leaving the province in a financial mess. I seem to recall that when we took over the books, they were less than wonderful. They couldn't tell the difference between a surplus and a deficit. We're very able and very capable of telling the people what the deficit is. We at least have that much straight. The member for Mississauga West, I think, was out of line.

I listened to the member for Simcoe East earlier talk about closure and time allocation and the number of times that we have used that mechanism. The member for Simcoe East should take a look at what goes on in the House of Commons in Ottawa. In fact, the former Conservative government used time allocation with almost every bill that was brought forward. They time-allocated the bills as they went --

Hon Mr Cooke: With no debate on the motion.

Hon Mr Buchanan: -- and there was no debate on the motion at all. We still adhere to the traditions of democracy.

Another member made a comment earlier, the member for Etobicoke West, who I guess has left us. He was talking about having this bill go to committee, and yet yesterday or the day before yesterday he talked about having ideas for bills discussed among the interested parties before bringing the bill in. That's what this bill is all about. The parties who are concerned about this bill sat down for over a year and worked out what an agricultural bill should look like. Labour and agricultural groups sat down and worked through what this bill should be. That was put together on a consensus basis.

This is almost a first, that we had agricultural people and labour unions sit down and work out the details of a bill. When the bill was introduced, they went out and got a legal opinion that said there needed to be some changes. They also went back to work on amendments, and those amendments have been brought here to this House and will be dealt with in committee of the whole. They reflect a consensus between farmers and labour unions.

I think it's important that everybody understand that the politicians in this House, despite all their huffing and puffing about what this will do to the family farm or who wants it, should take note of the fact that this was put together with farmers and unions. It reflects that consensus, and I don't think there's any point in us trying to make it better. The people who have designed it made it as good as they could and it reflects what they want.

In the last minute or two, I have a letter that I would like to read, which should take me about a minute. It's addressed to the Honourable Bob Mackenzie. It says:

"Dear Minister:

"The Ontario agricultural organizations' Labour Issues Coordinating Committee...has been following closely the deliberations of the Agricultural Labour Management Advisory Committee...since its first meeting February 7, 1994.

"The LICC had an opportunity on April 7, 1994, to review a draft of ALMAC's report on issues related to the Agricultural Labour Relations Act, 1993.

"The LICC was encouraged to see that once again the tripartite consensus process had successfully resolved a number of difficult issues. The good faith, diligence and thoughtfulness that all participants brought to the ALMAC's discussions should be recognized and applauded. The success of the consensus process and the durability of the parties' commitments augur well for the future of labour relations in this sector.

"The draft report addresses the majority of concerns raised in the critique of Bill 91 that LICC forwarded to your attention on November 1993. ALMAC's recommendations build upon the work of the previous Agricultural Labour Relations Task Force and, if successfully translated into legislative form, would establish a satisfactorily separate and effective labour relations framework for the agricultural industry. The LICC recommends the ALMAC report to the government's attention.

"The LICC is looking forward to the improved legislation and is willing to contribute whatever advice or information that might be helpful to the next steps in the process. The ALMAC co-chairs encourage LICC to forward any suggestions it might have on drafting issues and this will be done shortly.

"On the LICC's behalf, I want to thank you and your staff for their cooperation and hard work on this issue."

This is signed, "Yours truly, Grant Smith," who is chair of the Labour Issues Coordinating Committee.

That says it all. This letter was forwarded to both opposition parties and to the critics of Agriculture and Labour, and it does show that there's consensus. There are good amendments here and I think we should move forward. There's no point in talking about this any longer. Let's get on with it and do it.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Mackenzie has moved government notice of motion number 30. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. This will be a 15-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1758 to 1813.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time.

Ayes

Abel, Akande, Allen, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Duignan, Fletcher, Frankford, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Lankin, Laughren, Lessard, Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Murdock (Sudbury), O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pilkey, Pouliot, Rae, Rizzo, Silipo, Sutherland, Ward, Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, Wildman, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please rise one at time.

Nays

Arnott, Bradley, Brown, Chiarelli, Cleary, Conway, Cousens, Crozier, Curling, Daigeler, Eddy, Elston, Eves, Fawcett, Grandmaître, Harnick, Harris, Hodgson, Jackson, Johnson (Don Mills), Jordan, Mahoney, Marland, McGuinty, McLean, Miclash, Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound), Murphy, North, Offer, O'Neil (Quinte), O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Poirier, Poole, Runciman, Sola, Sterling, Stockwell, Sullivan, Turnbull, Villeneuve.

The Deputy Speaker: The ayes are 61; the nays are 41. I declare the motion carried.

It being past 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 10 of the clock tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 1815.

8 juin 1994