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

LAND LEASE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES TERRAINS À BAIL

TOBACCO CONTROL ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LA RÉGLEMENTATION DE L'USAGE DU TABAC

---

Report continued from volume A.

1730

House in committee of the whole.

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

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

The Chair (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Before we start, let me read the following so that you're aware of what is going to take place:

"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."

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): On a point of order, Mr Chair: Permission for the ministry staff to come on the floor?

The Chair: Please, if the staff wish to come in.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Mr Chair, as a result of the time allocation, we had filed certain amendments which had been tabled, actually, the day before yesterday in relation to this bill. I wish to advise the Chair at this point that we are withdrawing all those amendments, bearing in mind that we cannot hold any public hearings and we find it to be quite unnecessary to go through all of the process, with the exception of one amendment, and I will read it so that it can be readily identified -- it will be at the time.

I move that all sections of the bill be struck out and that the following section 1 be substituted:

"Exemptions under the Labour Relations Act

"(1) Clause 2(b) of the Labour Relations Act is amended by striking out 'except as provided under subsection (2);'.

"(2) Subsection 2(2) of the Labour Relations Act is deleted.

"(3) The short title of this act is the Reinstatement of the Agricultural Labour Exemption Act, 1993."

That is the amendment which we will be proceeding with. It would reinstate the exemption from the Ontario Labour Relations Act of the farming activities and agricultural activities in the province. That is the substance of our concerns and I therefore ask that all other amendments be withdrawn from consideration, which should be of some assistance to the Chair.

The Chair: If I understand you correctly, the only one that you will be introducing will be clause 2(b) of the Labour Relations Act, and it reads as follows: "is amended by striking out 'except as provided under subsection (2)'"; "Subsection 2(2) of the Labour Relations Act is deleted"; and, "The short title of this act is the Reinstatement of the Agricultural Labour Exemption Act, 1993." All of the others are withdrawn.

Mr Elston: All of the others are withdrawn and at this time I will ask that our Agriculture critic be allowed to speak to that particular issue.

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate, particularly as it affects the second-largest employer in the province and an industry that I've personally been involved in all my life. I think we owe it to the agricultural community, and we feel very strongly that if this is not reinstated, that hearings be allowed, and we owe it to the farmers across the province.

Through the years, I've been involved in many parts of agriculture. I've been involved in a cow-calf operation, I've finished beef cattle and pork, I've milked cows both before and after supply management and I've peddled many eggs to customers. I know how controversial an issue this can be if some of these agricultural operations are allowed to unionize.

I've also been involved in the cash crop industry: mixed crops -- wheat, barley, peas and oats. I think it's safe to say that I have a pretty good insight on the farm industry and the concerns of farmers across this province, and not like the Labour minister, who claims he knows a little bit about agriculture by dropping in and talking to a relative.

It is also safe to say that the piece of legislation before us, Bill 91, An Act respecting Labour Relations in the Agriculture Industry, has caused much concern to myself, the farmers in my riding and the farmers across this province.

Some of you may recall that last week the Minister of Labour was asked right here in these chambers if he could name one farmer who approved of the actual Bill 91, and I'm sorry to say we haven't heard that individual named yet. Our survey said that 100% of the farmers in this province were opposed to this bill. It was interesting and revealing when the minister, the individual responsible for shepherding the bill through the Legislature on behalf of the citizens of Ontario, could not name a single individual that was supporting this bill when he was introducing the legislation.

I have spoken to many of the farmers who belong to the different farm organizations, and they say there's no support there either. I know it is the minister's common retort to say that there was a labour issue committee looking into this, as did the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. But the truth of the matter is, that labour committee and others have only accepted Bill 91 as the least of a number of evils the minister would have threatened them with. Just because someone is forced to resign himself to something that may be a wee bit better than what else is offered, that does not make a good or welcome choice. That is exactly the situation that's before us.

Bill 91 is being offered as a concession to agriculture's full inclusion under the NDP's damaging Bill 40. The hard and real truth is that farmers across the province are very upset that the government is bringing forward this legislation against their wishes. I have found 100% opposition from farmers across this province on Bill 91, and I have named the farmers I've talked to: Stormont-Dundas-Glengarry, Leeds-Grenville, Prescott and Russell, Renfrew, Middlesex, St Catharines-Brock, Welland-Thorold, Huron, Lincoln, Carleton, Prince Edward-Lennox, Victoria-Haliburton, Bruce, and I could go on and on, because there is no support for this bill.

Farmers don't want this legislation, I don't want this legislation, my colleagues don't want the legislation, our caucus doesn't want the legislation and even the Progressive Conservatives don't want this legislation.

The central problem is that Bill 91 will allow agriculture to unionize. Work slowdowns, labour disputes and work-to-rule campaigns are all fair game under unionization. NDP labour rules would be devastating to the province's agriculture industry and the entire farming community. Slowdowns from suppliers, processors and transportation would also be devastating. There is no proof whatsoever that this bill will make agriculture more competitive, more productive and more profitable.

These are key points in any industry, yet this government cannot make any real statement on these factors. In fact, it is outright confusing why this government wants to proceed with this legislation. This is the same government that has closed provincial campgrounds and recreational parks and now refuses to allow private enterprise to step in and reopen these parks to create jobs for our students and others.

Everyone knows that opening the parks would mean more investment in the province and job creation, so why does the government refuse to open the parks? Because, they say, they are being blocked by successor rights. Even the House leader, Mr Charlton, who sits across the way, said he is interested in opening the parks, yet they remain closed. Nothing has been done years later.

1740

The government freely admits that the successor rights are stopping the parks from being opened and are hurting the overall economy. Yet here they are trying to ram unionization on to farms and farm families in our rural communities. Haven't they learned a lesson?

I remember other pieces of legislation that this government tried to ram through on farmers not too long ago. I remember the issue of stable funding, the farm registration and the farm organizations funding act, as its full title may be.

I have to give the Minister of Agriculture credit on that. He was one of the ones who supported that we try to have hearings on that, and he didn't get a whole lot of support from the third party, some of whom tried to ram that through the Legislature without going to hearings. The NDP government, in conjunction with the Progressive Conservatives, tried to force stable funding on to farmers without the committee hearings in August. I'm sure that in those hearings we would have all learned a lot, and the Minister of Agriculture had supported us a bit on that.

Bill 91: The farmers don't want it, so do not proceed with the legislation. Let it die now. Listen to the opposition parties on Bill 91. Don't make the family farm face any more unnecessary challenges. My leader and the Liberal caucus have listened to the people who are affected by this bill, and we promise that we will continue to listen. I encourage the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs to listen. Do the right thing for farmers and consumers. As my colleague, our House leader, mentioned earlier, we are prepared to withdraw all our amendments if we put the agricultural labour exemption back into the bill.

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): I want to make a few comments. I gather we are limited to 60 minutes.

I know we have debated to some degree Bill 91 here in this Legislature, but I certainly want to continue, particularly in view of the fact that somehow or other the Liberals have decided they will not stay the course on this. I'm somewhat disappointed, because I think it's of utmost importance that this bill, Bill 91, will effectively change the rules of the game for not only agricultural workers but for farmers who hire them, and it will create a chain event of reactions throughout the rural economic neighbourhood.

I was somewhat perplexed earlier this week when the Premier was asked a question by the member for Nipissing, the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party here in Ontario, about Bill 91. Unlike the Liberals, who sent correspondence to all of rural Ontario, they were suggesting that it was under the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Well, indeed this bill is sponsored by the Minister of Labour and is being carried today by my colleague, his parliamentary assistant, the member for Kitchener-Wilmot, through the Ministry of Labour. But when Mr Harris, the member for Nipissing, asked a question of the Premier earlier this week on Bill 91, he transferred that question over to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): He did a good job, too.

Mr Villeneuve: He may have done a good job, except that I have been saying all along that indeed this was a bill that should have been, if indeed it had to be -- and I don't believe we need this bill at all. The exemption is in place and working well.

However, the Premier passed the question on to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs for a response, which he did. Indeed, he was admitting, and it's too bad; if he was admitting, then he should have said, "Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, this is your bill." Why would the Premier pass that question on to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs when indeed it's being sponsored by the Ministry of Labour? That's an intriguing turn of events.

I remember very distinctly back in July last year when this bill was brought in by the Minister of Labour. At that time, the reply from the Liberal Party was really lukewarm. They weren't sure whether they liked it or not and the critic of the Ministry of Labour, Mr Mahoney, got up and went on for his five minutes and really didn't say a great deal.

We know that the Liberal leader was on the record as saying, "Yes, we've got to change the labour laws in Ontario," but the leader of the Liberal Party was not sure when a good time would be to change the Labour Relations Act. So the Liberal Party at that time, we have to assume, because they didn't speak against Bill 91, was to some degree in favour. Maybe the timing was wrong.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): Don't worry, I have a letter from Lyn McLeod about this.

Mr Villeneuve: Yes, apparently the Liberal leader does send letters from time to time and they make for interesting reading, as did the little flyer that I got in my mailbox that said that the Liberal Party was the only party fighting Bill 91. That was distinctively not correct. Someone made a tactical error, because in the five minutes' response back in July, I simply told the Minister of Labour that Bill 91 was an extension of Bill 40. The Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario's committed to repealing Bill 40 and repealing Bill 91 within 100 days of taking office, and that promise stays and it remains.

The member for Cornwall must have been absent that day or forgot, because indeed that was said right here in this Legislature as I stood in my place and replied to the Minister of Labour. The member for Cornwall and the member for Northumberland may want to correct the fact that the literature that I received through the mail said the Liberal Party was the only party in Ontario fighting Bill 91 for the family farm. That was not correct, because certainly I was on the record right off the bat, at the crack of the bat.

Mr Klopp: The rest of it was incorrect too, so why worry about it? The rest of it was false too, so what's the problem?

Mr Villeneuve: I think farmers in Ontario certainly don't need to be told. I think they are fairly well up to speed on what happens.

I have a stack of amendments here that would exempt basically all the commodities and the municipalities. All I am asking is that the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, his parliamentary assistant, who is here, and the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour give us a week of public hearings out in rural Ontario.

If you have that many people who favour this bill, they will show up. You will make sure they show up and get it on the record. We won't have to go and get farmers -- and they may well be harvesting, haying or whatever, but they will come --

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): They're too busy.

Mr Villeneuve: "They're too busy." To the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, I don't think they would be too busy to come and tell you what they think about Bill 91. They would take time. They would definitely take time to give you their ideas, because, you know, agriculture is the kind of business where everyone works together. The family works together, the children in the house work together and the hired labour. They're up at 5 in the morning and they're off to do chores or off into the fields, and they communicate. They don't need the kind of arbitrator that Bill 91 would bring to agriculture, surely. They speak to one another. In many instances the hired help stays on the farm in one of the residences owned by the farmer they work for. They communicate. Surely this would put an artificial barrier between the farmer and his employees, and it's not needed.

1750

I've spoken to a number of farmers -- at the Maxville Fair a month ago, and the graduation at the Kemptville College of Agricultural Technology -- and everybody, bar none, said: "No, but what are you doing with Bill 91? What in the world do we need that for?" I'm still wondering. I am asking, please tell us why you are resisting one week of public hearings. I suggest to you that in southwestern Ontario we could have a day; a day and a half down there in south-central Ontario, in central Ontario; one day in northern Ontario and one day down in the great part of the country that I come from, in eastern Ontario. That's all we'd need: five days. The message would come through loud and clear: "Bill 91 is redundant; Bill 91 is not needed."

I go back to the preamble of Bill 91 and it reads, "It is in the public interest to extend collective bargaining rights to employees and employers in the agriculture and horticulture industries."

Whoever coined that first line, it makes no sense. It is not correct. It is not what agriculture wants and I can tell the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs that if indeed this bill which we don't need was going to appear, it should be in his ministry because indeed he is in charge of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. This bill is about agriculture, food production and rural affairs.

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): Labour relations.

Mr Villeneuve: Labour relations -- and therein is the problem.

I've said on a number of occasions when I've represented my people in this House that under the Ministry of Labour we have some instances where people go to be trained. They go to school, and that's fine. That's excellent. But the first thing they teach them, Mr Chair, is all of the requirements that the employer owes the employee. They don't teach them right off the bat how to do what it is they're in school to learn. The first thing they learn is all of their rights and what have you.

In Bill 91, it's my understanding that lockouts and strikes will not be allowed, but that binding arbitration will be the way to solve all of the problems between employer and employee. My limited experience with binding arbitration is something less than happy. I can assure the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs and the Ministry of Labour representatives that that will indeed be the case, because in agriculture people speak to one another. If there's a dispute, you correct it, and if it can't be reconciled, then people go on and new people replace them. It's about that simple. It has worked for a long time. Why involve Big Brother and Labour Relations Act enforcers in agriculture? I cannot understand that.

I know we're on limited time and I intend to present these amendments, unless someone in authority can tell me why they are resisting one week of public input from the people who will be directly affected: the agriculture, food production and rural community.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): Why not, Paul?

Mr Villeneuve: The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs is giving some advice to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour. I hope the advice he gives him is: "Yes, why don't we? We would like to hear what the real folks out there who are going to be involved with Bill 91 are saying. Let's get them on the record. Hansard will be there and we'll get them on the record."

I have been on the record since day one saying it's not needed, it's redundant, it will create havoc. We have questioned in the House on a number of occasions and the Premier passed the question on to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. We've always had no names -- oh, the federation of agriculture and the Agricultural Labour Management Advisory Committee -- that's a mouthful -- which advise the different ministries, have come forward and have said, "If this and that happen, it's okay." But remember, they were told, "Unless you accept something like Bill 91, Bill 40 applies to agriculture." That's a travesty and that's what you call bargaining with a gun to your head. You've heard of that. That's what is happening to this group called the Agricultural Labour Management Advisory Committee.

They came up with something because it was a necessary evil, because Bill 40 is certainly not something that would be conducive -- it says here, "It is in the public interest to extend collective bargaining rights to employees and employers in the agriculture and horticulture industries." Whoever coined that one should have a second look, because in the next paragraph it says, and this is the important part: "However, the agriculture and horticulture industries have certain unique characteristics that must be considered in extending those rights. Those unique characteristics include seasonal production, climate sensitivity, time sensitivity, the perishable nature of agricultural and horticultural products, and the need for maintenance of continuous processes to ensure the care and survival of animal and plant life."

But the first sentence says it's good and it's conducive for the agricultural community to join unions? Come on; that's got to be wrong. It's got to be wrong. The exemption of agriculture that we've always had has worked beautifully. It's worked beautifully.

I know the government -- and probably my colleague from Northumberland wants to add a few words within the hour we have been allocated. I ask anyone -- anyone -- on the government side, why will you not grant us one week of public hearings so the people in rural Ontario can tell us what they think? If they come in droves and say, "This is great; it's in the public interest to extend bargaining rights and unionization to agriculture and food," I will sit in this Legislature and congratulate you and support your bill. But until you prove me that, there is absolutely no way I can accept, in any way, shape or form, that bargaining, the way Bill 91 is set up, is conducive to prosperous and economic agriculture.

We have a situation where the federal government is presently subsidizing the transportation of western grain into Ontario. We now have in this fiscal year more western grain in Ontario than we had all of last year. There's been $16 and $17 a tonne of federal subsidy on every tonne that comes into Ontario and competes with the oat, barley and corn producers of Ontario. That is a problem. Then we're going to allow people to unionize here in Ontario on the farm, which would make them even less competitive against the public purse? It makes no sense. So I'm asking, I'm pleading with someone to tell me why you won't give us a week of public hearings.

The Chair: Parliamentary assistant, do you wish to reply?

Mr Cooper: All right, I guess I could respond here. I think what we have to do is go back to the very original when you got the task force on agricultural labour relations. If you look at the first paragraph, it tells you exactly what this is all about. "As part of its proposed reform of the Labour Relations Act, the government indicated that the right to organize for collective bargaining purposes should be extended to persons employed in landscape gardening and in those parts of the agricultural and horticultural sector which utilize industrial or factory-style methods of production."

It's quite clear we're not unionizing the family farm, which is the red herring that's out there.

To go out and do the public hearings after two years of deliberation -- we've sat down with the task force, which has three representatives from the agricultural community, two representatives from organized labour, one representative from farm workers and two staff from the Ontario ministries of Labour and Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, and we have a consensus.

Since the original Bill 91, we've brought forward these amendments, because the task force continued to meet and they raised certain concerns that weren't met in Bill 91. We've brought forward these amendments that will address all these and we have this consensus, and it's our commitment to get this done as soon as possible.

To delay it for a week of public hearings would delay it till next fall, in which case, as you said, we would hear people who are against this and you'd come in and you'd deliberately stall this again and we would be going on for ever. That's why the commitment is to get this done, to get it done now, and not to do the public hearings.

1800

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): I am rather interested in the debate and the words from the honourable member from S-D-G & East Grenville, and also the remarks in rebuttal from the parliamentary assistant. I'd like to take a step back further even yet and go back another year to when the minister introduced Bill 40. When Bill 40 was introduced, the agricultural exemption was removed from that. It was gone, and this was before all of this consultation that the parliamentary assistant was remarking on. So we've got Bill 40 without an exemption for the agricultural community, and I would suggest that maybe that's when a lot of people got very upset and very worried in the farm community that all of a sudden they were now subject to Bill 40.

I wonder too whether or not the Minister of Labour, at that time when he brought forward Bill 40, taking out the agricultural exemption, was in contact with and in consultation with the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, and even the two parliamentary assistants. Were they at that time consulted or talked to?

If so, I can't understand, at that time, whether or not the Minister of Agriculture would agree that this exemption should be removed. Then, I would suspect, this task force was put together and the consultation started, all of the questions being looked at very, very carefully, and these 11 recommendations came forward at that time. Then the minister decided he'd better do something, so he brought forward sort of the son of Bill 40, which is Bill 91, before us now.

As I recall, the 11 recommendations were not addressed in this bill and people were again very upset, so now we have all of these amendments coming forward that are going to address the problem.

But let there be no mistake here that when Bill 40 came forward, I just have a feeling that agriculture was not really consulted at that time, and if they were, I would really suspect that they would have suggested that the agricultural exemption remain.

There are some things being said here, some statements being made that we don't agree with or, "The Liberals didn't say much about Bill 91." I just want to tell you what the member from S-D-G & East Grenville said on May 14, 1992. He got up in the House and said, "Can the minister assure the House and family farms across this province that the Ministry of Agriculture and Food will indeed be the ministry to oversee any labour law that comes" forward? He was saying at that time that there should be something else here, that there should maybe be a Bill 91. He's saying that he never, ever agreed with it, but I think it's right in Hansard.

Then again on June 24, 1992, "Farmers don't need the added insecurity of Bill 40 hanging over their heads.... What they need is assurance from the Minister of Labour that all references to agriculture will be removed from...Bill 40 and that the right to organize will be recognized in a separate agriculture-labour relations act....Would you not today...assure our rural community that there will be special legislation and Bill 40 will have nothing to do with agriculture?" The member from Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry was asking for another bill, for special legislation to agree with this.

Then I believe that our leader, Lyn McLeod, on June 29, 1992, asked a question in this House. She asked that the Minister of Labour "make a commitment today, before the debate on the Labour Relations Act amendments begins, to removing the section of those amendments which allow him to include agricultural workers at some subsequent date by regulation." The leader also asked, if the government is going to implement separate agriculture legislation, that the task force report be really looked at. I just wonder at some of this.

On July 7, 1992, we have the member from Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry begging for separate agricultural labour legislation: "Minister, please confirm that this recommendation will be adopted by the government for separate legislation for agriculture, if indeed you are listening." So there we are.

Then on November 17, 1992, again our leader spoke of the flaws in Bill 91, and asked the Minister of Labour why he did not keep his commitment to the agriculture community and demanded that the flawed legislation be withdrawn and that the minister should work with farm groups to fulfil the commitment of the task force report.

Then, because it was such a good question, the member from Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry figured he better get in on it, so he asked the same question. I just wonder about some of these statements that are being made.

On March 22, 1994, the leader asked for the flawed legislation to be fixed, asked why Bill 91 betrayed the recommendations of the OFA and asked for amendments that dealt with the OFA's concern.

Then we moved to our opposition day where we spent the whole day on Bill 91. We were demanding absolutely that the minister reinstate the agricultural exemption under the Labour Relations Act. Bill 91 is definitely not something any farmer we have spoken to -- we really believe the farmers out there are very concerned about this bill. They do not need it. They are not asking for it. The parliamentary assistant, the member for Huron, did get up and say he was one farmer who was for the bill, but I really question that.

1810

Mr Cleary: He's a loner on this one.

Mrs Fawcett: He is definitely a loner on this one. I believe that farmers out there are feeling betrayed. They feel that the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs is not really working towards their interests.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): Oh?

Mrs Fawcett: On this matter. I will grant that the minister has been working for farmers on other things, but on this one, I think he came in on it after the damage was done on Bill 40.

Mr Murdoch: He felt lonely. He had friends, and none of the other ministers did.

Mrs Fawcett: Maybe that was it.

We want the agricultural exemption put back into Bill 40. We will be moving an amendment in that respect, and we know this is truly what the farmers want. A farm labour bill is not necessary at all. Farmers know how they must treat their workers if they need a job done. They cannot stand even so much as a slowdown.

Mr Sutherland: Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec: Liberal governments, and they all have it.

Mrs Fawcett: But we do not need it here in Ontario. We treat our farmers and farm workers very well. I don't think there are any arguments whatsoever.

Getting back to the specifics of the bill, I worry that even the 11 recommendations are not being totally addressed in this bill. Is it truly separated, as was asked for? Is it truly separated from Bill 40, or is it still attached?

Mr Elston: No. When this gets passed, it'll be just part of the same bill.

Mrs Fawcett: Part of the overall thing. In the "agriculture" definition, have we really addressed all the concerns there? One question I have on the definition of agriculture is where it talks about the raising of livestock, and I'm wondering what is included in "livestock." I have been asked whether deer farming is included in the raising of livestock.

There are numerous questions one could ask, but if we have to have this bill at this time -- and believe me, I can hardly wait for the day when we hold the reins of government again and can address this and remove Bill 91 and put the agricultural exemption back into the Labour Relations Act.

Mr Murdoch: Are you going to throw the bill out? Tell us.

Mrs Fawcett: We will remove Bill 91 and put the agricultural exemption back into the Labour Relations Act, yes.

Mr Murdoch: Get rid of Bill 40 while you're at it; might as well.

Mrs Fawcett: I believe my colleague has a very important amendment to make, and maybe I can get a few answers to the questions.

Mr Murdoch: It certainly is a pleasure to stand here tonight and talk about Bill 91. It doesn't seem like it would have been a big problem to give us a week to look at this. We go on and on with all kinds of other bills, silly bills, and some of them we take out to hearings, some we don't. This bill is very important, and I can't understand why the Minister of Agriculture would not want this bill to go out. I can understand why the Minister of Labour doesn't want it to go out, because they're going to get crapped all over, but the Minister of Agriculture could go out. He did have some friends left in the agricultural sector.

Mr Sutherland: He has a lot more than you have.

Mr Murdoch: Oh, I won't even talk to him. He's not in his seat, so we won't worry about him. If he sits in his seat, maybe we'll talk to him.

The Liberal speaker who just spoke mentioned that she couldn't understand why the minister would want to bring this bill in. As I've mentioned before, none of the ministers have any friends left in the sector they represent, and I think the Minister of Agriculture was feeling the heat a bit because he did have some friends out there. He did have, and he could have again if he would take this out for a week's hearing, because then he would understand what the farmers think about this bill and he wouldn't just be ramming something down our throats. This is, if you'll remember, another closure bill, one of the 14 bills that have been closed by this government when it gets to a point where it doesn't want to listen to anyone any longer and brings in closure. That's why we only have around 15 minutes left to debate this bill, because they brought in a closure bill and put time limits on us.

Mr Elston: We should have at least half an hour.

Mr Murdoch: Certainly we should have at least half an hour, and so should everyone else from a rural area. I agree with the member for Bruce that everyone should have at least half an hour to speak on this bill, but unfortunately we don't. We're done in another 15 minutes, and that's it, they're going to ram this bill through. There's no democratic system left over there. First of all you bring in closure, and then you say, "We're not going to let you take it out to committee." That's the democratic process, but this government seems to have lost the democratic process. Maybe they're thinking, "We're not going to be around too much longer anyway, so why worry about it?"

As I said before, the minister had some friends left in the agriculture sector, but he certainly is getting rid of them very, very fast. If you read Town and Country, there's a gentleman who grows vegetables who said: "It was either this bill or Bill 40. They put a gun to our head." The minister spoke to his group and said, "You will have a labour law bill whether you like it or not, so you might as well accept this bill, because if you don't, we'll put you under Bill 40," and it's worse. But all this is is an extension of Bill 40.

You talk about how there won't be strikes in this sector and there won't be strikes in that sector. Once you get the labour movement into the agriculture sector, there will be strikes; that will be the next thing on their agenda. I'm telling you that farmers can't afford strikes. Farmers have looked after themselves for years and years and have had a good working relationship with the labour sector.

Interjection.

Mr Murdoch: Again the member for Oxford seems to want to get in on this debate, but unfortunately he doesn't want to sit in his seat. Maybe if he'd go to his seat, somebody would allow him to get in on the debate, but this seems to be normal for him.

We don't know who wants this bill. We've asked the question of the parliamentary assistant for Labour, the Minister of Agriculture, the parliamentary assistant for Agriculture. The parliamentary assistant says he wants this bill. I guess he represents all the farmers now. Maybe that's what he's decided, that he is the new guru in farming, because he says, "I want this, so the rest of the farmers must want this." He seems to be the only one, so at least they answered our question. We said, "Give us one person," and we know the member for Huron is definitely in favour of unionizing the small farms. That's fine if that's what the member for Huron wants, but unfortunately, the rest of the people don't want that.

I would just plead again with the government, would you give us one week to let the farmers decide? As our critic for Agriculture has said, if the farmers come forward and say they want this bill and they think it's fine, we certainly wouldn't object. But unfortunately, they're not even giving them that chance.

They talk about how there were three farmers on some sort of committee they had running around the province. Well, three farmers do not represent the whole province, unfortunately. If they'd let it go out for one week, the majority of farmers would have a chance and the labour workers who work on the farms would have a chance to say, "Yes, we like this bill" or "No, we don't" or "We would like some different amendments," or whatever. But unfortunately, this government has gone so far that it can't even do that. They've lost the decency to let bills go to committee.

I will wrap up. Maybe they have their amendments ready and I'll let them have their amendments now.

1820

The First Deputy Chair (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Further questions or comments?

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I'm upset today. There are no reporters here. There's nobody from the media here. That's why this minister and this government think they can jam this bill through without hearings. That's why. When we had Bill 40, which was exactly similar legislation that affected so many people, we had hearings across the province. That's because there was more political clout, there was more bumf. The media were interested, the Toronto media.

The Toronto media -- and I don't blame them -- don't understand rural Ontario. They don't understand agriculture. Quite frankly, that's fine. That's not their job. But it really upsets me when I have a Minister of Agriculture and whole party and a cabinet in power that don't understand agriculture and don't understand rural Ontario.

Mr Klopp: You didn't even mention it in your book. Noble had to phone you up after the --

The First Deputy Chair: Order, the member for Huron.

Mr Harris: What we have here is a party prepared to jam the unionization of family farms down the throats of rural Ontarians, down the throats of farmers, without even allowing them the opportunity to have hearings, to have their say, to come before a legislative committee and give their opinions. Why? Because they know. Why else would you deny democracy? Why else would you deny farmers, rural Ontarians, the opportunity to come before a parliamentary committee?

You know what, Madam Chair? We have had public hearings on virtually every issue that has come along. Rarely has a government forced bills through without allowing the public an opportunity, especially on a bill this significant, to fundamentally change the way particularly family farms are operated, to fundamentally change the labour laws of this province as it affects the agribusinesses and it affects farmers.

I understand that you think this is good legislation, and we do not and we're opposed. I understand that, but I do not understand this: taking the fundamental right of democracy away from farmers, telling them, "Sorry, you can't even come before a legislative committee and give us your viewpoints." That is unacceptable to us.

Madam Chair, we are moving 400 or 500 or 600 amendments. Yes, we plan to tie up this Legislature today, tonight, tomorrow, the next day, as long as we possibly can, if others will assist us. Yes, we plan to slow things down here. Yes, we're prepared to stand up for democracy. We're saying to farmers, yes, there is a political party here prepared to stand up and say it is time to do everything we can within our power to force this arrogant, undemocratic government to allow even the basic tenet of democracy: the right to be heard before you jam it down their throats. No, they want to jam it down their throats before they've even had public hearings.

It is a sad day when rural members of this caucus support not giving farmers, those in rural Ontario, the agribusiness, even the right to appear before a legislative committee. It is an even sadder day when the Minister of Agriculture -- and I want to say this directly to the Minister of Agriculture, because he is somebody in the cabinet of the New Democratic Party, one of the very few, who had a little strand of credibility with some in the agricultural community.

The union people don't support the Minister of Labour any more. He's lost it. The cabinet has lost it. But I do want to say directly -- the Minister of Agriculture is here -- that as I've travelled this province, as I've talked to people in their homes, in their kitchens, on their farms, they'd say: "We know Bob Rae doesn't understand or care about us. We know the cabinet is Toronto-based, they don't understand rural Ontario, they don't understand agriculture."

Interjections.

Mr Harris: I am repeating exactly what I have heard as I have travelled this province. They've said: "We understand that this New Democratic caucus will do whatever it's ordered to do to try and hang on to any semblance of power, and they know their power is the union bosses. That's where the money comes from and that's where the support comes from." That's not me speaking. This is exactly, as I address this particular amendment, what Ontarians have said to me. This is what farmers have said to me.

They've said, "We think the Minister of Agriculture is just outvoted 20 to 1, if there's 20 in cabinet, or 25 to 1, depending on who they let around the cabinet table, or 72 to 1, depending on who is in caucus." Many of them said: "We think he understands. It's just his party and his Premier and his Treasurer and his cabinet colleagues and his caucus who don't understand." They were prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt, but after today there's no more benefit of the doubt. There is no more benefit of the doubt.

For the Minister of Agriculture to say to farmers, every single farmer, "No, you're not entitled to express your viewpoint to a legislative committee before we pass this bill; no, we don't want to hear from you," to make that statement by his lack of support for our request for even a week of hearings, even a day -- you won't give us a day, and now the Minister of Agriculture says no.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): We offered that, Mike. You turned it down.

Hon Mr Buchanan: You were offered two.

Mr Harris: Now they backtrack. Now they say, "You could have two weeks." Tell us we can have two weeks of hearings.

But what you have done with your closure motion, what you have done with the resolution that is before us, is that you have said to farmers, "Not one farmer, not one reeve or mayor or warden of any rural area, not one of you, can come before a legislative committee and express a viewpoint on this piece of legislation."

In the Common Sense Revolution, and it's particularly appropriate to this amendment, we call for no cuts to agriculture: not a single nickel. Here we have this minister who cut agriculture funding last year, cut agriculture funding this year. We have said very clearly in the Common Sense Revolution where we would cut and where we wouldn't: no cuts for agriculture, no cuts for northern development. The Minister of Northern Development is here. No cuts in those areas, and this government slashes funding for agriculture.

Speaking specifically to this particular amendment, because it's one of at least 500 that we're prepared to move and that we want voted on, we want to send a very strong signal out: We are not happy. We're not happy on behalf of every farmer in this province. We are not happy on behalf of all those in the agribusinesses. We're not happy on behalf of those politicians, elected municipal representatives, in every single town and county and community of rural Ontario, that this Minister of Agriculture has said, "Not only do we slash your budget each year, but we bring in this kind of labour legislation and say to you that you're not even entitled to have one word of input, no public hearings."

Look at the kinds of legislation we've had hearings on. We've had full hearings on the sale of ammunition. We had full hearings on Bill 40. We had full public hearings on Sunday shopping about three or four times.

1830

Mr Elston: On a point of order, Madam Chair: I have been listening to the leader of the third party now for about eight and a half minutes, and since he has never been involved in this agricultural issue to any extent whatsoever, I believe he should be ruled out of order, with respect.

The First Deputy Chair: That is not a point of order.

Mr Elston: In fact, this is a phoney war these people have created to cover the fact that they turned down public hearings on this. We had arranged to have public hearings on this bill and the Tories turned it down because it wasn't good enough for them to see that something else was being done. It is not true to say there was none offered, and in fact it's a phoney war that he's conducting. It's a phoney revolution that he stands for.

Mr Harris: On a point of order, Madam Chair --

The First Deputy Chair: There is nothing out of order. Time has expired.

Mr Harris: Then I have a point of privilege I'd like to raise: Under the privileges of the Legislature, the member for Bruce has imputed a motive and lied to this Legislature. I would ask him to withdraw the imputing of motive and I would ask him to withdraw the lie.

The First Deputy Chair: I would ask the member for Nipissing to withdraw his comment.

Mr Harris: If I have offended the Chair, I'll withdraw. Would you rule please on the imputing of motive.

The First Deputy Chair: According to the time allocation motion --

Mr Harris: I'm sorry, I have a point of privilege, Madam Chair. I ask you to rule on whether the member for Bruce imputed a motive about me and I would like that ruling.

Mr Elston: Ignore him. Make him stay all night.

Mr Harris: You can't ignore it. He imputed a motive and I want it ruled on.

The First Deputy Chair: Order. There is no point of privilege.

Mr Harris: You have ruled that this wasn't imputing a motive?

The First Deputy Chair: That's right.

Mr Harris: That I lied in the Legislature? That wasn't imputing a motive? Is that your ruling?

Interjections.

The First Deputy Chair: Order. I have ruled that there is not a point of privilege.

According to the time allocation motion which has been passed by this House, I am required to put every question.

I will begin with the Liberal motion to subsection 1(1). This motion is out of order because it reverses the principle of the bill.

I will go on to subsection 1(1), which is a government amendment. The vote on this amendment is stacked.

Further, in subsection 2(3), there is a government amendment, and the vote on this amendment is stacked.

In subsection 2(3), there is a Progressive Conservative amendment, and there are also amendments through to subsection 2(463). The vote on each of those amendments is stacked.

Going on to subsection 3(12), there is a government amendment. According to the motion, this vote is also stacked.

There are no amendments to section 4. Shall section 4 carry? Carried.

In subsection 5(2) there is a government amendment, and accordingly the vote is stacked.

In section 6, there are no amendments. Shall section 6 carry? It is lost.

Section 7, there are no amendments. Shall section 7 carry? Agreed.

In section 8, there are no amendments. Shall section 8 carry? No, that is lost.

In section 9, there are no amendments. Shall section 9 carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed to section 9, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

In section 10, there are no amendments. Shall section 10 carry?

Mr Villeneuve: Madam Chair, on a point of order: It was my understanding that the votes are all stacked here and there will be a five-minute bell.

The First Deputy Chair: To clarify, I will read what we have agreed to. We have sought consent of the House that during committee of the whole on Bill 91, that where amendments are seen to be in order, we will see or deem a division and stack those divisions until the point at which all the amendments have been dealt with, and we would then have a single bell and deal with the votes associated with those amendments.

We are now continuing with section 11. There are no amendments to section 11. Shall section 11 carry? I declare it lost.

In section 12, subsection 12(1), there is a government amendment, and the vote on that is accordingly stacked.

Going to section 13, there are no amendments. Shall section 13 carry? Carried.

Going to section 14, there are no amendments. Shall section 14 carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. The vote is accordingly stacked on section 14.

In section 15, there are no amendments. Shall section 15 carry? Carried.

Section 16 has no amendments. Shall section 16 carry? Carried.

In section 17, there is a government amendment, the vote on which is accordingly stacked.

In section 17, subsection 17(6), there is another government amendment, the vote on which is stacked.

In section 18, there is a government amendment, and the vote on that is stacked.

In section 19, subsection 19(1), there is a government amendment, the vote on which is stacked.

In section 19, subsection 19(4), there is another government amendment, and the vote on that is stacked.

In section 20, subsection 20(1.1), there is a government amendment. The vote on that is stacked.

In section 21, there are no amendments. Shall section 21 carry? Carried.

In section 22, there is a government amendment to subsection 22(6), the vote on which is stacked.

In section 23, there are no amendments. Shall section 23 carry? Carried.

In section 24, there are no amendments. Shall section 24 carry? Carried.

In section 25, subsection 25(4), there is a government amendment, and the vote on that amendment is stacked.

In section 26, there are no amendments. Shall section 26 carry? Carried.

In section 27, there is a government amendment, and the vote on that is stacked.

In section 28, there is a government amendment to clause 28(1)(b), and the vote on that is stacked.

In section 29, there are no amendments. Shall section 29 carry? Carried.

In section 30, there is a government amendment, and the vote on that is stacked.

In section 31, subsections 31(1), (2), (4), (5) and (6), there are government amendments, and the vote on each of those is stacked.

There is also a government amendment to the preamble, and the vote on this amendment is stacked.

In section 31, there is a government amendment to subsection 31(5), and that amendment is stacked.

Also in section 31, subsection 31(6), there is another government amendment, and the vote on that amendment is stacked.

Section 32: There are no amendments. Shall section 32 carry? Carried.

Section 33: There are no amendments. Shall section 33 carry? Carried.

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

The division bells rang from 1845 to 1850.

The First Deputy Chair: Would members please take their seats. I recognize the government House leader.

Hon Mr Charlton: We're at a stage where all the amendments that have been moved are deemed to have been divided on and stacked for a vote, and we've had one section of the bill divided on and stacked for a vote. In the amendments, there are two packages. There is a package of government amendments and a package of amendments by the Conservative Party.

I would seek the consent of the House to deal with those amendments in three packages: that we deal with the section which has been divided on as one item, that we deal with the government package of amendments as a second item, and that we deal with the Conservative package of amendments as a third item.

The First Deputy Chair: Do I have agreement of the House?

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): On a point of clarification, Madam Chair, through you to the government House leader: Are you suggesting that by doing it in three phases, there are actually three separate votes and members could have the option of leaving between those votes? Is that the advantage, or what is the advantage for doing it the way you're proposing?

Hon Mr Charlton: What I am proposing is that there be three votes, but the doors would not be opened between the three votes. There would be a vote on the section which has been divided on, there would be a vote on the government package of amendments, and there would be a vote on the Conservative package of amendments.

Mr Villeneuve: It's my understanding that now our 400-and-some amendments would be one vote only?

Hon Mr Charlton: That's what I propose.

Mr Villeneuve: I don't believe that would be fair. I certainly want to present some of these amendments just to prove to the House --

Mr Cooper: You can't read them.

Mr Villeneuve: I can't read them?

Mr Cooper: No, they're deemed to be moved already.

Mrs Marland: On a point of order, Madam Chair: The critic, the member for S-D-G & East Grenville, asked a very fair question, and I don't think it's up to the member for Kitchener-Wilmot to answer the question. I think it's up to the government House leader to answer the question. What you're asking for is that all of these 500 amendments to Bill 91 be deemed as moved and one vote.

Hon Mr Charlton: It has already happened.

Mrs Marland: We have a slight disadvantage just at the moment because our own House leader isn't here.

Interjections.

The First Deputy Chair: Order. The member for Mississauga South may conclude her remarks.

Mrs Marland: It's great to operate under a democracy. We had a five-minute bell, and the five-minute bell, quite frankly, took a number of us by surprise, including some of the government members and the Minister of Housing. We were in a meeting.

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): No, I expected it.

Mrs Marland: If the Minister of Housing is saying now she expected it -- we all looked at the television in the room where we were meeting and said, "What is this?" You didn't say, "It's a vote we were expecting." You didn't even know if it was a quorum or a vote.

At this point, without our House leader here, we have no knowledge about what has been agreed to. I would doubt very much that it was agreed to that these 500 amendments were going to moved as one vote. We don't even have the House leader here at the moment for the official opposition. If there's gamesmanship going on, I hope somebody will explain it.

Hon Mr Charlton: There was a motion passed by the House some time ago, which the Chair can read, but the essence of the motion said that at the end of one hour in committee of the whole, all the amendments which had tabled before 3:30 today would be deemed to have been moved. That's the process that has already occurred here.

We have now been through the process by agreement among the three House leaders, and with the consent of the House, to deal with each of those motions and to deem a division on all of them, so you didn't have to have five members here in the House to divide, and we are now at the point in the process of dealing with the votes on those motions. There is no longer a need to read the motion into the record; it's already been moved and deemed to be moved.

So we're at the point where I've made a proposal that we deal with the government amendments as a package, with the Conservative amendments as a package, and with the section which has been divided on as a package.

The First Deputy Chair: We have clarified the matter. At this point, I need to find out if there is agreement to proceed with that the government House leader has put forward.

Mrs Marland: On a point of order, Madam Chair --

The First Deputy Chair: Can you put your point briefly?

Mrs Marland: My point of order is that the government House leader has just said there was agreement that these motions would be deemed to have been moved.

Hon Mr Charlton: There was not an agreement on that. That's the issue that was dealt with in the time allocation motion. That's an order of the House.

Mrs Marland: All right. So if they're deemed to have been moved, that's one thing. But there was not an agreement that they would not be individually voted on. If that's what you're seeking now, agreement that these will be individually voted on, what we are saying is that there is not agreement to that.

The First Deputy Chair: Thank you. Now we will proceed with the voting.

To subsection 1(1), there is a government amendment. All those in favour of the amendment to section 1, please rise and be counted by the clerk. All those opposed to the motion will please rise and be counted by the clerk.

The ayes being 40, the nays being 8, I declare the amendment carried.

Shall section 1, as amended, carry? Carried.

In subsection 2(23), there is a government amendment. All those in favour of this amendment? Same vote.

The ayes being 40, the nays being 8, I declare this amendment carried.

In subsection 2(23), there is a PC amendment. All those in favour of the motion will please rise and be recognized by the clerk. Same vote reversed? Agreed.

The ayes being 8, the nays being 40, I declare this amendment lost.

1900

Subsection 2(4), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

Subsection 2(5), there is a PC motion. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(6), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(7), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

In subsection 2(8), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(9), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare this amendment lost.

Interjections.

The First Deputy Chair: Order. I must remind all members that they must remain in their seats.

In subsection 2(10), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(11), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(12), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare this amendment lost.

Mr Villeneuve: On a point of order, Madam Chair: This is going to be a tedious process. I am simply asking, is there a possibility that the government would reconsider having a week of hearings instead of this? No? We'll continue, then.

The First Deputy Chair: To subsection 2(13), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? Amendment lost.

To subsection 2(14), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare that amendment lost.

To subsection 2(15), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost

To subsection 2(16), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(17), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(18), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(19), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(20), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(21), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(22), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(23), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(24), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(25), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(26), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(27), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(28), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(29), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(30), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(31), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(32), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(33), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(34), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(35), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(36), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(37), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(38), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(39), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(40), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(41), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(42), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(43), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(44), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(45), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(46), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(47), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(48), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare this amendment lost.

To subsection 2(49), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(50), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(51), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(52), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(53), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(54), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(55), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(56), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the motion lost.

To subsection 2(57), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the motion lost.

Subsection 2(58), a PC amendment. Same vote? Lost.

Subsection 2(59), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? It's lost.

1910

Subsection 2(60), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? Lost.

Subsection 2(61), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(62), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(63), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? Lost.

To subsection 2(64), there is a PC amendment. Lost.

Subsection 2(65), there is a PC amendment. Lost.

Subsection 2(66), there is a PC amendment. Lost.

Subsection 2(67), there is a PC amendment. That one is lost.

Subsection 2(68), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

Subsection 2(69), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? Lost.

Subsection 2(70), there is an amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

Subsection 2(71), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

Subsection 2(72), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(73), there is an amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(74), there is an amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(75), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(76). Same vote? Lost.

To subsection 2(77). Same vote? Lost.

To subsection 2(78). Same vote? It is lost.

To subsection 2(79). Same vote? It is lost.

Subsection 2(80). Same vote? It is lost.

Subsection 2(81). Same vote? It is lost.

Subsection 2(82), there is a PC motion. Same vote? I declare the motion lost.

Subsection 2(83), there is an amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(84), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(85), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(86), there is an amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

Subsection 2(87). Same vote? Amendment lost.

To subsection 2(88). Same vote? Amendment lost.

To subsection 2(89). Same vote? Amendment lost.

To subsection 2(90). Same vote? Amendment lost.

To subsection 2(91). Same vote? Amendment lost.

To subsection 2(92). Same vote? Amendment lost.

To subsection 2(93). Same vote? Amendment lost.

To subsection 2(94). Same vote? Amendment lost.

To subsection 2(95). Same vote? Amendment lost.

To subsection 2(96). Same vote? Amendment lost.

To subsection 2(97). Same vote? I declare it lost.

To subsection 2(98), there is an amendment. Same vote? I declare it lost.

To subsection 2(99). Same vote? Amendment lost.

To subsection 2(100). Same vote? Amendment lost.

To subsection 2(101). Same vote? Amendment lost.

To subsection 2(102), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(103), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(104). Same vote? Amendment is lost.

To subsection 2(105). Same vote? Lost.

To subsection 2(106). Same vote? Amendment lost.

To subsection 2(107). Same vote? Amendment lost.

To subsection 2(108). Same vote? Amendment lost.

To subsection 2(109). Same vote? Amendment lost.

To subsection 2(110). Same vote? Amendment lost.

Mrs Marland: I voted against that last amendment, Madam Chair.

The First Deputy Chair: For subsection 2(110), all those in favour of this amendment will please rise and be counted.

All those opposed to the motion for this amendment, please rise and be counted.

The ayes being 7, the nays being 41, I declare the amendment lost.

Subsection 2(111), there is a PC amendment. Is it the same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): The ayes are 7; the nays are 41.

The First Deputy Chair: Amendment lost.

To subsection 2(112), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? The ayes are 7; the nays are 41. It is lost.

To subsection 2(113), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(114), there is a PC amendment.

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): Not the same vote.

The First Deputy Chair: All those in favour of the PC amendment to subsection 2(114) will please rise.

All those opposed to the motion will please rise.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 7; the nays are 41.

The First Deputy Chair: Amendment lost.

To subsection 2(115), there is a PC amendment. Is it the same vote? No?

All those in favour of this amendment, please rise.

All those opposed, be please rise and be recognized.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 5; the nays are 43.

The First Deputy Chair: Amendment lost.

1920

Subsection 2(116): There is a PC amendment. Same vote? No.

All those in favour, please rise.

All those opposed, please rise.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 8; the nays are 40.

The First Deputy Chair: Amendment lost.

Subsection 2(117): PC amendment. Is it the same vote?

All those in favour of this amendment, please rise.

All those opposed, please rise.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 7; the nays are 41.

The First Deputy Chair: Amendment lost.

Subsection 2(118): There is a PC amendment.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 7; the nays are 41.

The First Deputy Chair: Amendment lost.

Subsection 2(119): There is a PC amendment. Same vote? No.

All those in favour of the amendment, please rise.

All those opposed will please rise.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 8; the nays are 40.

The First Deputy Chair: Amendment lost.

Subsection 2(120): There is a PC amendment.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 8; the nays are 40.

The First Deputy Chair: I declare this amendment lost.

Subsection 2(121): There is a PC amendment.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 8; the nays are 40.

The First Deputy Chair: I declare the amendment lost.

Subsection 2(122): There is a PC amendment.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 8; the nays are 40.

The First Deputy Chair: I declare the amendment lost.

Subsection 2(123): There is a PC amendment.

All those in favour of this amendment, please rise.

All those opposed, please rise.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 8; the nays are 40.

The First Deputy Chair: I declare the motion lost.

Mr Villeneuve: On a point of order, Madam Chair: Would the government reconsider a week of hearings?

The First Deputy Chair: That is not a point of order.

Mrs Fawcett: On a point of order, Madam Chair: I'm just wondering whether the government House leader would consider the two days of hearings that the Tories turned down.

Interjections.

The First Deputy Chair: Order. To subsection 2(124), there is a PC --

Mr Arnott: Madam Chair, on the same point of order: I'd just like to give the government House leader an opportunity to respond why he won't allow hearings on this important bill.

The First Deputy Chair: I have ruled that is not a point of order.

Hon Mr Charlton: I'd love to take the opportunity, Madam Chair. There was an offer to the member's caucus a week and a half ago, of two days, and they turned it down --

The First Deputy Chair: No. Government House leader, I ask you to take your seat. We are in the middle of the vote.

To subsection 2(124), a PC amendment. Same vote.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 8; the nays are 40.

The First Deputy Chair: Amendment lost.

To subsection 2(125), there is a PC amendment.

Mr Murdoch: On a point of order, Madam Chair: I'd like to point out that those two days were in Toronto, not out in the rural area.

The First Deputy Chair: Let us continue.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 8; the nays are 40.

The First Deputy Chair: Amendment lost.

To subsection 2(126), there is an amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(127), there is an amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(128), there is an amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(129), there is an amendment. Same vote? Amendment lost.

To subsection 2(130), there is an amendment. Same vote? Amendment lost.

To subsection 2(131), there is an amendment. Same vote? Amendment lost.

To subsection 2(132), there is an amendment.

Mr Murdoch: On a point of order, Madam Chair: I believe we've asked for a vote on the last three and you've ignored us. You're going a bit too fast. Could you slow down so you could give a chance to vote?

The First Deputy Chair: All those in favour of the motion on subsection 2(132), will please rise.

All those opposed to this amendment on subsection 2(132)?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 8; the nays are 40.

The First Deputy Chair: Amendment lost.

To subsection 2(133), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? Amendment lost.

To subsection 2(134), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? Amendment lost.

To subsection 2(135), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? Amendment lost.

Mr Chris Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): On a point of order, Madam Chair: As has been pointed out by the member for Sarnia, most people in rural Ontario don't have cable TV, but they should know what amendment's being voted on. There's no way they can understand --

The First Deputy Chair: Would you take your seat, please. That is not a point of order.

To subsection 2(136), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? It is lost.

To subsection 2(137), there is a PC amendment.

Interjections: Same vote.

The First Deputy Chair: Amendment lost.

To subsection 2(138), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(139), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? Amendment lost.

1930

To subsection 2(140), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(141), there is a PC amendment.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 8; the nays are 40.

Mr Murdoch: On a point of order, Madam Chair: I understand that there are some security people in here whose time is up and they have not been let out of here. I think you should consider them and give them a chance to leave the room for a few minutes and call a recess.

The First Deputy Chair: Would the member take his seat. There is nothing out of order.

Subsection 2(142), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(143), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(144), there's a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(145), there's a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(146), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(147), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(148), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(149), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(150), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(151), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(152), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(153), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(154), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(155), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(156), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(157), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(158), there's a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(159), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(160), there's a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(161), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(162), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(163), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(164), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(165), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(166), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(167), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(168), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(169). Same vote? Amendment lost.

To subsection 2(170). Same vote? Amendment lost.

To subsection 2(171). Same vote? Amendment lost.

To subsection 2(172). Same vote? Amendment lost.

To subsection 2(173), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(174), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(175). Same vote? Amendment lost.

To subsection 2(176). Same vote? Amendment lost.

To subsection 2(177). Same vote? Amendment lost.

To subsection 2(178). Same vote? Amendment lost.

To subsection 2(179). Same vote? Amendment lost.

To subsection 2(180). Same vote? Amendment lost.

To subsection 2(181). Same vote? Amendment lost.

To subsection 2(182). Same vote? Amendment lost.

To subsection 2(183). Same vote? Amendment lost.

To subsection 2(184). Same vote? Amendment lost.

To subsection 2(185). Same vote? Amendment lost.

To subsection 2(186). Same vote? Amendment lost.

To subsection 2(187). Same vote? Amendment lost.

To subsection 2(188). Same vote? I declare it lost.

To subsection 2(189). Same vote? Amendment lost.

To subsection 2(190). Same vote? It is lost.

To subsection 2(191). Same vote? Amendment lost.

To subsection 2(192). Same vote? Amendment lost.

To subsection 2(193), there is a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(194), there is an amendment. Same vote? I declare the amendment lost.

To subsection 2(195). Same vote? Amendment lost.

To subsection 2(196). Same vote? Amendment lost.

To subsection 2(197). Same vote? Amendment lost.

To subsection 2(198). Same vote? Amendment lost.

To subsection 2(199). Same vote? Amendment lost.

To subsection 2(200). Same vote? Amendment lost.

To subsection 2(201). Same vote? Amendment lost.

To subsection 2(202). Same vote? Amendment lost.

To subsection 2(203). Same vote? Amendment lost.

To subsection 2(204). Same vote? Amendment lost.

To subsection 2(205). Same vote? Amendment lost.

To subsection 2(206). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(207). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(208). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(209). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(210). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(211). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(212). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(213). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(214). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(215). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(216). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(217). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(218). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(219). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(220). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(221). Same vote? Amendment lost.

To subsection 2(222). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(223). Same vote? Motion lost.

1940

To subsection 2(224). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(225). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(226). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(227). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(228). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(229). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(230). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(231). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(232). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(233). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(234). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(235). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(236). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(237). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(238). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(239). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(240). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(241). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(242). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(243). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(244). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(245). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(246). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(247). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(248). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(249). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(250). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(251). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(252). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(253). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(254). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(255). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(256). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(257). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(258). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(259). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(260). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(261). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(262). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(263). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(264). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(265). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(266). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(267). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(268). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(269). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(270). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(271). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(272). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(273). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(274). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(275). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(276). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(277). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(278). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(279). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(280). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(281). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(282). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(283). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(284). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(285). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(286). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(287). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(288). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(289). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(290). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(291). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(292). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(293). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(294). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(295). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(296). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(297). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(298). Same vote? Motion lost.

To subsection 2(299). Same vote? Motion lost.

Mr Villeneuve: On a point of order, Madam Chair: We're at the 300th amendment, and it happens to be McMurrich township. I don't know where that is, but it would be an exemption. However, I feel we are wasting time. Somehow or other we are not getting the attention of the government for what we need. I would be willing to forgo the remaining amendments if the House agrees, and if they don't, we will continue.

The First Deputy Chair: Thank you. Do we have unanimous consent?

Hon Mr Charlton: I think it would be preferable if we considered the original proposal which I put, to deal with the remainder of the Conservative amendments as a bloc, any remaining government amendments as a bloc, and the one section of the bill which was divided on as a single item, so we'd have three quick votes.

Mr Villeneuve: I personally agree to that, other than the fact that the farmers just have not had their say, and we will proceed as the House leader has suggested.

The First Deputy Chair: Is there unanimous consent of the House?

Mrs Marland: On the same point, Madam Chair: I think it's important to understand that if we now agree to what the government House leader is saying, that there be an understanding that what we were doing was on behalf of the farmers of this province. We were asking for public hearings on this bill. We are not getting public hearings on this bill, and this is what we were asking for. We are entitled, on behalf of those farmers in Ontario --

The First Deputy Chair: We are seeking consent. The member for Mississauga South, please take her seat. We are now seeking consent for the proposal put forward by the government House leader. Agreed? Agreed.

1950

Subsection 2(300) through to subsection 2(463), each has a PC amendment. Same vote? I declare each of those motions lost.

Now we will deal with all the government amendments as previously read. Shall the government amendments carry?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 40; the nays are 8.

The First Deputy Chair: I declare the government amendments carried.

We will proceed to section 14. Now we will deal with section 14. Shall section 14 carry?

All those in favour of section 14, please rise. Same vote?

I declare section 14 carried.

Mr Cooper: On a point of order, Madam Chair: On that first vote we had on all the government amendments, was that section 2, as amended, also included in that?

The First Deputy Chair: Shall sections 2, 3, 5, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 25, 27, 28, 30 and 31, as amended, carry?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 40; the nays are 8.

The First Deputy Chair: I declare that motion carried.

Shall the preamble, as amended, carry? Same vote?

I declare that motion carried.

Shall the title carry? Same vote? Motion carried.

Shall the title carry? Same vote? Motion carried.

Shall I report the bill, as amended, to the House?

All those in favour of reporting the bill, as amended, to the House, please stand and be counted.

All those opposed to reporting the bill, as amended, to the House, please rise and be counted.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 40; the nays are 8.

The First Deputy Chair: Motion carried.

Hon Mr Charlton: I move that the committee rise and report.

The First Deputy Chair: The government House leader has moved that the committee rise and report. Does the motion carry? Carried.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): The committee of the whole begs to report one bill with certain amendments and asks for leave to sit again. Shall the motion carry? Agreed.

We're now dealing with a private member's bill in committee of the whole, so I will return to the chair.

House in committee of the whole.

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): Madam Chair, I am asking for unanimous consent to move Bill 21, in the absence of Mr Wessenger, to committee of the whole.

The First Deputy Chair (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Do we have agreement that Ms Mathyssen would carry Mr Wessenger's bill into committee? Agreed.

2000

LAND LEASE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES TERRAINS À BAIL

Consideration of Bill 21, An Act to amend certain Acts with respect to Land Leases / Projet de loi 21, Loi modifiant certaines lois en ce qui concerne les terrains à bail.

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I move Bill 21.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): On a point of order, Madam Chair: Does this mean that Ms Mathyssen is asking to carry Mr Wessenger's bill?

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): Isn't that what you just agreed to?

Mrs Marland: Can I not ask a question?

The First Deputy Chair (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): I would like to answer your question. Would you sit down.

Ms Mathyssen requested and received permission to carry the bill in committee of the whole.

Mrs Marland: Her wording was that she could move this bill into committee of the whole.

Hon Shelley Martel (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): She said "in the absence of."

Mrs Marland: Yes, she did. She said could she move this bill into committee of the whole. My question is, does that mean that Ms Mathyssen is going to answer the questions and deal with this bill throughout the committee of the whole?

The First Deputy Chair: Yes, that's my understanding.

Mrs Marland: Because if that is the case, I'm withdrawing unanimous consent, because this bill stands in the name of Mr Wessenger and I will not be tricked into something that I think is a little misleading, to say the best. If we have to wait for Mr Wessenger to come to deal with his bill, then so be it.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Margaret, it was your House leader who asked us to call this bill now.

Mrs Marland: If you would allow a five-minute recess, Mr Government House Leader, I can confer with my House leader in order to be fair about this.

The First Deputy Chair: May I clarify, to the member for Mississauga South? Resume your seat.

We had already moved into committee of the whole and we have already at this point obtained unanimous consent. We cannot go back on that, so we will proceed.

Are there any questions, comments or amendments to Bill 21, and if so, to which sections are you addressing your remarks?

Mrs Marland: I think the table has received the amendments that stand in the name of the Progressive Conservative caucus.

The First Deputy Chair: Yes, to clarify to the member, the table has received PC amendments to section 3 of the bill, to section 11, to sections 16 through 24, and finally to section 19.

Are there any questions or comments to sections 1 or 2?

Mrs Marland: Yes, I have some questions and comments. Madam Chair, I think it's important at the outset of dealing with Bill 21 to recognize the difficulty in dealing with a bill that was, first of all, reported to the House on 15 June from the committee hearing, and then by the time the bill was printed we received it yesterday morning. I want to be very clear that this bill as printed was received by the opposition yesterday morning.

I recognize that because the Liberal Housing critic is not here, obviously the Liberal Party has no concerns with this bill or no interest in this bill. I don't know which.

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): Not true. I'm here.

Mrs Marland: I'm referring to the Housing critic.

In dealing with section 1, which is the definitions section, I would like to ask, in the printed copy that I have, under the Landlord and Tenant Act, it says subsection 1(1) and then there's nothing beside it. I draw that to the attention of the Chair. Perhaps you could look at that and tell me what the explanation is for that, or do you want to me to ask Ms Mathyssen? Mr Wessenger is here now.

Through you, Madam Chair, to the proponent of the bill, I would like to ask what 1(1), which is an absolute blank, means in this bill.

Mr Paul Wessenger (Simcoe Centre): When bills are reprinted, as I understand it, those provisions that were deleted from the bill are deleted and a blank is left where the provision was deleted. If you look through the bill, you will see that 16(1) was also a blank and you will see other blanks throughout the bill. These were provisions that were deleted from the bill as printed after second reading. I understand it's the normal procedure when provisions are deleted to show it this way with respect to a bill.

Mrs Marland: I believe in discussing the definition of the bill in subsection 1(2), it's important to place on the record a public apology. The public apology I wish to place on the record is from my leader, Mike Harris, whose staff in error sent a letter to approximately 12 people saying this legislation had been defeated.

I think, as the government members and the official opposition members will know, letters are written on behalf of leaders and ministers by staff who do research on those matters. This is a private member's bill which obviously, because it's not under any ministry, is not always easy to get information on.

I can only say that my leader, Mike Harris, is sorry that this letter went out in error. He is sending a letter out to all the people who received his letter with the incorrect information. He is sending out a letter of apology to those people to explain that the information was incorrect and in fact to give them the correct information.

Having explained that, I think it's also important to put on the record another letter which is actually on Mr Wessenger's letterhead, dated January 16, 1994. In this letter he says:

"I feel quite strongly that one day is not sufficient for hearings into the bill and am also of the opinion that the committee should travel outside of the Toronto area for the hearings. I have suggested that the committee travel to Cobourg, London and Barrie for hearings.

"I am hopeful that if enough interest is shown by people wishing to make submissions to the hearings, that extra time will be granted for the hearings and a decision for the committee to travel will be made."

2010

Unfortunately, if we're talking about letters with content -- and that's why I've apologized for the error in Mr Harris's letter -- it might be appropriate or Mr Wessenger may want to correct his own letter, because in subcommittee meetings of the general government committee after the date of this letter, January 16, Mr Wessenger did not request that the committee travel outside of Toronto, nor did he ask for additional days for those committee hearings.

I think part of the problem with this Bill 21 totally is the fact that it is a private member's bill whereas it should be a government bill. The issue that is addressed by Bill 21 is one that is of tremendous importance to two kinds of investors in this province. One investor buys property in terms of real estate. The other investor buys a home. It may be a modular home, it may be a trailer home, it may in fact be a fixed structure. They too have a tremendous investment, and because this style of living, namely, land-lease communities, is a growing choice of the people in this province, we feel it's very important that their interests are protected by government legislation that goes through the full and open process of government that a government bill is subjected to.

This bill in fact had a day and a half of public hearings. It had, at maximum, eight hours of public input, and then the general government committee moved to the clause-by-clause consideration of this bill.

Because this bill tries to address the concerns of tenants in land-lease communities, mobile trailer parks and other properties in this province where people with mobile homes have their mobile homes located, it is very important that it was in fact a government bill and not a private member's bill. We feel very strongly that if this government were sincere in protecting the investment of people in trailer homes, mobile homes and modular homes and also fixed permanent homes in land-lease retirement communities, they would have brought a government bill in. It is absolutely obvious to us that this protection of the consumer is not a priority of this government, or else tonight we would be standing here discussing a government bill.

This type of housing, in land-lease communities, is a very desirable alternative form of housing. For the most part, land-lease community developments are affordable, and for the most part in this province they are beautifully designed, they are well managed and the people who live there are very happy. Also for the most part, it is older people who are close to retirement, maybe in retirement, who choose this style of living environment.

It is new in terms of the scope of opportunity that land-lease developments give to the people of our province and it is growing as an industry. In fact, at the University of Guelph we had ground-breaking, I think within the last two or three weeks, for a brand-new project where the houses are not even mobile or modular. They are fixed structures, but they are in what is known as a land-lease community.

This is great. It is wonderful that these opportunities are available to the people of this province, but these people need protection under law. They do not need a private member's bill that, to use the words of a resident of the riding of the MPP for Middlesex, Mr Alex Mitchell, who is the past president of the Twin Elms Tenants' Association in Strathroy, was "a Band-Aid solution."

Someone else who had a comment on this bill was the executive director of the London and Area Tenant Federation, Mr Leo Bouillon. As the executive director of a tenant federation he is of course very familiar with the concerns of tenants. He described this bill as being "narrow in scope."

In spite of the misleading information that has been attempted to be funnelled out around this province about what our concern was, I think it's important to place on the record that our concern has been, from the beginning, that it should be a government bill, not a Band-Aid solution and not a bill with a narrow scope, to use the tenants' own words.

It's as important to have a statute in this province to protect people who buy mobile homes and modular homes and invest in land-lease communities, and who rent lots in mobile trailer parks and developments, as it is to protect those people in this province who invest in condominiums.

When condominiums were a new form of housing in this province, were an alternative to traditional apartment buildings and other forms of traditional housing, when condominiums first started to be built in Ontario and tremendous investments were made in those condominium developments, the government of the day, namely, the Progressive Conservative government, brought in a government bill. They did not bring in a private member's bill to hide behind. They brought in a government bill to protect condominium investors in this province, and that's how we had the Condominium Act.

The Condominium Act itself has needed revision and amendments. We are still waiting, as we have for the last seven years, as a matter of fact, for the new condominium bill to be brought in. The former Liberal government promised that it would bring in amendments to the Condominium Act that would address the changes in the condominium industry. The present government has also promised to bring in a new Condominium Act, which is very much needed because the condominium industry has grown. There are thousands of home owners today who own condominium-style homes.

2020

What we feel about this Bill 21 is that it must also be a government bill, because without it being a government bill, it does not go through the full process that government legislation goes through. In fact, one of the aspects of this bill that has a tremendously big gap, which I asked the proponent of the bill, Mr Wessenger, to amend, was the fact that it doesn't deal with the gaps under the Planning Act. Therefore, there is no normal protection that the Planning Act would give purchasers in land-lease communities.

In an ordinary subdivision, when a developer wants to get approval from a municipality to build an ordinary, standard subdivision, that developer has to comply with the municipality's bylaws and also the provincial Planning Act. There are provisions in the Planning Act that require any development to meet municipal standards, whether they're for roads, sewers, water or landscaping. Those requirements, when they're met, mean that a plan of subdivision, when it receives its final approval, guarantees the people who move into that subdivision that their roads are built to standard, that their sewers are built to standard, and their water supply, electrical supplies, whatever else is part of the construction of that subdivision, is to a standard, which means in turn, of course, that those services are going to last.

The problem with not having that provision to protect people in land-lease communities and trailer parks is that when they are not built to that high standard, that requirement -- it's like building anything to a building code; it guarantees a certain level of construction. The building code in this province was developed in order that when people build houses with a building permit, the permit actually -- it's a funny spin on words -- permits that house to be built, but it is also a certificate stating that the plans, the design and the services for that house meet a certain standard. When that standard is met by a building permit, everyone who buys that house knows it is now certified to comply with the Ontario Building Code. The Ontario Building Code is terribly important to all of us, whether we are in public buildings or private buildings, because it tells us, first of all, that the building is safe, that it's going to be heated properly, ventilated properly etc. I'm not going to go into those details.

But the problem with this bill not having that section of the Planning Act amended means there are not those requirements for those kinds of standards to be provided for people who make investments in land-lease communities.

I'm not suggesting for a moment that there are not land-lease communities that are very well built and built to municipal standards; there's no question there are. We have some excellent land-lease communities in this province that are built to very high standards. But because it's a growing industry and a growing choice of alternative living and, as I said earlier, affordable living for thousands of Ontario residents, we have to ensure that all developments in land-lease communities meet very high standards, or else, quite frankly, what happens is that those people move in, and because it works like a condominium development where if there are roads to be repaired, sewers to be replaced, watermains to be repaired, all of these things, they all come into the communal costs, and in some cases those communal costs are shared by the tenants.

Some of these concerns actually were brought to the attention of the standing committee on general government by the Wilmot Creek Homeowners' Association. I would agree that the people I have talked to and met with from the Wilmot Creek Homeowners' Association are a very a fine group of people. They made an excellent presentation to our committee, and the concerns they brought to the committee are not addressed by this bill.

One of their recommendations is as follows: "That the committee consider the need to amend section 41 of the Planning Act to provide that site plan approval control includes the authority to ensure adherence to municipal standards in the construction of roads and sewers and the provision of illumination in privately owned lands used for the site of a land-lease community for land-lease community homes." That is right out of the brief of the Wilmot Creek Homeowners' Association.

That recommendation has been totally ignored by the proponent of this bill, in spite of the fact that Mr Wessenger has brought in approximately 35 amendments. I apologize for not referring to him by his riding; it's the member for Simcoe Centre. The member for Simcoe Centre has had ample opportunity to address the concerns of the Wilmot Creek Homeowners' Association. While he has brought in 35 other amendments, for some reason he has chosen not to do anything about a very important recommendation they made which would address the concerns I've already described about wanting their land-lease communities to be built to municipal standards.

Most of these people, as I said a few minutes ago, are in a situation in their lives where they are either retired or near retirement. They are on fixed incomes or they have chosen this type of housing earlier in their lives because they like the community, they like the style of development and they like the cost. There's a whole lot of reasons they may choose that kind of accommodation, but they also make the choice with some idea obviously about what it's going to cost them.

What the tenants at Wilmot Creek were saying was that without the amendments to the Planning Act to address the municipal standards aspect, they don't have any protection against added costs down the road by the property owner when it comes time to repair those roads, replace the watermain or repair the watermain, or do something with the sewage system.

2030

One of the comments that the Wilmot Creek Homeowners' Association brief said to us was: "The proposed amendments to the Planning Act will expand the act to include the designation 'land-lease community' and 'land-lease community home.' Previously the subsections governing mobile homes referred."

What they're saying here is that there were already amendments to the Planning Act.

However, the brief goes on to say, "This 'housekeeping'" -- and the word "housekeeping" is in inverted commas -- "action does not respond to the concerns of the tenants in Wilmot Creek with respect to the construction of roads and sewers and to the lack of proper street illumination."

They're saying to Mr Wessenger, the member for Simcoe Centre, and to their MPP, the member for Durham East, that they are not happy with the bill as they saw it. That's fair enough, because what was going on was that we were in the committee meetings of the standing committee on general government, we were in public hearings where the general government committee said to the public: "Come in and tell us what you think about this bill. Tell us what your concerns are."

The public came in and, as I said, there were some very sophisticated briefs, some very sound, constructive comments. One of the best briefs we had came the member for Durham East's riding with the tenants of the Wilmot Creek development. They asked that not only a housekeeping action be taken on the Planning Act but that protection be taken. They went on to say:

"It is recognized that municipal standards are not required for roads, sewers and lighting under site plan approval control because there is only one land owner. Also relevant is that communities with leases of less than 21 years need not seek subdivision approval under which adherence to municipal standards is required.

"However, the lack of requirement of municipal standards under site plan approval control leads to the need for more maintenance."

I want to emphasize that I am reading right out of the brief of the Wilmot Creek Homeowners' Association, which came to the committee and said, "Please make these changes." These requests were ignored by the member for Simcoe Centre. They were ignored by the member for Durham East, because he too did not move an amendment to address these concerns on behalf of his residents.

They go on to say that without this requirement, it "leads to the need for more maintenance, hence higher ongoing costs for the maintenance of roads and sewers. It is noted that it was necessary in 1991-92 to install another sewer line and this cost may have been avoided if, under site plan approval control, there was authority that permitted insistence on municipal standards.

"Also, such authority would ensure that proper illumination was provided. In Wilmot Creek illumination is provided by individual coach lamps which the tenants must keep on from dusk to dawn and for which the cost is added to individual hydro billings. The coach lamps do not provide sufficient illumination."

The Wilmot Creek tenants' association is saying to the committee, of which their member, the member for Durham East, is a member, and to the proponent of the bill, the member for Simcoe Centre, "These are the changes that we need under the Planning Act." So the next time that the member for Durham East writes a column in the paper that accuses me of hijacking the bill and delaying the bill, I hope he will be forthcoming enough to refer back to this brief from his own constituents. The reason I wanted that amendment to the Planning Act was because his constituents asked for it, and it also would give the protection to all the other people in this province who choose this kind of lifestyle.

I do not have constituents who have this form of lifestyle, so my interest in this bill is not a personal, re-election, constituent interest. My interest in this bill is for all of those people in this province, who now number in the thousands, to have the kind of protection for their investment that they need.

It's unfortunate that the member for Simcoe Centre promised there would be -- to meet his own concern as identified in his letter, he agreed that one day was not sufficient hearings for the bill. I would wonder then that a day and a half would meet a requirement or a desire on his part for sufficient hearings, to use his own words.

In our opinion, a day and a half was not sufficient hearings, a day and a half was not sufficient time, and had this been a government bill, which is what we asked for, there would have been more than a day and a half of public hearings. If it had been a government bill, there would have been an opportunity to know that the government indeed was behind the changes that this private bill makes, because whoever the government is, I know it would want to give full protection to the people who make this kind of investment as a form of lifestyle accommodation.

We had a meeting involving some of the parties who are interested and affected by this bill. One of the people who attended that meeting was Ms Baker. Ms Phyllis Baker is the chair of the Ontario Owned-Home Leased-Lot Federation. Ms Baker speaks on behalf of tenants. She is not speaking on behalf of the property owner; she is speaking on behalf of the tenant who has his home on the leased property.

She said at that meeting, "We've had a really difficult time to get municipalities to understand what kind of beast we are." That was at the point where we were discussing the fact that there has not been an identity in law for land-lease communities. What everyone wants is a government bill that once and for all recognizes land-lease communities as a protected lifestyle choice in terms of housing.

Also at that meeting, concerns were brought to the table that discussed the fact that most of the amendments to the bill and the bill itself were all related to the Landlord and Tenant Act, but the purchasers of these kinds of homes need protection under the Planning Act. We were simply saying over and over again to the member for Simcoe Centre, "if you can make the amendments to these other acts, why would you not be willing to also make the needed amendments to the Landlord and Tenant Act?"

These people need protection. They're entitled to the protection. We have no definition for the non-seasonal mobile home park under the Landlord and Tenant Act for four months' occupancy or more.

2040

One area of concern also has been the fact that there is a misunderstanding totally about what this bill will do. The biggest misunderstanding is that it will change anything that now governs people who are already under the Rent Control Act. A lot of the problems for the people who live in the Twin Elms development in Strathroy in the member for Middlesex's riding revolve around the Rent Control Act. Those people are in a terrible situation and their problems are that they have had rent increases, which they have appealed, and some of their rent increases, I understand from speaking to some of the tenants in Twin Elms, go back to 1989.

Because the Minister of Housing will not give the resources to her ministry to clear up the backlog of those rent appeals, these people -- not only in Twin Elms but in other parks around the province -- are at risk. If the decision on their rent appeal is not in their favour, they are at risk of having to pay perhaps as much as five years, as in the case of Twin Elms, in back rent increases, which for most of them would be absolutely devastating.

I think it's unfortunate that these people are being led down the garden path by being told that Bill 21 will solve their problems. Bill 21 will not do anything for their problems in terms of their rent increases that they have already started to fight and that's the problem. When the member for Middlesex writes letters to her constituents and also in the paper about the fact that the Conservatives are hijacking this bill and delaying it and therefore their problems aren't being solved, unfortunately those people think that once this bill is passed -- of course, it will be passed because it's a private member's bill, not a government bill, but the private member happens to be in the government and they have a majority. But it won't solve the problem of the people in Twin Elms who came to the meeting and talked about the fact that yes, they have problems with their property owner.

I haven't sat down at a table to listen to the problems of the Twin Elms tenants and their property owner -- it's not in my riding -- but I can assure you that if it was in my riding, that's the kind of meeting I would hold, because I would sit down and say, "You have a choice sometimes with back rent that's approved through the rent appeal process." If the appeal is lost by the tenants and they have to pay five years' back rent, sometimes they just have to move and the landlord doesn't end up getting his money. As a matter of fact, that happened in my own riding.

I have tenants in a high-rise apartment building in the east end of my riding who were given, unfortunately, an enormous rent increase burden. I think it was 17% on average and it was granted legally through the Rent Control Act. The rent increase was appealed and the tenants lost. I sat down with those tenants -- I held a public meeting, as a matter of fact -- and the landlord and people from the rent control office. Everybody was able to express their concerns at this public meeting, and the landlord came to realize that if he had half his tenants walk out of his apartment building, then he would lose that amount of income for whatever number of months until he rerented those units.

It's not exactly the same in a trailer park, because we're talking about units on these properties, on these leased lots, but there is some similarity where negotiation can take place and sometimes -- I don't know this landlord, so I'm not making a comment on this landlord. I'm just saying that, as an example, sometimes tenants and landlords or property owners have to sit down in the same room and negotiate a solution. But the sad thing is that this bill is not the solution. This bill is not going to address those concerns.

The one other area that is of tremendous concern to us which is not addressed in the bill is a comment that was also brought to the committee about the need for adult-only communities. This government is on record, specifically the Minister of Housing, who I presume speaks for the government through her ministry, as being opposed to adult-only communities or seniors' communities. Most of the land-lease communities and this style of development around the province are adult-only. It's a choice people make. They're at a point in their life where they want to go and live where they're not falling over bicycles and listening to loud radios and kids arguing and fighting and playing and doing all the normal things that children do. They want to live in a quieter lifestyle community.

Unfortunately, this government doesn't support that, and in fact in the buildings that this government presently owns, they've totally changed the policies so there's no longer any protection for adult-only communities, adult-only apartment buildings. I think this bill, if it was in the interests of these land-lease retirement communities, should have said something about that. It should have made a statement that accepting that the government's policy on adult-only or seniors-only communities on the one hand is this; with this bill we agree that in land-lease communities it's the choice of the communities whether there are senior- and adult-only communities. That is another void that hasn't been addressed.

This style of home ownership, as I said before, is a great alternative, and I just wish this government felt that it was important enough to bring a bill in to address the need for protection for those people.

Where we have the bill coming into full force and effect, there may be -- in fact, not "may be," there will be -- a lot of leases that have to be changed. One of the changes that I personally think is very important and is a good change that this bill brings is that the landlord, the property owner, would no longer be able to have the person who's renting the property over the barrel in terms of who has first right of refusal and for what amount. In a lot of these communities at the moment, I understand, the landlord has first right of refusal of 95% of the value of the offer that's brought for the sale of that house, that mobile home. That's one of the good things this bill corrects and one of the things we fully support.

2050

But one of the things that this bill does not address and that I have asked a number of times now -- I asked in the general government committee; I also brought it up in our informal meetings with the member for Simcoe Centre -- is, where does Bill 120 impact on land-lease communities? Madam Chair, I know that you're familiar with Bill 120. It is the legislation that permits, as of right, in this province any single-family home to have an additional accessory unit. As of right, if you live in a single-family house that's detached, semidetached, row or town housing, you can have an additional unit in that building. It doesn't have to be a basement apartment, but it has become known as the "basement apartment" legislation.

One of the questions I asked was, where does Bill 120 impact on land-lease communities? The wording in Bill 120, the only exemption that's currently in Bill 120 -- and I have a copy of the bill here -- to where people cannot have an additional living unit in their single-family home, detached, semidetached or row houses, is as follows, "exempting detached houses, semidetached houses or row houses serviced by prescribed classes of sanitary, septic or sewer system from the application of...."

In other words, everybody as of right who lives in this kind of home can have a basement apartment or an apartment on grade; it doesn't have to, as I say, be in the basement. There is no requirement in Bill 120 for the size of building in which you can have an additional unit. My concern has been that there is no protection in this private member's bill for someone who comes into these land-lease communities and buys a home -- a mobile home, modular home or a fixed home -- and decides that they want to have another apartment or another dwelling unit in their building.

Some of the land-lease communities are definitely serviced by a system, as it says in Bill 120, "of sanitary, septic or sewer system," but because there's no requirement for size, it wouldn't matter how small this modular home was. In fact, some of them do have basements; some of these modular homes, as we know, are built on concrete foundations and have basements underneath them. But it's quite possible, unless we have some exemption to Bill 120, that these beautiful developments that we heard about at the committee -- and some of them are well-known names because we hear them advertised all the time on the radio and television -- that someone may choose to buy one of those homes and add an additional unit to it.

I asked the member for Simcoe Centre if he would please put in his private member's bill an exemption to Bill 120, so that the people who made this investment could not possibly risk having a neighbour have two families live in their single-family unit next door. But that exemption was not agreed to by the member for Simcoe Centre. That's another concern that I have. It was very interesting, because when I asked the member for Simcoe Centre about how Bill 120, the basement apartment legislation, affected land-lease communities, he couldn't answer the question. I then asked the ministry staff. They could not answer the question. In fairness, I guess it's because I'm the first person to have asked the question. No one could tell me whether Bill 120 applied to land-lease communities.

It comes back to the fact that land-lease communities do not currently have any protection as an entity. There is no statute that directs or controls land-lease communities until we get this private member's bill, 21, and then Bill 21 addresses some of the concerns, but if Bill 21 is to have been a solution for people who need the kind of protection that they need, then I simply ask, why wasn't there a willingness to add the amendments to the Planning Act that were requested and well worded by the Wilmot Creek Homeowners' Association, and why wasn't there written into the bill an exemption to Bill 120 so we may never have a risk of these beautiful developments across this province having their occupancy increased, because under Bill 120 they have a right to have another accessory unit within the building.

They may be in a municipality that might permit them to have a granny flat. Wouldn't that be a little ironic, if we've got granny living in the mobile home and we have another granny living in a granny flat on the same lot? There is no requirement for minimum lot size in the basement apartment bill, so there's no requirement that would prohibit a granny flat either. That would be up to the local municipality, and if the local municipality doesn't have any control through the Planning Act on that development, then it begs the question. There is no protection for those people who have made the investment in their mobile home park or their land-lease community.

I don't want to read into the record a lot of the concerns of the people who came before the committee because, in fairness, it would take too much time, but I have up to this point talked about concerns of some tenants' associations, and I think it's only fair to tell you that there is a federation called the Ontario Land Lease Federation, which said in its brief that in the summer and fall of 1990, which admittedly was under the Liberal government, a group of mobile home park and land-lease communities met with an interministerial liaison committee for mobile home parks and land-lease communities.

It's possible -- we don't know, but it's possible -- that that meeting the Liberal government initiated may have been the beginning of a government bill to address the need for land-lease communities to have their own legislation.

But the irony is that although we know full transcripts exist of those meetings, we couldn't get them. I asked the member for Simcoe Centre, Mr Wessenger, if he could get them, or whether he had them, and he said that he had been told he would have to access them through the freedom of information act. It seems a little bit ridiculous when something is in the common interests of so many thousands of people that you can't get that information out of the government without going through the freedom of information act.

2100

I think that the concern of the Ontario Land Lease Federation about this bill, in fairness, is a legitimate concern. They were asked to be part of an interministerial liaison committee that met four years ago. They have not seen any progress on legislation to protect them in those four years. Now what do we get? We get, frankly, a Mickey Mouse private member's bill.

It's unfortunate that this is the form it's in, because no matter whether there are some parts in this bill that I've said we agree with, that are needed, there are still so many gaps that if it really was the intent of the government to protect these people, the gaps would not have existed. If it really was the intent of the proponent of this bill to address the needs of people in these land-lease communities, and thereby protecting their investments, the amendments would have been made to his bill. If he brought in 35 amendments and still didn't bring in the much-needed amendments, then we have to wonder why.

We asked actually at the meeting with all the people who had an interest in this bill, and I think it's important to say who was at this meeting because there certainly was a desire to have this bill address their concerns or to pull this bill and have the government bring in a bill, "Why can't the government bring in a bill quickly to address these concerns?" It wasn't as though they were items that hadn't been known for four years were of concern. We were told, "Well, there wasn't time." The government couldn't do it in that amount of time.

It's ironical because when this government has a will, it will bring in a bill quickly. It will even bring in a bill and request three readings in one day if it has the desire and if it's a priority. We dealt, two or three weeks ago, with a very controversial bill in this House, and that bill was voted on for second reading within two weeks of it being tabled in this House. It was bang, bang, bang. It was drafted, voted on -- voted on twice, as a matter of fact: first and second reading. That bill was a priority of the government. If the protection of people in land-lease communities and mobile home parks in this province were a priority of this government, it would have brought in its own bill to protect those people.

Although we asked at that meeting, and I had also asked previously, that the bill be withdrawn -- frankly, sometimes it's worse to pass something where there's a lack of consultation. Certainly, before this private Bill 21 was drafted there wasn't any consultation, and where it has an impact on so many people's investments we felt that in fairness to those people, there should have been a lot of consultation so that the bill, as drafted, would address those concerns.

There are people in this province who are in a very difficult situation because they are facing eviction, are facing high rent increases for their leased lots, and some of those problems will never be addressed by this bill.

Then the worst aspect of the bill totally is that it lumps everybody in together. We've got seasonal trailer parks in this province that were designed, built and functioned as seasonal trailer parks. They had washrooms and laundry facilities, showers and so forth that were for seasonal use, not year-round use. The plumbing was not designed for winter use. Some of those seasonal trailer parks are now year-round trailer parks, and there are a lot of tenants in those parks who are being totally ripped off, because they're paying rent for a year-round trailer park that is a seasonal park in terms of its facilities. This bill will not do anything to correct that problem.

We also have property owners who lease lots to mobile home owners in this province in mobile home parks that are outrageous in how they deal with those people, and what is absolutely unforgivable is that because a lot of those people, as I said earlier, are elderly, on fixed incomes and so forth, they become very vulnerable. They're at the whim of the property owner. This private member's bill doesn't correct that.

There's nothing in this private member's bill that deals with a mobile home park or a seasonal trailer park any differently than a land-lease community. That is the biggest weakness of the bill. We actually have three different entities here and any one of the members in this House who would go to visit any of these communities knows very well that a land-lease community is very different from a seasonal trailer park that has become a year-round trailer park and a mobile home park. People who live in mobile home parks are insulted that they are being grouped into a legislative bill, a private member's bill, with regular trailer parks.

There are problems that exist in trailer parks for both the park owner and the tenants. This bill does not resolve it. There are problems in some mobile home parks that are a problem for the tenant and a problem for the park owner also. This bill does not resolve that either. Then, when you come to this wonderful new scope of opportunity for a lifestyle choice that's affordable housing in terms of land-lease retirement communities, this bill does not address their concerns either. The major concern we have with this bill is that the protection these people need, they will not get from the bill.

We have parks in this province that have been zoned as mobile home parks. We have parks in this province that exist without any appropriate zoning. There is no security for those, for either the tenants or the property owners. There has to be legislation that protects both sides. Both sides have made investments. The people who buy the property, who rent lots, have to be protected; the people who buy the real estate, namely, the structure, the building, have to be protected.

It simply makes no sense for a brand-new development, such as the one at the University of Guelph, which is a land-lease retirement community, to be lumped into a private member's bill with trailer parks and mobile home parks. They are different structures. The one at Guelph university in no way is mobile. There's no way that you can dig up the foundations and tear down the bricks and mortar and move those buildings, yet it is covered by this legislation.

2110

The final concern we have, since I'm trying to abbreviate all the concerns we have, is probably as well addressed by this letter as any other. This letter is dated May 23, 1994, on the letterhead of the Ontario Owned-Home Leased-Lot Federation, over the signature of Ms Phyllis Baker. In this letter she says, in the second-last paragraph, "We sincerely hope that we will be able to work together for the protection of all investors in planned retirement communities, land-lease communities and trailer parks."

Unfortunately, because the government isn't willing to give the same protection to land-lease communities as condominium developments now have by giving these land-lease communities their own act, their own statute, their own protection in law, we will end up going forward with Bill 21, as I have said, in its present form, when there was in fact an opportunity for this government to recognize once and for all that land-lease retirement communities are different and must be protected in law for their differences.

There is a section of this bill that deals with bringing these communities under the Rental Housing Protection Act. The sad part about the Rental Housing Protection Act -- perhaps I may leave my comments on that until we get to that section, in fairness, but briefly to say that if the property owner does not have a choice down the road 20 years from now or 30 years from now to change their development or what is actually on their land, we will not have people willing to build these land-lease communities. The sad part of that, as I've said, is that it will remove that choice, that opportunity that is desired now by thousands of people who find this kind of affordable housing-adult community setting, all the services provided for them, very desirable.

Their investment must be protected. Their communities must be built to municipal standards, the same as any other home in any other subdivision in any municipality in this province. There must be an option where, if changes need to be made, realistically that option is there, or else we will not have people investing in this kind of development in the first place. Since it is a growing industry, it speaks for itself in terms of the market desire. There is a market desire, and it's unfortunate that Bill 21 stands in the name of Mr Wessenger as a private member's bill.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): Mr Wessenger?

Mrs Marland: That is the name on the bill.

We simply say that there are two areas in the bill that we feel are a help and a compromise. The one on signage particularly is a compromise between the tenants and the property owner. I think some progress has been made by that, but it's the gaps that I've already identified in the bill that give us the most concern. In talking about the section that is on the floor now, we have to state that our concerns are as I have put on the record.

The Second Deputy Chair (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Further debate on Bill 21?

Shall sections 1 and 2 stand as part of the bill?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. I declare sections 1 and 2 of the bill carried.

We have an amendment to section 3 of the bill, the Progressive Conservative Party.

Mrs Marland: Section 3 of the bill, section 80 of the Landlord and Tenant Act:

I move that subsection 80(3) of the Landlord and Tenant Act, as set out in section 3 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"(3) Despite subsection (2) and except where otherwise expressly provided in this part, this part applies to tenancies under tenancy agreements for possession of land intended and used as a site for a land-lease community home used for residential purposes entered into on or after that day."

To speak briefly, I would like to say that this section is against the retroactivity, which means that existing tenancy agreements should be grandfathered in our opinion. Because these agreements were entered into by both parties under the exigencies of the previous section of the Landlord and Tenant Act, new agreements will cause potential misunderstanding and confusion as to rights and obligations in the land-lease community.

The natural turnover of tenants will bring new legislation on line gradually, and so they will apply under this new bill. The development of new land-lease communities will be entered into under the new agreement.

We are concerned that if these leases have to be changed in the middle of the lease, there will be a tremendous cost in terms of legal fees for the people who live in those communities, because they now will have to sign new leases.

Mr Wessenger: We'll be opposing this amendment because what in effect it would do is allow the provisions of rental agreements and leases to continue in effect into the future, and that would be contrary to the whole provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act, which is to apply to all tenancies; all tenancies should be treated equally from the moment the bill is passed.

Mrs Marland: I'm disappointed the government isn't supporting this amendment, because obviously the original leases were entered into with the support of both parties. The people who entered into those leases made that choice. They made an agreement that everything in the lease was acceptable to them. We're simply saying that the option for them to stay with their present lease is now being removed, so they'll have to hire a lawyer, look at the new lease and adapt the provisions of this bill, and they may not want to. They may be perfectly happy with their existing leases.

2120

The Second Deputy Chair: Further debate? Seeing none, the question shall now be put.

Will Mrs Marland's amendment to section 3 of the bill carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

I declare the amendment lost.

Shall section 3 of the bill stand as part of the bill? Agreed.

Shall sections 4 through 10 stand as part of Bill 21? Agreed.

We now have an amendment to section 11.

Mrs Marland: Was it noted that I agreed to that?

Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): Yes, we noted it.

The Second Deputy Chair: The honourable member for Mississauga South, I believe, has the amendment to section 11.

Mrs Marland: I move that subsection 125.1(2) of the Landlord and Tenant Act, as set out in section 11 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"125.1(2) Despite subsection (1), any provision described in subsection (1) contained in a tenancy agreement shall be automatically amended so that the terms in clause 125.1(1)(a) and 125.1(1)(b) of the act are part of the tenancy agreement."

I recognize that we have a problem tonight because, as I mentioned earlier, the reprinted bill came to us yesterday morning and the amendments -- this is again, I guess, the problem of it being a private member's bill. I recognize that Mr Wessenger, the member for Simcoe Centre, is looking at these amendments for the first time because we could not get our amendments drafted until we saw the final printing of the bill, which we received yesterday morning, so we're in a time bind here.

I'd like to explain to Mr Wessenger that the reason I place this amendment is that subsection 125.1(2) of the Landlord and Tenant Act, as set out in his Bill 21, will void any existing first-right-of-refusal clause that does not meet the new rules. It means that, in some land-lease communities, existing leases will not have any first-right-of-refusal clause.

I do not believe it was the government's intention to void completely the first-right-of-refusal clauses. The government used too broad a paintbrush to ensure that landlords purchase at 100% of the value of the offer and this amendment will compensate for this overcorrection.

We agree that a mobile home owner, the real property owner, the owner of the home, should have 100% of the value of their offer, but what we're saying simply in this amendment is that some of those land-lease communities' existing leases, after his bill, will not have any first-right-of-refusal clause and that would be unfair because it would create an inequity, and that's the concern we're addressing.

The Second Deputy Chair: Further debate? Seeing none, Mrs Marland has moved an amendment to section 11. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

I declare the motion lost.

We have further amendments to section 11.

Mrs Marland: On section 11, section 125.2 of the Landlord and Tenant Act -- are you accepting this as an amendment, because the wording here says that I would have to vote against the section as set out in the bill. So it may not be in order.

The Second Deputy Chair: The motion I believe possibly is out of order. Therefore, you are dropping the amendment?

Mrs Marland: Maybe in fairness I should just say we're dealing with the issue of advertising for the sale of the property of the tenant; in other words, signage. Section 125.2 of the Landlord and Tenant Act does not address the fact that there is a variety of types of land-lease communities. I guess this points out again the fact that this bill has not looked at the full scope of the act.

As the executive director of the London tenants' association said, the bill has a narrow scope. I guess this is where we get into a problem, because section 125.2 of the Landlord and Tenant Act does not address the fact that there is a variety of types of land-lease communities: for instance, family, retirement, country club, corporation-owned, family-owned, large and small. Each has its own character. Problems develop when a general rule is applied to all.

Some land owners rely on resale income to keep in operation, as the Rent Control Act has greatly restricted the revenue needed to maintain the infrastructure. Already the Ministry of Housing is aware of over 20 land-lease communities which are in trouble because of lack of rent revenues for necessary repairs. If communities go under, not just the land owner suffers; the tenants also lose their homes. That's what we are concerned about.

Existing communities attracted tenants with their existing rules. Some communities agreed to no "For Sale" signs. That's a fact. In some communities their agreements say there will be no "For Sale" signs. I believe that the communities, both land owners and home owners, should be left to work out their own agreements with respect to signage, as they do for a number of other areas. That is the reason I'm recommending that we vote against the section as now printed in the bill.

The basic problem, to be brief, is that this is dealing with everything that falls under the bill. Everything isn't the same that falls under the bill. There are people who are very happy with some of the agreements that are in existence for them as tenants. As I say, some of them already agree that there will be no signs.

The Second Deputy Chair: The motion, to be in order, would read as follows:

Mrs Marland moves that section 125.2 be struck from section 11 of the bill.

It is now in order. Further debate? Would Mrs Marland move that --

Mrs Marland: No, we are on the next one, I think. The first one was --

The Second Deputy Chair: We're talking here about section 125 in section 11. This would be striking out section 125.2 from section 11 of the bill. Could you please move that particular amendment?

Mrs Marland: Certainly. I move that subparagraph 125.2(2)2(ii) of the Landlord and Tenant Act, as set out in section 11 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"125.2(2)2(ii) a prohibition on the placing of 'for sale' signs has been accepted by a majority of the directors of the tenant association that represents the majority of tenants through a vote that shall occur no more frequently than once a year; and."

2130

I feel that it has to be the decision of the tenants where there is an alternative method of advertising a sale. I think it's got to be the choice of the tenants about how a sale of their real property, their building, is advertised. One of the things we learned in the public hearings is that in cases where there is more than one tenant association -- for instance, Kenron Estates in Belleville has more than one tenant association, and the amendment that I am proposing would simply recognize the tenant association that represents the majority of home owners. I think that would be fair because that would be democratic.

The Second Deputy Chair: Further debate? No further debate? Are we ready for the question, Mrs Marland's amendment to section 11, as described?

All those in favour of Mrs Marland's amendment, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

I declare the amendment lost.

Further amendments to section 11?

Shall section 11 of the bill carry? Agreed.

Shall sections 12 through 15 of the bill carry as in the bill, without amendments? Agreed.

We have an amendment to sections 16 through 24. The member for Mississauga South.

Mrs Marland: Sections 16 to 24: This is the section that deals with the Rental Housing Protection Act.

The Second Deputy Chair: Would the honourable member please read her amendment.

Mrs Marland: I recommend that we vote against section 16.

The Second Deputy Chair: Possibly the honourable member could simply vote against these as they are presented.

Mrs Marland: Yes, I could, but does that give me an opportunity to speak to them?

The Second Deputy Chair: You may now address them.

Mrs Marland: Our concern, of course, is that we do not agree that land-lease communities should be covered under the Rental Housing Protection Act, and we recognize that we can't recommend that the sections be removed, so our only option is to vote against them.

The Rental Housing Protection Act, on the surface, sounds like it is a solution in some situations, but when you really look into it, it actually violates some rights. In existing communities the land owners made an investment decision under different rules -- for example, there was no Rental Housing Protection Act -- and we just feel that it's not fair to change the rules after the fact.

The Rental Housing Protection Act violates the land owners' property rights. As we keep saying, there are property rights on both sides that should be protected. You can't just protect the rights on one side and not another.

If this bill had been a government bill and time had been taken to draft it and have public input, I'm quite sure that a government bill could've been drafted to address equity of property rights for both kinds of property owners, both the people who own the houses and the people who own the lands.

As I said earlier, if we're looking at new communities that will now come under the Rental Housing Protection Act, how likely is someone to establish a land-lease community knowing that if they want to sell the property or retire a prospective buyer could not convert that property to another use unless the local government approved the conversion? If there is a possibility of not being able to sell or retire, people are definitely going to think twice about establishing land-lease communities.

We think this is a tremendous pity because we think that land-lease communities are a wonderful source of affordable rental housing and a great choice of lifestyle in terms of their environment.

Our concern about the Rental Housing Protection Act is that it's not fair to both investors, and there could have been a way of addressing this that would've given protection to the home owners who went in to that land-lease community whereby the land owner couldn't suddenly decide he's going to turn around, put all the home owners off and build high-rise apartments or whatever land use he wanted to apply for.

There has to be protection for the people who buy their homes in these communities, but there also has to be protection in fairness to the people who own the property as well. This section of the bill simply doesn't do that.

It is very one-sided and, in the long run, it is going to be the home owners who will lose because there will not be a lot more of these land-lease communities developed around the province, and then everybody loses. We really do regret that.

The Second Deputy Chair: Mrs Marland recommends voting against sections 16 to 24 of the bill. Is it the pleasure of the House that Mrs Marland's amendment carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

I declare the motion lost.

Shall sections 16 to 24 stand as part of the bill?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Shall sections 25 and 26 of the bill stand without amendments?

Mrs Marland: I think there's an amendment to section 19.

The Second Deputy Chair: I believe those sections have already carried in that we dealt with 16 to 24 on the previous amendment and it was defeated.

Mrs Marland: Do you have my amendment to section 19?

The Second Deputy Chair: The previous amendment that we discussed was carrying 16 to 24.

Mrs Marland: That may have been an error because there is an amendment before you for section 19.

The Second Deputy Chair: Do we have unanimous consent to reopen section 19?

Mr Wessenger: What is the amendment?

The Second Deputy Chair: There is an amendment except that the previous amendment that we dealt with recommended voting against sections 16 to 24, and that was defeated. Sections 16 to 24 were then carried.

2140

I have a request. Do we have unanimous consent to reopen section 19? Agreed?

Mr Wessenger: A request of the Chair: If I might have a chance to see what -- if it is a legitimate amendment, I certainly would, but if it's just --

Mr Mills: Have to have a look at it first.

Mr Wessenger: Yes. I'd just like to make sure it is an amendment, Mr Chair.

Interjection.

The Second Deputy Chair: It's in the package.

Mrs Marland: I apologize if it's not in the package of amendments.

Mr Wessenger: Okay. I would be prepared to reopen section 19, because it is an amendment to this section.

The Second Deputy Chair: Do we have unanimous agreement? Agreed. The honourable member for Mississauga South, please move your amendment.

Mrs Marland: I move that section 4 of the Rental Housing Protection Act, as set out in clause 19(1.2)(b) of the bill, be amended by adding the following:

"19(1.2)(b)i a tenant is in possession of a rental unit and permanent vacant possession of the rental unit would be required; or

"19(1.2)(b)ii the repair or renovation is so extensive that if any vacant rental unit affected by the repair or renovation were occupied, permanent vacant possession would be required."

I apologize to Mr Wessenger if this amendment was not in the package of amendments he received. However, the table had it, so I think it was all our errors that we didn't move it in the sections we were voting on.

The issue here is the ability to do infrastructure repairs. I think infrastructure repairs obviously are terribly important to everybody in these land-lease communities or these mobile home parks.

Clause 19(1.2)(b) of the bill states that a repair to infrastructure, for example, a watermain, could not be done if it required a home owner to move out, even temporarily, for the repair unless the repair is approved by the local council.

I think the member for Simcoe Centre and the member for Durham East, who both have these kinds of developments in their ridings, will understand how very important this amendment is. Obviously, this could lead to serious problems if major infrastructure work needs to be done during the summertime, when many councils, especially in rural areas, do not meet for two months. In other words, if there's a big watermain problem, and you've got to get approval from the local council --

Interjection.

Mrs Marland: If the Minister of Agriculture can tell me that all local councils meet every two weeks all through the summer throughout the province, that will certainly be a revelation.

The concern is that the whole land-lease community could be adversely affected if this bill goes through with the present wording. Where a major repair to infrastructure cannot be done if it required the home owner to move out temporarily unless that repair is approved by the local council, we're simply saying: "Let's be realistic here. Are you going to have the whole land-lease community or the whole mobile home park without water because you can't get the approval of the local council?"

My amendment would correct the situation by applying the need for municipal approval only in cases where the repair work is so extensive that it would require permanent vacant possession of the rental unit. I mean, who's going to want to stay in their rental unit if they don't have water? It's a very straightforward amendment, and it certainly is in the interests of the tenants.

I think it is a commonsense amendment and I hope the government will understand this amendment, because without it, it means that a whole development, a whole community, could be without, for example, water supply or sewage, if they have their own sewage treatment system, and if they can't do that repair while somebody is in the home, they won't be able to get it done. It's not saying that we're going to have somebody removed permanently from a rental unit; we're simply saying that where that emergency exists at least give the flexibility to the interests of the whole community.

The Second Deputy Chair: Further debate? Are we ready for the question? Mrs Marland has moved an amendment to section 19. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

I declare the amendment lost.

Shall section 19 of the bill stand as part of the bill?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare the motion carried.

Shall section 23.1 stand as part of the bill?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare the motion carried.

Shall sections 23.1, 24.1, 24.2, 25 and 26 stand as part of the bill?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare the motion carried.

Shall the title of the bill carry? Agreed.

Shall the bill be reported without amendments?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare the title carried and the bill shall be reported without amendments.

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): I move that the committee rise and report.

The Second Deputy Chair: Mr Silipo moves that the committee rise and report. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare that the committee shall rise and report.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): The committee of the whole House begs to report one bill, without amendment, and asks for leave to sit again.

Shall the report be received and adopted?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare the motion carried.

Orders of the day.

Hon Mr Silipo: Before calling the next order, I believe that there is agreement among the House leaders that when the Speaker calls the vote on any further bills we are going to be dealing with this evening the Speaker shall see a division and shall defer the vote on those items until immediately following routine proceedings tomorrow.

The Acting Speaker: Do we have unanimous agreement to this? We have unanimous agreement. Carried.

2150

TOBACCO CONTROL ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LA RÉGLEMENTATION DE L'USAGE DU TABAC

Mrs Grier moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 119, An Act to prevent the Provision of Tobacco to Young Persons and to Regulate its Sale and Use by Others / Projet de loi 119, Loi visant à empêcher la fourniture de tabac aux jeunes et à en réglementer la vente et l'usage par les autres.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Would the minister have some opening remarks?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I am in fact delighted to make some opening remarks and very proud to bring forward the Tobacco Control Act for third reading this evening.

This is a bill that has been a long time in coming. It has had a great deal of discussion, it has had a great deal of debate in this House and in the committees of this House, and it is a bill for which I think it is fair to say almost everyone within the health provider community of this province is very anxious to see proceed, because tobacco-related illnesses account for more than 13,000 preventable, premature deaths each year in Ontario. One in five deaths among adults in this province is attributed to tobacco use, and we now know that secondhand smoke poses a significant danger to non-smokers.

Those numbers are significant, but every number represents a life, and many of those lives are the lives of young people who became addicted to smoking at a very early age. The Addiction Research Foundation recently released two studies that show startling increases in tobacco use by young people and adults, particularly by women.

We believe that some of those increases were by students who were enabled to get smuggled tobacco and take advantage of contraband cigarettes at a time when they were flooding the school yards, the corner stores, the gas stations of this province. We also believe that the increase in smoking by women is linked to the lower cost of cigarettes, whether those cigarettes are obtained through the smuggling that prevailed or by the actions of the federal government which forced us also to lower the taxes on cigarettes and maintain those lower prices. But the fact remains that low-priced cigarettes increase the number of people who become addicted to tobacco or who maintain an already acquired addiction.

I believe, as do the doctors of this province, the community health departments of this province, the nurses of this province, the cancer society of this province, that we have to do everything we can to counter these increases in smoking, and that's why I'm so proud that we have this legislation before us this evening, because that's what this legislation is designed to do.

Last year the Premier's Council on Health, Well-being and Social Justice identified the urgent need to shift the health emphasis in this province to promoting good health and preventing disease, and this legislation will bring us closer to that goal. The Tobacco Control Act will ultimately help prevent tobacco-related diseases and deaths in Ontario, and we believe that this piece of legislation will result in wider health benefits for Ontarians than any other measure that this government could undertake, short of banning smoking altogether.

As I've said, this legislation has been a long time coming, it has been long debated, it has been long called for, and I believe there is no time to waste in enacting it. Smoking is the number one cause of preventable death in Ontario and causes five times more deaths than AIDS, suicide and traffic accidents combined. We cannot, as legislators, stand by as tobacco claims more lives each day, and that's why we are so committed to enacting strong legislation.

The Tobacco Control Act puts Ontario at the forefront, with anti-smoking legislation that is the most comprehensive in North America. A survey released Monday by the Addiction Research Foundation shows that Ontarians are solidly behind Bill 119.

The key focus of this act is to prevent young people from taking up the deadly habit. We know that if young people can reach age 20 without smoking, odds are that they will never start, and that's why our legislation takes great pains to eliminate tobacco from places where young people gather.

We are prohibiting smoking in video and amusement arcades; we are banning cigarette vending machines, which don't discriminate about the age of buyers; we're doing what we can to take the glamour out of smoking. Our very successful advertising campaign has, I think, indicated that and been, as I've said, very effective, as well as winning awards across the continent.

With this legislation, we will make it illegal to sell or supply cigarettes or other tobacco products, like chewing tobacco, to anyone under the age of 19. What is most significant is that the vendor will be responsible for making sure that no minor can buy tobacco.

In addition, we will ban the sale of tobacco in pharmacies and other health facilities, starting on December 31, 1994. We will also prohibit the sale of tobacco products in vending machines as of December 31, 1994. We will eliminate the so-called kiddie packs by limiting the minimum pack size of cigarettes to 20 and we will allow health warnings and other health information as part of tobacco packaging. We will have the authority under this legislation to regulate cigarette packaging and we will require the retailers of tobacco to post health warnings and the fact that there is an age limit on the ability to procure tobacco on their premises.

We will enable municipalities to ban or restrict smoking in public places and workplaces and this is something that, according to the Addiction Research Foundation poll that I mentioned earlier, is supported very widely around the province. That poll showed that 90% of Ontarians support a ban on smoking in the workplace, including 85% of those people who smoke who believe we should ban smoking in the workplace. If ever there was a reason to move expeditiously on that particular action, that is one that is well supported and we believe a number of municipalities -- some have already taken this action -- will move in that direction.

Any law is only as good as one's ability to enforce it, and I am delighted that as part of the implementation of this legislation, we have identified funding that will help municipalities, under their public health units, provide an effective enforcement mechanism for this legislation. That mechanism, from our point of view -- they will be providing the inspectors who can go in and monitor where there are complaints of sales to minors. The legislation includes fines and bans on the sale of tobacco following conviction. I think that is going to prove to be a very effective prohibition and deterrent. We've seen significant strides in the fight against smoking over the past three decades. Between 1966 and last year, the proportion of people using tobacco declined dramatically, from about 41% of all adult Ontarians to about 25%. What is very worrying is that the trend shows serious signs of reversal with the very groups that we believe we most need to reach. A recent report by the Addiction Research Foundation indicates that over the past two years, smoking among grade 7 students has increased by 50%, to 9.4% of the students. There has also been a significant increase in adult smoking, especially among women.

We can't allow those reversals to continue, because the numbers are already far too high. Tobacco causes 80% of all lung cancers. It also accounts for other cancers, including mouth, throat, oesophagus and bladder cancer. Tobacco causes 82% of chronic lung disease, such as emphysema and chronic bronchitis, and one third of all premature deaths from heart disease. Since 1970, the rate of lung cancer in women has quadrupled, with the number of deaths expected to surpass those from breast cancer this year. Second-hand tobacco smoke has been linked to lung cancer and heart disease in non-smokers and to respiratory problems in children and infants. Ontario desperately needs this legislation because without it, it is a virtual certainty that tens of thousands of our young people will die prematurely.

2200

Our legislation complements legislation that the previous federal government enacted and the current federal government has proclaimed: The Tobacco Sales to Young Persons Act. That legislation was proclaimed in February 1994. As I said, our legislation complements it, but goes further as well.

The federal legislation raises the legal age for buying tobacco from 16 to 18. Our Tobacco Control Act will keep product out of the hands of anyone under 19, in keeping with the age of majority. That is one of the actions we took in an effort to make the act enforceable, in the belief that the majority of 19-year-olds carry cards that enable them to establish their age, and that therefore to have this legislation consistent with the drinking age would assist in the enforcement and cut down on the need for additional identification for young people.

The federal legislation prevents vending machine sales everywhere except bars and taverns. Our Tobacco Control Act bans the sale of cigarettes from all vending machines, making it harder for young people to purchase cigarettes. In Ontario, vending machines in licensed premises could include family restaurants, and the availability of cigarettes through vending machines is something that certainly increases young people's opportunities to obtain tobacco.

Recent actions by the federal government and the province of Quebec to lower tobacco taxes, as I have said, forced Ontario to follow suit, very reluctantly because this action was both against our will and against the health and economic interests of the people of Ontario, but we took it in order to curtail the dangerous and illegal trade in contraband cigarettes. The federal government took its action to prevent smuggling from the United States into Canada. By their action, they made it an interprovincial smuggling problem and one that forced us to take action on behalf of businesses and the people of Ontario.

Make no mistake: The federal government's taxation policies on tobacco have made our job even more difficult than it was before, but we are not about to be deterred from our goal of making this a healthier province.

By 1995, we expect to eliminate tobacco sales to minors in Ontario. We will make schools smoke-free and set standards for smoke-free public places. These standards will help protect children from secondhand smoke, as well as enabling people to carry on their lives in a smoke-free environment.

By the year 2000, we want to see tobacco sales cut in half, the percentage of teenagers who smoke cut to 10% and the percentage of adult smokers to 15%. As well, we expect that all pregnant women will be non-smokers.

We're not acting alone. As I've said, the Tobacco Control Act has widespread support from both the public and health care professionals. The ministry received 240 written submissions and heard 34 oral presentations in response to the public discussion paper that was released in January 1993, and our consultations confirmed that we were on the right track in targeting the young people of this province.

We've recently had the standing committee hearings into Bill 119, and a total of 202 groups and individuals made presentations to that committee. We listened carefully, we made some amendments to the legislation and we acted to continue to put this legislation in place. Some of the amendments made to the Tobacco Control Act were moved by members of the opposition. The member for Carleton, who is here this evening, has long been an advocate of anti-tobacco legislation in this House, in opposition and when his party was in government, and we very much appreciated the efforts he made to improve and strengthen our legislation, because we believe the amendments we made have in fact improved and strengthened the legislation. I want to just review them quickly.

We moved up the date of the ban on tobacco sales in pharmacies to December 31, 1994. Pharmacists are part of the health care system, and it was the Ontario College of Pharmacists that asked us to take this action and ban the sale of tobacco in pharmacies. We want their facilities to reflect the fact that they are a very valued part of the health care system.

We've added video and amusement arcades to the base list of smoke-free public places. We will prohibit or restrict smoking in places where people routinely go, such as schools, stores, self-serve laundromats, hairdressers, barbershops and financial institutions. We will restrict smoking in common areas of shopping malls to designated smoking areas.

As well, we're working closely with the federal government and other provinces to develop a national action plan on plain packaging. We've indicated that we do not intend to move unilaterally to put in place plain packaging, and we are following with interest the actions that the federal government is taking to examine the potential for doing that. At the last federal-provincial meeting of ministers of health, we agreed to urge the federal government to act because we believe that movement towards plain packaging is something that has to happen on a national level.

Finally, we recognize that enforcement is essential to make our legislation work, so we are providing an additional $2.5 million to public health departments across the province. This will pay for enforcement officers to ensure that the legislation really does keep cigarettes out of the hands of minors.

We believe, on our side of the House, that we owe it to the young people of Ontario to pass this bill into law. With this legislation, our province will be a world leader in stamping out the number one health threat in the developed world. We have an opportunity tonight -- and we rarely have opportunities to do something as significant and as meaningful to hundreds of people in this province -- to reduce and eliminate a health hazard that claims thousands of lives every year. We owe it to ourselves, we owe it to our children, I owe it to my grandchildren, to seize that opportunity right now. I very much appreciate the support we have had on all sides of this House for this legislation. I look forward to that tonight.

As I end this debate from my perspective, I want to say how very much I appreciate the efforts that my parliamentary assistant, the member for Durham-York, has made in advocating for this legislation, in speaking to this legislation, in carrying the debate in this House and in being in the forefront of the fight to save lives in this province.

The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments? Further debate on the third reading of Bill 119?

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): Let me begin by congratulating the minister on a job well done. I think this is an important bill and I look forward to seeing it made law in this province. I'm pleased to rise and speak in support of it.

I want to also indicate that I've had a personal interest in this issue for quite a while. In fact, when I was first admitted to the bar some 11 years ago, my first job, as a volunteer in fact, was to work with our non-smokers' association in Ottawa-Carleton.

Also, I introduced a bill, Bill 118, in this House. Now we're talking about Bill 119. Bill 118 was my private member's bill. I take comfort in knowing that even though it died a natural death, it has, for all intents and purposes, been incorporated into Bill 119, the minister's bill, and I'm pleased with that.

As the minister has indicated, this bill is essentially designed to attack a very serious health problem in the province, one which is entirely preventable and one which I think we all have every obligation to address.

Three thousand kids a month start smoking in the province of Ontario. The Addiction Research Foundation tells me that between 1991 and 1993, smoking for kids in grade 7 increased from 6% to 9%, and 13,000 Ontarians die every year as a result of smoking-related illness.

2210

The minister made reference to some statistics earlier on. I just want to add to that. Statistics Canada in 1989 released some statistics which showed the causes of preventable death in Ontario. Causes of death related to tobacco illnesses exceed those for alcohol, suicide, traffic, falls -- I assume that's accidental falls -- AIDS, drugs, poisoning, drowning, homicide, fire and all others combined. Tobacco-related deaths exceed all those others combined, so obviously, if we can attack tobacco-related illnesses, we're making significant inroads in terms of dealing with some of the causes of death in this province.

There was an article which appeared in the paper just yesterday, in the Toronto Star, indicating some bad news. It says, "Smoking Increase the First in 30 Years." It reads:

"For the first time in three decades, tobacco use is on the increase, and women account for most of Ontario's new smokers, a survey says.

"Among women aged 18 and older, smoking soared to 25% this year from 19% in 1993." This is according to the Addiction Research Foundation.

It's probably fair to say that some of that increase is due to the decrease in the cost of cigarettes, but to be perfectly frank, I'm not sure if the federal government, and I've had time to ponder this now, really had any choice at the end of the day in terms of how it addressed this issue.

What we had on our hands was, for all intents and purposes, a revolt. Grandmothers, aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters, cousins, best friends -- you name it, they were flouting the law. They were buying cigarettes illegally and thought nothing of it. When you have a tax revolt on that large a scale, we simply don't have the policing power to address that by arresting all these people, and we also didn't want to get into some of the very thorny issues associated with entering a first nations reserve and all the commensurate problems arising from that. I don't think the federal government had much choice in terms of how it addressed that problem.

I want to make a couple of comments about smoking generally. Some of these are obvious, but nevertheless I think they bear repeating.

First of all, we cannot underestimate the addictive quality of cigarettes. If you don't believe me, ask a smoker, or better still, ask a smoker if they want their kids to start smoking. I think they'll explain to you how very much they would prefer that that not happen.

The Addiction Research Foundation tells us that 75% of the people who are smoking would quit if only they could. We heard evidence during the course of our committee hearings that it was more difficult for people who were addicted both to cocaine and smoking to kick the smoking, and the same for those people who are addicted both to heroin and smoking, that it was tougher to quit the smoking than it was to break the heroin habit.

We heard from one particular health care worker who said that kids have the four I's: They feel that they're infertile, they're invulnerable, they're -- I forget what the other two are, but in any event, the long and the short of it was that they feel that they're untouchable and can't be harmed by these things.

They find at the outset that there's some attraction to smoking, so they make a conscious decision to start. It's a voluntary decision. The problem of course is that at some point the voluntariness ends, the addiction takes over, and it becomes an involuntary act. That's why it's so important and that's why I'm pleased that this bill makes inroads in terms of making it harder for young kids to start smoking.

The other thing that's important to recognize is that not only is there a real physical addiction when it comes to smoking but our society has developed its own dependency when it comes to smoking. We've got a multibillion-dollar industry tied up in our smoking. We take about a billion dollars in taxes from smokers every year in this province. We've got tobacco farmers who rely on this industry. We've got a cigarette industry. We've got people in advertising. We've got producers. We've got people in packaging. We've got all kinds of jobs, and then we've got families dependent on those jobs and we've got employees. It's pretty hard to shake that habit, so it's not a simple matter of saying, "Well, listen, if it's that serious a health problem, why don't we ban the damn stuff?" We can't overnight, obviously, because of the dependency our society has developed for this industry.

We've been told time and time again that if somebody were to introduce this product today for the very first time, it would be illegal because it's so hazardous to health.

Just to give you an example of the dependency our province has, and I don't say this in any critical sense, in response to the federal government's decision to lower tobacco taxes the Minister of Finance released a press release, and in it he said: "Ontario stands to lose hundreds of millions of dollars a year from lower revenues if we cut our taxes." He's made it quite clear that a concern of his is not the health concern, it's the revenue concern. Again, I don't say that in any critical sense. What I am saying is that it points to the fact that it's a complicated problem and it's not just a health issue.

Obviously, the solution lies in prevention, more so than anything else, and that's why I think the most important provision in this bill is the one that makes it illegal to sell to anybody under the age of 19 years.

We also had an interesting discussion connected with whether we should be making simple possession of cigarettes a crime. It's interesting that if a police officer pulled up and there were two 14-year-olds sitting on a curb and one was sipping on a beer and the other one was smoking, the police officer could not only confiscate the beer but could arrest the youth who was drinking. On the other hand, he could do nothing with respect to the youth who was smoking, even though the statistics tell us that far more people die of smoking-related illnesses in this province than of alcohol-related illnesses.

One of the downsides of the bill is that it does not contain a treatment provision. If we focus on young people, I remember meeting Big Tom Bertrim, as he introduced himself to me, a principal from a school up in North Bay, who said he thought it was rather ironic that the school board was prepared to fund a smoking cessation program for the staff but there were no funds available to get kids unhooked. He told me about a program they had started within the school, and it was the only one I had heard of during the course of our committee hearings which proved to be effective in any real sense of the word, and that's because that program was run by kids, particularly by kids who were smokers. The general attitude we picked up from kids who came before the committee and heard from others was that kids felt they were invulnerable to any illness caused by smoking, that they could quit most any time, and they certainly were not going to follow the advice of know-it-all adults when it came to smoking, who were smoking themselves anyway, and when the government was deriving all kinds of tax revenues from this habit.

I want to touch on a couple of the problem areas, the more controversial areas connected with Bill 119. One was vending machines, the second one was pharmacies, and the third one was the plain packaging.

With respect to the vending machines, the bill addresses that, and it has to be addressed. It didn't address it the way I thought it should be addressed, but it has to be addressed, because obviously if you make it illegal to sell to anybody under 19, those kids 14 and 15 are going to go to the nearest vending machine and attempt to purchase cigarettes there.

I think the better approach is taken by the federal government. They've got a bill they put out, proclaimed into law February 8 of this year, Bill C-111, an Act prohibiting the sale of tobacco products to persons under the age of 18. What that bill said was essentially that you can't sell cigarettes in a vending machine unless you sell them in a bar, tavern or other similar beverage room. That's the law in the province today. Even before this Bill 119 comes into effect, we've got a law governing us today that says you can't sell cigarettes in a vending machine unless you're selling them in a bar, tavern or other similar beverage room.

2220

They define that in their regulations to mean "where alcoholic beverages are consumed and where the sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption in the designated area constitutes a minimum of 80% of the total annual gross revenues of the beverage place." That means you've got to be in the business of selling booze. You're not in the business of selling chicken with a bit of booze on the side or something like that. It's not a restaurant operation; this is a bar or tavern.

The question I have is, what would a kid be doing in a bar or tavern anyway? If the thrust of the legislation here is to make it harder for kids to start smoking, they're not going to be in a bar or tavern anyway. But what does Bill 119 do? It goes, in my opinion, too far. It bans vending machines outright. That's overkill. That means we're going to have job losses. There's going to be no corresponding decrease in smoking and I don't think there's going to be any real decrease in accessibility for young people to cigarettes in the province of Ontario. The federal legislation addressed the problem in an intelligent and comprehensive manner. There was no need for our bill, for the government bill, to ban vending machines outright.

That brings us to the issue of pharmacies. The government has decided to ban the sale of tobacco products in pharmacies. Many arguments were advanced to the effect that the symbolism associated with health care professionals, pharmacists, selling tobacco products was overwhelming and that there was a mixed message being sent out here and that this would confuse people, particularly younger people. They would be getting a mixed message about a pharmacist on the one hand acting as a health professional, and selling a hazardous product.

No empirical data were advanced which would corroborate that opinion. From my own personal experience, a pharmacy for me is the place where you get the soap, the shampoo, the razor blades, the diapers, where you get your Kleenex, your toilet paper, and sometimes you get a hell of a deal on chips and Coke, and from time to time, you might get a prescription filled. A lot of our pharmacies have evolved into a much broader retail operation than merely a place where they fill your prescriptions.

It's also interesting, when we talk about symbolism, that Bill 119 does not ban smoking in physicians' offices or waiting rooms. If you want to talk about symbolism, if you ask anybody in the province today who they think the primary health care provider is, who they think of, who they conjure up in their mind, I think they'd say, "I think of doctors." But we haven't banned smoking in doctors' offices. If that's not an oversight, I'm not sure what the heck is.

The other problem with pharmacies and banning the sale of cigarettes or tobacco products in pharmacies, and everybody admits this, is that it will not reduce smoking one iota. Pharmacies represent less than 1% of the retail operations in this province which sell tobacco products. There are all kinds of other locations where anybody, including young people, can go to purchase their cigarettes.

Studies were done which indicated there would be job losses, and there was of course all kinds of debate on that issue. Whenever you talk about job losses around here, the traditional argument is advanced on one side that there will be all kinds of jobs lost, and the other argument on the other side is that these are blown out of proportion and that effectively there would be hardly any job losses, if any, at the end of the day.

We know one thing for sure: There are a number of non-traditional pharmacies that have developed in the province over the past several years, pharmacies that are located within Woolco and Loblaws and those kinds of large operations. Those pharmacists will be put out of work. They are in there as a drawing card. Many of those operations don't even have prescription fees. They're there as loss-leaders to get people into the store to get their prescriptions filled and then to buy accessory products while they happen to be in the premises.

We heard from one pharmacist who worked at Woolco who told us that the size of the Woolco store was 100,000 square feet. Somebody told me that's close to the size of two football fields. There were 30 departments between his pharmacy and a section where they sold cigarettes, yet his operation is going to have to be closed down, because at the end of the day, if you're the fellow who's making decisions at Woolco and you're not making any money at the pharmacy because you're just there as a drawing card and you're making lots of money on the cigarettes, well, what you're going to do is that obviously you'll fire the pharmacist and you'll fire the people who happen to work with him. There are particular technical programs that you take at our community colleges as a pharmacist's assistant and that's what you're trained for, and you're going to be put out of work.

I don't think there's any doubt that there are going to be job losses, and the tragic thing in all this is that it's unnecessary, because it will not reduce accessibility to smoking in any real sense and it will not reduce smoking one iota.

That brings me to the other controversial aspect of Bill 119, and I am supportive of this one, and that is the provision by which, and this was through a recent amendment in our committee in clause-by-clause, the members of the committee gave authority to the government, through regulatory power, to mandate plain packaging, generic packaging.

One of the things I learned during the course of our committee hearings is that kids view a cigarette package, at least at the outset, when they're just starting to smoke, as an accessory, something that you want to be seen with, kind of like the latest shoes or belt or jeans or earrings, whatever. I think we can all remember, not that long ago in our teen years -- I know it was only a couple of years ago for yourself, Mr Speaker -- how vulnerable we were to peer pressure and how anxious we were to make a good impression among our friends. A package, because of its design and its attractiveness, is something that many kids want to be seen with.

While we did not hear from the so-called experts, the scientists in this field, to tell us really what kind of a role packaging plays, I'll tell you that we heard from what I would call the real experts in this: We heard from mothers and fathers and teachers and principals and health care workers who work with young people, and they told us that kids see packaging as an accessory, so we've given this government authority, through regulatory power, to enact plain-packaging laws, and I think that's a good thing.

But I would attach certain conditions which I think are reasonable and I think they're reasonably applied in terms of giving that authority. These are the conditions I would attach before this government should move forward and enact plain-packaging laws. I've got four conditions:

The first thing the government's got to do is consult, specifically with those people who would be adversely affected by this kind of regulation. They've got to talk to the people who are going to lose their jobs or potentially may lose their jobs.

The second thing the government's got to do is that it shouldn't act unless and until it receives conclusive evidence that generic packaging will work, particularly among young people; that is, it will make it less attractive for young people to start smoking. We have not obtained conclusive evidence. We've obtained what you'd call in law prima facie evidence. There's kind of a case made for it, but it still should go a bit further before we act.

The third condition I would attach is that the government should act only if there's no reasonable prospect that the federal government will act. The proper jurisdiction to move on generic packaging lies at the federal level, and I would like and prefer that the feds move ahead on this before we do.

The fourth condition I would attach is that if the government has to act, because it's obtained the evidence and the feds have refused to act and it's done the proper consultation, then in those circumstances it should act in such a way as to minimize job losses wherever possible.

2230

The assumption has been made in this House and elsewhere that generic packaging equates automatically with job losses, and I'm not sure that is true. You can dictate that packaging be designed in such a way that continues to require labour-intensive activity on the part of the people employed in the packaging industry, so I'm not sure why we have to make that assumption, that we're going to have to put people out of work.

It's important too for me to bring the members of the House notice of the fact that the federal government just finished studying this issue of generic packaging. I want to quote a couple of paragraphs from the news release issued June 21, just yesterday:

"The committee takes the position that plain or generic packaging could be a reasonable step in Canada's overall strategy to reduce tobacco consumption. It therefore calls on the federal government to establish the necessary legislative framework for generic packaging. The committee suggests that actual enactment await the outcome of a government study on the subject due later this year."

That's precisely the position I am taking, and I think we stand in good stead. We have given, through Bill 119 now, government the authority to enact plain-packaging legislation should it see fit to do so. It's got the law on the books and if it needs to act, it can.

I want to read the final paragraph in this press release as well, though:

"The committee therefore cautions the federal government to exercise care in designing generic or plain packaging. In particular, the design chosen must be mindful of the need to minimize contraband, job losses in the tobacco industry and legal problems at the national and international levels."

They sound a wise note of caution in terms of a number of issues but particularly job losses, which is the one I think we're all concerned with here.

I want to conclude by saying that I think Bill 119 is good public policy. I think it will have a positive impact on smoking in the province. I think it will help to make it harder for our young people to start smoking in the first place and then subsequently find it extremely difficult to quit.

I think it's important for all of us and for the people of Ontario to recognize that the government has, as in every other case, only a limited role to play in these matters of public policy. The people who are out there can help as well, and particularly parents, teachers and schools, who all have day-to-day access, contact and dialogue with young people. Unless and until it becomes unacceptable for young people to start smoking, they will continue to smoke.

When you look back on the drinking and driving experience we had in this province, we beefed up the laws and insurance rates went up for people who were drinking and driving, but subsequent studies have shown that the single most powerful element in reducing drinking and driving was that it became socially unacceptable to leave a party after drinking. People soon felt that pressure and altered their behaviour accordingly, and I think the same thing can be done with respect to smoking, particularly among our young people.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I thank the honourable member for Ottawa South for his contribution to the debate and invite questions and/or comments. Is there further debate on this bill?

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I appreciate this opportunity, although I was hopeful we wouldn't be at this stage in respect of the finalization of the debate on this bill. We were hoping, of course, that during the committee of the whole process we were going to have a significant opportunity to discuss a number of amendments I had tabled dealing with the generic packaging elements of this legislation, and a number of concerns that have come to our attention during the course of this debate which have not been discussed by the government or by the members of this assembly, let alone by the standing committee on social development which recommended the generic packaging amendment.

The government invoked closure last night during the committee of the whole process and debate was closed off. The government cited a precedent back in 1982. I must admit I have not had an opportunity to review that precedent, but I think it's safe to say that even though there was a Conservative government in place in 1982 when that precedent was set, I suspect the government of the day afforded considerably more time during the committee of the whole process for debate of that legislation than the NDP government has allowed in respect of Bill 119.

I'm not sure what the total time allocated in committee of the whole was. I suspect it was no more than three to four hours in total that we had to debate this significant piece of legislation and the many concerns that I have and that the member for Lanark-Renfrew has in respect to what we know will be very significant job losses in our ridings, good jobs from a clean industry, jobs that make a significant contribution to the local economies. I'll get into detail on that a little bit later.

I want to at least recognize the contribution from the Liberal member for Ottawa South, who at least had the decency, if you will, to comment on the job loss implications of the legislation. Even though he is supporting the generic packaging provisions in the legislation, he at least recognizes that there is a real possibility of significant job losses and expressed a concern about that, even though he's going ahead and supporting the bill.

I don't find that surprising, given the history of the Liberal Party in Ontario and its close affinity with the NDP. As well, if we have to look at the history, back in 1985, Mr Speaker, which I'm sure you remember well, the NDP supported the Liberal Party in ousting the Conservative government of the day in an accord, grasping, hugging each other in a loving embrace between 1985 and 1987.

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): Then what happened?

Mr Runciman: Then what happened? Yes, they had a falling-out. But in any event, it clearly indicated that in terms of philosophy, in terms of orientation of the parties, they have no great difficulty in getting together on very significant issues. I've described the NDP as a socialist party and I think it's accurate to describe the Ontario Liberal Party as a quasi-socialist party. They're very close on many significant issues, and we certainly witnessed that from 1985 to 1987.

In terms of the generic packaging provisions of this legislation, that's another indication of the way these people think and how they can feel so comfortable with these kinds of initiatives. We're talking about Big Brother telling the people of this province that we know what's best for you, without even giving the people of the province an opportunity to be heard. That's essentially what's happened in this element of the legislation. That's my primary concern. My concern from the outset was, let's at least give the people an opportunity to be heard in respect of this particular amendment.

That has not been afforded them through the committee hearing process, because this amendment was brought in during clause-by-clause deliberation, so there was no public hearing involvement. Then when we have the opportunity to discuss it in the House, and at least, as the elected representatives, convey the concerns of our constituents, we were shut off again by the government through the invocation of closure, which does not leave our constituents and many, many people across this province much of an opportunity to have their concerns placed on the record.

I was complimenting the Liberal member for Ottawa South for at least acknowledging the concerns out there about job losses, much more so than the Minister of Health, who stood up for her opening comments here and, as I understand, made no reference whatsoever to those significant concerns -- no reference whatsoever. I think that, at best, typifies the arrogance of this minister and her parliamentary assistant in the way they've dealt with this issue.

2240

We have tried to sit down on a number of occasions and tried to at least have our concerns understood, appreciated and recognized, and we've been turned back with every attempt. This is an ideological effort. This minister has her blinders on and she has her sheeplike followers prepared to follow her no matter what the cost may be to the economy of this province and to very small communities which depend on these industries, families, communities which are going to lose a significant tax base as a result of these initiatives if indeed they come to fruition. But, no, she's not prepared to even acknowledge that those concerns are out there when she makes her opening comments.

I just want to put a couple of things on the record. I'm not going to speak at length, but I raised this issue last night about generic packaging. I have not taken a stand on whether generic packaging is good, bad or indifferent. I don't know. I've suggested that we need to have studies carried out to determine whether indeed it will have an impact on reducing the appeal of cigarettes to young people. I'm doubtful that it will, but I haven't taken a stand.

I was provided with this yesterday, which is a copy of packaging of cigarettes in Great Britain, which is a plain package, black and white, skull and crossbones, "Death" in large letters and on the bottom of the cigarette package, "This will seriously damage your health." It has at least four health warnings on this package.

They can hardly keep these in stock in Great Britain. The young people are buying them up like hot cakes. That's the reality of plain packaging in Great Britain apparently, and I would call that plain packaging: the skull and crossbones is identified with toxic materials throughout the world, a readily identifiable indication of toxic materials along with four health warnings on the package in a plain black-and-white package.

That's the sort of thing that we didn't have the opportunity to discuss: no feedback, no discussion with the parliamentary assistant or other members of the government in respect to this sort of thing that is occurring in another jurisdiction and is having quite the opposite effect of what the government is suggesting is going to happen if we move to plain packaging in this province or in this country.

Another element that I thought was interesting, and we're not going to be able to discuss this either with this cutoff in debate, is a study that was carried out by a firm called Lindquist Avey Macdonald Baskerville, a forensic and investigative accounting firm. It looked at the question of counterfeiting of the tobacco products, tobacco packages and the contraband tobacco market.

It indicated in their analysis of what they call copycat cigarettes that the tar content was much higher than in genuine cigarettes. The filters were not as effective. The content of carbon monoxide and nicotine was significantly higher than in the products that are legitimate tobacco products in this province and in this country, which have to report their levels of tar nicotine and carbon monoxide to Health Canada on a quarterly basis. Those facts are contained in average percentages printed on the package face.

So what one element of this in fact is essentially saying is that by going to plain packaging, what we do is allow the cigarette package to be that much more easily counterfeited, and then if you have a counterfeit package, you have a product which is not subjected to the same rigorous testing that the legitimate product is subjected to currently. So what you're doing is putting on the market a much more dangerous product in terms of health risk than what is currently the case, where legitimate producers are subjected to rigid testing and reporting through Health Canada, and those results are on the package of legitimate cigarettes.

I think that is a very valid concern that should be raised, discussed and thoroughly investigated. But what's this government's response? We get absolutely no response. We've had no opportunity to even take a look at the study and look at the implications as they relate to plain packaging of cigarette products.

The other element of this, of course, is that organized crime, which is very heavily into smuggling and a variety of things, weapons, as we know, which is a major concern -- we've seen it in the cigarette-smuggling area, we've seen it in contraband liquor products coming across the border. What we're going to see here is organized crime smiling from ear to ear if we move to plain packaging of cigarettes. They're going to be into this business in a big way; I can guarantee it.

We're going to have a cheap product coming in here which is going to pose significant hazards to the health of young people, who are going to continue to smoke -- to what degree we do not know, but they're going to continue to smoke -- and we're also increasing the proceeds of crime and opening up a new avenue for organized crime in this country or in this province, in any event.

I'm simply going to remind the minister and the House of the job loss implications and then I'm going to sit down. I know my colleague from Lanark-Renfrew wants to put some of those concerns on the record as well. But in Brockville alone, a move to plain packaging will result in the loss of 220-some jobs at Shorewood Packaging. These are direct job losses; I'm not talking about indirect job losses. At Kromacorp Inc in Prescott, Ontario, a specialty ink manufacturing firm, we could see something like 60 to 70 direct job losses.

Those are just in my riding. I'm not talking about all of the other firms and businesses that will be impacted upon right across this province, but the speculation is that direct job loss could approach 2,000 people right across the province.

I want to mention that Shorewood Packaging in Brockville has an annual payroll of $10.7 million. It contributes $320,000 in taxes each year to the city. That accounts for almost one full per cent of the city's total annual budget.

What we're talking about here are real people with real families who make real contributions to their communities. They are very much concerned about the implications of this one element of this legislation, very much concerned about their futures. They have not even been afforded the opportunity to be heard. We have this very cold, arrogant approach by this government, especially this Minister of Health, in respect to this matter.

I've simply asked to have this one element sent back for public hearings for two weeks. Her parliamentary assistant says this cannot become reality for at least five years, so why the rush? Why the headlong rush to do this? We've never had a satisfactory explanation, certainly not for the people and the families and the communities that are going to be impacted upon by this in such a negative way.

Finally, I want to say there has been an effort to attack Mr Jordan, myself and our leader, Mr Harris, by the government and by some lobbying groups in respect to this matter, suggesting that in some way, by opposing this legislation, we are going to be complicit in the deaths of young people in our own communities in this province.

That's very regrettable. It has been a clear attempt by lobbyists in this province to try and intimidate elected members of this Legislature, a clear effort to try and intimidate us by the use of significant sums, some of which come from the taxpayers: very offensive efforts, and certainly they've had no impact on Mr Jordan, myself or Mr Harris.

I want to say the one element of this, of course, that concerns me is again that most of us have been strongly supportive of the bulk of the elements of Bill 119. The member for Carleton, Mr Sterling, has perhaps been the leader in this province, if not this country, in pushing forward initiatives that are going to see a significant reduction in smoking in this province. Certainly I have taken those kinds of stands in the past as an elected official, and I know Mr Jordan feels strongly about this as well. So we were deeply offended by the efforts to try and suggest in some way that in expressing the concerns of our constituents who are going to lose their jobs, we were in some way complicit in future deaths of young people in this province. I'm deeply offended by that.

I'm going to sit down. I think we've spent what we can in terms of time on this issue and getting our views out. Obviously, the government is not going to show any flexibility. Again, hopefully with the election of a new government some time in 1995, this whole initiative will be reviewed with a view to protecting jobs in the province of Ontario. Certainly the Mike Harris Conservatives, if we form the next government, are very clearly going to be concerned about job loss and the implications of any kind of legislation like this which would impact negatively upon the economy of the province of Ontario.

We have to look at the balance in this. We have to have clear and convincing evidence that there is a health benefit to be achieved by moving in this direction if indeed we're going to significantly harm the economy of many of our communities.

Thank you for the opportunity, Mr Speaker.

2250

The Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Leeds-Grenville for his contribution to the debate, and invite any questions and/or comments. Is there further debate?

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): To speak briefly on this bill, I think it's one that has received about as much support from a Legislative Assembly as is possible. There are some concerns that my colleagues present, and for the viewers at home, I want to reassure them that they have concerns, but the intent of the law to keep young people from taking up the deadly habit of smoking is one that they still support.

As we went through the committee hearing process, there was a whole number of people who came forth, and I want to take this opportunity to try to thank them the best way I can: the Canadian Cancer Society, the Heart and Stroke Foundation, the Lung Association, not only at the local offices, because we heard from all of them, but the provincial offices. We heard from public health units and as we went through this process, it was warming to know that there were so many people out there that we were working together with.

It's not just a government going out there saying, "Here's a bill and it's going to save a lot of lives;" it's knowing that there's a lot of work going on out in the community. It was little notes like this one here that was attached to a petition that was forwarded to me. It's from York region, Working Towards a Smoke-Free York Region. There's a little note on here and it says: "Hi, Larry. Happy World No Tobacco Day."

It's that sense of everybody being involved in this that really added to the sense that we're not alone in government doing this or my colleagues across the floor, that there's a larger part of all of this. We heard from interagency councils, from health professionals, from pharmacists in support of Bill 119, from the Non-Smokers' Rights Association, the Ontario Campaign for Action on Tobacco and, as we heard from them, they represented about as broad a range as you could ever hope to hear from. All these people came forward making their presentations, adding their support because we don't want to see our young people being addicted to this deadly disease.

There were parts of it of course that were controversial. The pharmacy issue was one of controversy, I'll admit that. But one of the most rewarding things, as we went through that process, was hearing from the young pharmacists who were going to university, about to graduate to enter into a field of health care profession. They felt that the reason they were taking this education was so they could be health care professionals. When they came in support and we heard from the college requesting action in this area, it really felt good knowing that the young people had the support they required.

We heard from some pharmacists who thought, "We've got a marketing problem here, and this is going to cost us a few bucks." Then we heard from pharmacists who said: "We went through this process. We were able to take tobacco off our shelves and no longer sell it." Some of them admitted there was a bit of a loss. Some of them said they did it because they were able to cope in a fashion that recognized that "We're health care professionals. We can offer alternatives."

As we went through this, I found it probably the most rewarding process that I've gone through as a legislator, because of the support we all had, and because as went around the province to Thunder Bay and to Ottawa, we heard from people, presentation after presentation, that it's important to go out there and send out strong messages. In fact, if there was anything, by the time we finished our committee hearings, the committee itself was ready to just about ban everything everywhere, and then we realized as legislators there had to be some balance in this.

One of the important processes that needs to be part of this, that's part of the overall tobacco control strategy, is the public education component to it. The minister talked about the $2.5 billion. This legislation is tough. It's the toughest in North America, and I think we should all be proud of that. The fines that are part of this -- they need to know that they're going to be fined $2,000 or maybe $5,000 or $10,000, up to $50,000; a corporation up to $300,000. So there is a public education process that is necessary.

The funding's in place. The money's flowing out there. We're equipping the public health units to go out there and do that so the vendors can be responsible about the sale that they do. They're going to sell the tobacco products to people out there now, but we can't just rely on that alone.

It's the young people, when we take a look at this overall strategy. The Ministry of Health has actually got a very good program under way right now. We've heard the radio ads. Here's a print ad, "Remember, when your child has this decision to make" -- whether they are going to have their first cigarette -- "you won't be there." So when you sit down with your child after they've had their first one, how do you talk it out with the children? That's exactly what the ministry's put out. They've put out a booklet, Talk it Out, and it brings out ways that parents can communicate with their children about this habit.

Even if the parent is a smoker, the child will listen, if the parent approaches them and has a serious conversation with them, and they should. They should sit down and relate. The minister recognizes that's a challenge, and we've offered some support there.

There's just one other point that I want to touch on. My colleagues from the third party talk about the job loss. I don't think for a moment that they don't feel it's genuine. I don't happen to agree, but I feel they think that's genuine. But the intention that they have -- they still support the fact that we want to keep young people from starting to smoke, and I appreciate that.

I want to reassure people that the Canadian Cancer Society undertook a study and they asked teenagers: "What about the decisions? What made you start smoking? Was packaging part of it?" The kids said yes. It wasn't just a study done here in Canada. There were studies done in Australia, there were studies done in New Zealand. When Ontario undertook this research, we went right to them and we learned how important smoking is.

It's that badge. A certain brand of cigarettes means you're a sporty type of person; another one means you're a little bit classier. They identified that. That was part of those studies. The University of Toronto, the centre for health promotion, has a study under way right now. The results are due in 1995. So there are studies under way. There are studies that have been completed. There are more studies that are going to take place.

We've got a commitment by the federal government that it is going to move forward in this direction. Sure, they are going to do some research, because just as my colleagues raised their concerns, of course the federal government is going to take a look at those concerns. Those concerns they raise are concerns that you can't just throw away.

When we decided as a province that we want to be part of that overall commitment, we're going to join the national government, the federal government of Canada, along with the other provinces, we wanted to make sure that our legislative framework was intact so we can move forward right in step with the federal government on plain packaging. It's important that we do that.

Mr Speaker, I want to tell you how long this legislative process is. It's not something that just happens overnight. There was the discussion paper that was put out in January 1993. Over 240 people wrote presentations in, 34 oral presentations. We then went through a political process where we decided as a government, yes, this is important that we try to keep young people from starting. Then we went through another legislative process through committee hearings. So it's not a process that happens overnight.

To throw that section out I think would be a colossal waste of time and energy. Considering we heard from so many people making presentations that this should be part of the legislation, I think it would be a colossal waste. I think it would be saying something to all those people who came to us and made those presentations that, "Well, we listened, but we're really not sure whether we want to do it now." I think we have to keep it intact, keep that legislative framework intact, and that's our intention.

2300

I don't disagree with my colleagues that they have some genuine concerns, but the concern that they also have and that I'm assured they certainly have, is that we need to protect our young people. We need to keep young people from taking up the habit that eventually kills 13,000 Ontarians every year.

With that, I'm going to close. I appreciate all the support that I've received from all members of the Legislature on this very important ground-breaking piece of legislation.

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I'd like to commend my friend the member for Durham-York on his excellent work on this bill and of course on the very points that he makes. I think it is true to say that when one has the opportunity to take part in such ground-breaking legislation, legislation that serves all of us and our future, our children, to create a healthier environment, one can feel that one is making a significant contribution to one's entire community. My friend, in his hard work throughout this province, has been emblematic of what is the best in our community and the best in this House and in this Legislature.

My friend talks about this issue of plain packaging, this issue of how best to deal with this issue. This is important because we're wanting to prevent people from starting to smoke, prevent youth from becoming addicted to cigarettes, from dying. If that means you don't want to have a stylish package, something which attracts people, which induces them to inscribe those packages into tattoos or identify them with racing cars and the good life, perhaps that's a sacrifice we can all undertake.

I would suggest that my friend's concerns reflect not some private interests, some profit that might be derived from this, but rather the good wishes and the intent from decades of hard work of many, many concerned health activists in our community, and certainly the intent is to preserve the best of our community. I commend my colleague for his excellent work on this bill throughout this province and his steady stewardship of this legislation through this Legislature.

Mr David Winninger (London South): I too wanted to congratulate the member for Durham-York for the depth of his commitment to controlling tobacco consumption, and particularly tobacco consumption by minors.

I had the occasion to join the committee led by Mr O'Connor in three different places: London, Toronto and Ottawa. I recall and actually brought with me the fine submissions made by the London Council of Home and School Associations, the Heart and Stroke Foundation, the Canadian Cancer Society and the Lung Association, just to name a few of the deputations that appeared before the committee and shared with the committee their praise for this initiative taken by the Minister of Health. In fact, as I recall, in London the praise was comprehensive and unqualified.

But I was particularly struck with the comments made by a very brave pharmacist in London, Jim Semchism, who operates Ealing Pharmacy, which has been a family pharmacy for many, many years. Mr Semchism made headlines in 1986 when he was the first local pharmacist to stop selling tobacco products. Now 10 other pharmacies in London have followed his lead. The reason he stopped selling cigarettes I think was aptly stated in his brief, where he said:

"Every day I face the victims and smokers across my dispensary counter. Each parent who smokes is potentially consuming thousands of dollars of bronchodilators, anti-asthma, anti-hypertensive and cardiovascular drugs. Some are on chemotherapy as well. Most are also taking anti-ulcer medication....

"The sad part is that most of these smokers don't care about the cost of these therapies. 'My employer pays for these drugs,' they say."

The Speaker: Further questions and/or comments? The honourable member for Durham-York has up to two minutes for his reply.

Mr O'Connor: I don't think I'll need the full two minutes. I just want to thank my colleague from Durham Centre and point out that that was an example of the support we received throughout the province.

To my colleague from London South, that was the range of the debate. There was a lot of thought, a lot of time and energy put into all the submissions, and for all those submissions that were made, we listened and we made some amendments that reflected the concerns that they had. It was a wonderful opportunity that we all had as legislators to move forward the most important piece of public health legislation we have had an opportunity to move in this decade. That was just a range of what we heard. I thank them for their accolades and offer them the opportunity to continue to go out there and work on that within their own communities.

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I'm pleased to spend a few minutes on Bill 119.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Lanark-Renfrew has the floor.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): Too much virtue in this speech for me. I haven't heard such high-octane fluid in a long time.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Jordan: Perhaps the member for Renfrew North is going to speak first here.

Mr Conway: I don't smoke, but I'm certainly not this pure.

Mr Jordan: I don't think the member for Renfrew North has read the material or talked to the people in Smiths Falls or Brockville --

Mr Conway: I'm here to listen, Leo.

Mr Jordan: -- or to his people in Renfrew county, because if he talked to the people at the high schools in Renfrew or in Pembroke, he would soon learn that packaging is not how they learn to smoke. Perhaps, had he not rushed into the seclusion of this place so soon in life, he might have found an opportunity to find out some of these things. I challenge you yet, my friend from Renfrew North, to go out into the world and take on a payroll and find out what life is all about.

Mr Conway: Good advice.

Mr Jordan: Your youth in Renfrew county, especially the ones in Renfrew south, are the people who are saying to me: "Why don't you ask the user? Why don't you consult the user of the product? You people up there in that ivory tower seem to think you know best how to regulate our lives. You cannot legislate health. You can build a framework" --

Mr Conway: Has anybody talked to Norman Sterling?

Mr Jordan: Mr Speaker, we have these debates between here and Renfrew, but it's not usual in the House.

Mr Conway: Have they read any of Normie Sterling's speeches?

Mr Jordan: Normie Sterling has made a good framework of protection for people, but he still gives room for people to live. What's happening here is, we're being shackled, we're being handcuffed; we have no freedom to live. We have no freedom to become individuals. I'm very strong on the fact that it's through education, not legislation, that's going to be a success in bringing our youth on into life without being addicted to the cigarette.

You know, I talk to the young people in Smiths Falls. Do you realize that in grade 7 they're smoking --

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): No kidding. Holy smokes.

Mr Jordan: -- and you're making all these laws and bragging about them, that you can't get cigarettes till you're 19? It just doesn't make sense. Stop and think about the real problem and get to the root of the problem, and then you can solve the problem. The root of the problem is right in the home, not down at the corner store. It's right in the home, and as soon as the parent and the child learn some self-discipline, then we'll be on the road to some control of things we can have and things we can't have. But to think that we can stay in this place and legislate the lives of people across this province is absolutely ridiculous.

2310

We're spending many, many dollars on legislation we can't enforce. Who in the name of God have we got to go out and enforce the kind of legislation that's in this bill? We can't even protect the mothers and fathers so they can walk down the street in the evening, let alone legislate and protect children from cigarettes. It doesn't make sense. The intent is good -- I support it 100% -- but we always go too far, and we've gone too far with Bill 119.

Section 5 of that bill is causing real hardship in over 500 families in my riding and in Bob Runciman's riding of Leeds-Grenville. The problem here is that on section 5, on the fancy packaging, the studies aren't complete, the job isn't complete and yet we're willing to go ahead and put it into legislation hoping that it's going to be effective, without taking into account what's going to happen to the parents who are losing their jobs.

For a lot of us and a lot of people across Ontario, the first two weeks of July are vacation time for them. How would you like to be going on vacation with the plant manager saying, "You know, the legislation that's coming in is really putting your job in serious jeopardy"? That is a very serious thing in this recession we're in. I'm saying, what's the hurry with this legislation? The federal government rushed into it for what would seem to be political reasons. Our government is now following up with an amendment in the bill which isn't required.

There are many parts of the bill, and most of the bill we support, but that section of the bill that says that a certain kind of packaging will introduce youth to smoking has no statistics to prove it. It's just an idea that's there. Even the minister herself says, "We'll put it in anyhow and then we'll be ready when the federal government finally comes forward." It's all right to say that in this place, but what does it say to the parents in the home who are looking at losing their paycheque? What does it say to the industry that's wondering if it can keep its plants open? That's a whole different story.

I was interested in the comments of the member for Ottawa South and the minister relative to the youth: a 50% increase in the use of cigarettes by the grade 7 age group, from about 6% to 9%, approximately a 40% to 50% increase in the use of cigarettes. Think of that, along with all the types of legislation, regulation and so on, warnings on the pack, trying to advise them of the hazards of smoking. We have that all in place. But you can't legislate their lives; it doesn't work that way. You can only go so far. Really, with this bill I feel we've gone a little too far as far as that aspect of the bill is concerned. I would far sooner see the money spent on special education in these areas in the schools.

I haven't spoken with directors of education in my riding relative to this bill, but I have spoken to the users of the product and they have convinced me that this legislation will not deter them from using cigarettes as a form of recreation, as a form of enjoyment and so on as they grow up and mature.

Like many of us, including myself, we were introduced to them not because of the package but because someone else had them and they offered you one. You tried one and then eventually had some money and bought some of your own and went on from there. Luckily, most of us were able to cut our way free from any addiction to it, but some don't desire to be free of that. Some desire a style of life that makes their cigarette enjoyment part of life.

I don't know how far we should intrude on these people and their way of life. I know that the intent of this bill is certainly in good faith, but when you look over the whole district it could be up to 1,500 families that are receiving their paycheques from the printing and colouring and packaging of cigarettes.

The people, when we go out to speak to them -- we had a meeting in Smiths Falls last Saturday -- tell us: "Please, no more regulation, no more taxes. Just get out of our lives. Let us live."

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): We want rid of them as badly as you do, Leo.

Mr Jordan: I say to my friend here, let's apply some common sense and no more taxes.

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): Not that revolution.

Mr Jordan: Thanks for the word; I couldn't think of it there. It's "revolution." Everybody seems to know it now.

Mr Elston: We know where the guns are buried.

Mr Jordan: Oh, I see. That's how people feel, and that's how the young people are feeling too, that we're trying too much to tell them what to do.

In another session with the youth, we found that they think, really, they're on their own. They come home from high school, grade 9. They come to their homes, there's no one there. The house is empty. They're free to turn on the television, they're free to choose any channel they wish, they're free to bring in any video they wish, they're free to invite a crowd in. Really, they're looking for affection, they're looking for direction, but not legislation. When I say direction, I mean in the form of education; I mean in the form of interest in their lives by adults on a personal basis with some love and affection, not a bunch of regulations from this place. It's not going to do one thing for those young kids.

It's too late, I know, to convince the minister that this aspect of the bill is not required, but I can't say too often that the spinoff of that amendment in the bill is going to have real, dire effects on a lot of people in my riding and a lot of people in my colleague's riding.

We went to Ottawa; we went before the health committee. The mayor of Smiths Falls, Mr Lee, owns and operates Lee Tavern, where a number of the youth from the high schools in Smiths Falls, Perth and district congregate. He tells me that he can't understand why we would bring forth legislation such as this. He knows the kids better than their parents. I'd just like to read here from the committee. Mr Lee says:

"If I can make one observation, there is no proof or fact that plain packaging is going to slow up anybody buying cigarettes. There is proof that if this goes through, my municipality is going to lose $8 million in wages, $220,000 in taxes."

Mr Speaker, $220,000 represents 4% of that town's total budget. That is a fact. The legislation is just a question at the present time, just a question, and the minister knows that, but she says: "We'll go ahead and do it anyhow and then, if the statistics do show that packaging does have an effect on youth buying cigarettes, we'll be ready. If the federal government goes ahead with its legislation, there'll be no time lost. We can move like that."

2320

Well, I don't see that as a legitimate reason for putting all these families on notice. That's really what you're doing, you're putting all these families on notice that their parents could possibly have no income in six months to a year. That's how serious it is. Why put them on notice at this time unnecessarily? Why not let the report come in, why not let the people who work at the plant read the report and assess it for themselves? Then, when the bad news does come, they're better able to understand it instead of being in the worried mode they're in now, just because we're reaching out and putting legislation ahead of the action in case it might happen. It's very unnecessary stress on those families.

You talk about saving health costs. I can tell you that a lot of those families are visiting their doctors right now for stress and nervous conditions and so on, and I'm sure a lot of it can be related back to just that fear of losing their job, because they're very well-paying jobs, very high-tech jobs at the plant. These people have nice homes. They're meeting their mortgage on the homes and enjoying a relatively good life.

I really think that not only the provincial government but the federal government should be giving a little more thought in caucus and in cabinet to the spinoff effects of legislation we're bringing in. There's nothing worse than a law that you can't enforce, and that's what Ontario is beginning to become full of: a whole nest of laws and regulations that are on the books but we can't afford the people to enforce them. We're not only making a joke out of the legal system, but we're spending a lot of time and money on issues that aren't going to return as we had hoped they would in the beginning.

I would like to close. I know the time is late. I just want to stress that we are putting an unnecessary stress on families in my riding without the statistics to back it up.

As to the rest of the bill, on the pharmacies, I agree with the member for Ottawa South. I don't think taking the cigarettes out of the drugstore is going to accomplish anything. The people I talk to feel that the druggist and his staff are better trained, if you will, or more responsible in lots of ways to see that only those people who should get cigarettes get them. We have to think about that, not saying there's a contradiction between giving out drugs at the one counter and giving out cigarettes at the other counter.

Madam Minister and parliamentary assistant, I know you say you consulted, with 240 letters and 33 direct contacts. That's not very much across the province of Ontario. I don't think I would want to stand up here and say I feel comfortable passing this legislation on the basis of that.

What you should have done with that amendment being in there is given the people an opportunity to come back in, especially the young people and the people and families you are affecting, given them another opportunity to be heard and for you explain to them the statistics you have to back up your legislation.

The Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Lanark-Renfrew for his contribution to the debate and invite any questions and/or comments.

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): Just briefly, I want to comment on the earlier remarks about young people. My experience with young people is that they like to make decisions on their own, they like to be empowered, and they like to have a feeling that they are doing something that is unique and different and not necessarily something their parents would like them to do.

When we were in Sudbury with the committee, we had before us a group of young people from Lively high school. They had created a smoke-free environment, and it was rather interesting the way they did that. They had originally tried to impose it but it didn't work, so the administration went back to the student council and to the students who smoked and held a discussion and a conference. Among the three groups -- the administration, the students who smoked and the non-smoking students -- they came up with a formula that allowed them to create rules in the school. They created the school's smoke-free environment. The young people took ownership of this program and it seems to be working very well. It's working so well that the Ministry of Health has used that as a model to send to other schools to try to encourage them to do it as well.

One of the things that was rather interesting was the peer response from some of the older students to the younger students in that the older students were sorry they started, they were trying to quit but they couldn't. They were trying to send a message to younger students that they should not start. These are important points to remember.

It's also important to remember in this debate that our ultimate goal is to have a smoke-free Ontario, and the reason for that is because we have about 13,000 families every year who realize that smoking has created a problem, created cancers and created deaths in their family, and that this burden on all of society must be eliminated so we can have a healthier future.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Before we go on talking about, "This is the most important piece of health legislation in 10 years," that the members opposite were saying --

Mr O'Connor: Of the decade.

Mr Stockwell: Okay, of the decade then -- maybe we should look at what comes out of this bill. When this government cut the taxes on cigarettes by half, smoking, as recently reported in the Toronto Star, went up by 26%. The most important piece of health legislation that was dealt with in this Legislature, not only in this decade but longer than this decade, has been the reduction in taxes. That's increased smoking by 26%. Before you break your arm patting yourself on the back, we wouldn't deal with that issue because we wouldn't take on the people who were smuggling the cigarettes illegally into this country. So today governments like the federal Liberals and the provincial New Democrats are trying to pass this piece of legislation in order to save face. We all understand that. But for them to stand up and say the most important piece of legislation this decade -- no, sir. The most important piece of legislation, that increased smoking, was the reduction of taxes on cigarettes. More people are smoking significantly more. More younger people are smoking.

If you were really going to make an impact on the smokers of this province, you would have taken on the smugglers who were illegally smuggling cigarettes, you would have charged them, you would have thrown them in jail, and today we wouldn't necessarily have to have this debate, because significantly fewer people would be smoking. So the reality out there the public understands: Smoking's up, taxes are down. This piece of legislation will have nothing to do with the amount people smoke.

Mr Perruzza: I'm not going to take my full two minutes. I want to commend the member for Durham-York for all the hard work he's done in bringing forward this piece of legislation, but I can't help but comment on what the Conservative member for Etobicoke West has just said. Here's a guy who stands up and tries to flog us for reducing taxes when his leader and their entire raison d'être, their entire reason for existing and for running for office and for getting elected to office, is on the whole platform of fighting taxes and cutting taxes and reducing taxes.

You've got the leader of the Conservative Party billing himself as the tax champion of Ontario. What that means, I don't quite know, whether he's going to tax Ontario to death or give Ontario a break on taxes, but I know what the member for Etobicoke West traditionally says is that he wants to cut taxes. Now he stands up and he says: "You've cut taxes on cigarettes. For shame, for shame, for shame." That I can't understand, Mr Speaker.

2330

Mr Stockwell: No, I didn't. No, I didn't.

Mr Perruzza: If that's not true, and I hear the member for Etobicoke West saying that's not so, obviously it's late and I misunderstood him.

Mr Stockwell: You didn't listen to the speech.

Mr Perruzza: I'd like to move unanimous consent to give him a further two minutes so he can clear the record on that, Mr Speaker.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I heard at least one negative voice. Any further questions or comments?

Mr Runciman: I'll obviously have to come to the defence of my colleague. The member for Downsview, like a good NDPer, is again trying to distort the facts, which is pretty commonplace from the folks across the way.

The point my colleague was attempting to make was in response to the comment made by the parliamentary assistant that Bill 119 was the most significant piece of public health legislation in the last 10 years. My colleague was pointing out the hypocrisy of that, in that what has happened in terms of public health initiatives is that this government chose to drop cigarette taxes by 50% and we've seen the first significant increase in smoking in 30 years, a 26% increase in smoking. In 30 years, this is the first kind of significant increase we've seen, and that's because this government didn't have the guts, the intestinal fortitude to stand up to the smugglers. That's the reality.

The Speaker: The honourable member for Lanark-Renfrew has up to two minutes for his reply.

Mr Jordan: The government doesn't seem to understand why we are speaking this evening against Bill 119, and I want to stress that we're not speaking against the bill in its entirety, we're speaking against one or two sections of the bill.

The section we're speaking of most is that amendment that interferes with a lot of families in our ridings. I can't stress too much the family stress I'm running into by these people just through this amendment that isn't required at all. You're putting a lot of stress on the plant superintendents, the plant managers, because they have to start to look elsewhere -- they can't move on a day's notice -- and without any statistics to back this up. I know these are reasonable people, and if I or the minister were to present them with logical reasoning why this is in the bill, you wouldn't have any problem at all. They would immediately be on a positive note looking for other uses for those buildings. But that's how serious it is. Those buildings will not be occupied if this bill goes through, along with the federal bill.

To say we have to put that stress on those families at this time, unnecessarily, just to prove an ideology of this socialist group is not right. And to bring in closure all evening on the many other bills that affect my riding -- you know, we're moving from a democratic society into the basis of a dictatorship, really. That's what closure is. It's the beginning of a dictatorship.

The Speaker: Is there further debate?

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): As many members of the Legislature know, I have been involved with this issue for some period of time, going back to 1985. Over that period of time, I have urged not only this government, I've urged previous governments to take part of the tax we collect from tobacco -- and that tax has risen and has varied from time to time, but I believe it has been as high as $850 million a year. I don't know what it is after the most recent tax cuts by the present government to meet basically what the federal Liberals agreed to in Quebec, but probably it's somewhere around $400 million.

I urged the previous Liberal government, when it was raising tobacco taxes through the latter part of the 1980s, when it was raising a lot of different taxes at that time, to put aside a small portion of that taxation to take care of our tobacco farmers, to take care of the communities that were impacted by changes in legislation, by changes in social habits dealing with the use of tobacco. I specifically referred in a number of speeches over those years to the production workers.

Today we have heard from my colleague from Leeds-Grenville and my colleague from Lanark-Renfrew that if in fact at some point in time in the future there is a determination by this government, a future government, a federal government, that we are going to change packaging and there is an economic impact on Brockville, on Smiths Falls, the government should set some money aside to deal with those communities in a fair and equitable manner, to train those workers, to attract new industry, to replace the lost industry that these members have talked about. I urged the previous government to do that; it did not do it. I have urged this government to do it, and it has not done it. It has not done it under Bill 119.

I wanted them to establish a sinking fund, a bank account or whatever, so that as we as a society backed away from smoking, there would be this pot of money to take care of the change in society. I thought if we had done that -- and we still have the opportunity to do that -- we could change the habits of people and lessen the economic impact on people who rely on the production of tobacco for their living and for their community.

My colleague from Etobicoke West has talked about the decrease in taxation. I also want to indicate that during the 1985 period and beyond, since I have been a member of the opposition party, I believe I have been the only opposition member I have ever heard in this Legislature who has stood in his place and said, "Increase taxes on tobacco." I have said that in this Legislature on a number of occasions. It's not a popular thing for opposition members to do that. They know that when you say to increase taxes anywhere, as a member of the opposition there's no requirement to do that, because you don't have the responsibility of delivering programs and raising taxes.

But I have maintained over that period of time and have a belief in the research I have read that if you lower taxes, lower the cost of the product, you increase consumption, particularly among young people. As we have seen, as a result of the lowering of the taxes which we have experienced in Ontario, not only has the consumption increased with regard to young people but it has also increased, as importantly, among women, the rationale being that their disposable income is less than men and therefore the lower tax, the lower price in cigarettes has allowed them or encouraged them to buy more cigarettes.

Bill 119 was a bit of a disappointment to me in terms of what it tried to do. The thrust of my efforts in terms of dealing with tobacco has first and primarily dealt with the secondhand smoke issue. I have not tried to interfere, generally speaking, with the choice an individual makes in terms of whether he or she wants to smoke tobacco or not smoke tobacco. My concern has been with the effects of the firsthand smoker sharing his smoke with another person who does not smoke and doesn't appreciate that, so I pushed in my first bills to deal with controlling smoking in the workplace.

2340

I had hoped that Bill 119, or any legislative efforts on the part of the government, would have strengthened the very weak legislation which was brought in by the former government in the latter part of the 1980s to deal with smoking in the workplace. While a lot of workplaces have banned smoking, the legislation on the book quite frankly is weak. I had hoped that would have been one of the thrusts of this legislation.

The part that is attractive to me in Bill 119 is the restriction of smoking in certain other public places. Unfortunately, across Ontario we now have a hodgepodge of legislation. If you live in the city of Toronto, you can be guaranteed when you go to certain public places that you will not be bothered by secondhand smoke, nor will you be subject to the pollution of that secondhand smoke. However, if you travel to other parts of Ontario, the rules are different as you travel across the boundaries of the some 840 different municipalities across this province. I'm happy that within the legislation are some basic ground rules as to where smoking is now allowed.

Amusingly enough, when you look at section 9, which outlines the public areas relating to controlling smoking -- I don't know whether you would call it humorous -- one of the odd parts of this debate was that in 1988 or 1989, when the Liberal government brought forward legislation dealing with controlling smoking in the workplace, one of the amendments I put forward -- I wanted to control smoking in certain public places as well as workplaces, but one of the places in which I wanted to control smoking more than any other place was day care or nursery schools.

To my amazement, I put a bold-faced amendment to the Legislature at that time, in 1988 or 1989, when the legislation was being put forward, that notwithstanding all of the other legislation within that bill, you could not smoke in a day care centre if you worked there. That was my amendment. That was supported by the Conservative Party, that was supported by the NDP, but I could not believe that the majority Liberal government at that time turned that particular amendment away. They voted against banning smoking in nursery schools. I found that quite amazing from the point of view of a government which was not willing to listen to any kind of rationale at all. I mention that more as a point of view in terms of this debate and how things change. Perhaps it's time, perhaps it's position in this Legislature.

One of the things that I did want to mention as well is that -- we talk about controlling smoking in public places under section 9 -- one of the other important sections is section 7, which deals with the sale of cigarettes. My colleague Mr Wilson, who is our Health critic, the member for Simcoe West, and I both felt that the government overstepped its boundary in trying to control the sale of cigarettes in old age homes.

I heard the Health minister say earlier today, and I heard the parliamentary assistant say today as well, that the primary object of this legislation was to stop young people from starting to smoke. I was talking about the amendment which the Liberals refused to accept about banning smoking in day care centres.

I compare that to this government in terms of not being willing to strike out that particular section and trying to say to people who would go down to the tuck shop in their old age home and get their pack of cigarettes -- much as I don't enjoy being in the same room when they smoke, I don't really think that it's the role of me or this government or any government to try to discourage an 80-year-old from stopping smoking. That's between him and his doctor and his family, and I don't see why we should force that old soul to have to get on his coat on a cold winter day and walk across the street to Beckers or to some corner grocery store in order to get a cigarette.

I want to raise those two examples to say how we can get out of whack when we're legislating in this area and we're trying to indicate that we are doing more than perhaps we are. By extending the rules to the ridiculous, by not listening to debate and by accepting those kinds of suggestions, unfortunately we have a bad effect on the public of Ontario.

It is my intention to vote for Bill 119 on third reading and it is the intention of many people in my caucus, as you've heard. There are some people of my caucus who have a great deal of difficulty with the plain packaging amendment which was made to Bill 119. I'd like to talk briefly about that plain packaging amendment, because I feel some responsibility for pushing the government along that line. Quite frankly at the time, I was not aware of the number of manufacturers in my colleague's riding, which is immediately adjacent to my riding, and I am concerned, as they are concerned, about those jobs.

I want to say however that I have listened to the debate in committee of the whole, I have listened to the debate on third reading, and one thing has not been brought to light on the plain packaging issue. That has been the actions of the tobacco companies vis-à-vis formal federal legislation dealing with health care warnings on cigarette packages.

What the tobacco industry did when the federal government tried to regulate health care warnings on tobacco packages is it went to the courts and tried to say, and was successful at the lower courts, that the federal government did not have this right to dictate what was on the package in terms of health care warnings. They won in the lower court.

I believe that legislation is still in limbo. Therefore there is some validity in both the federal government and provincial governments having the right to deal with plain packaging. It is in fact the tobacco companies that have brought this upon themselves, because they had litigated it some time ago. They have tried to prove that the federal government, when it tried to enter the field in dealing with packaging, did not have the constitutional right to deal with it. They won in the first instance, and I believe the case is still under appeal. I don't have any truck with the tobacco industry, quite frankly, in terms of dealing with this.

I think there is a legitimate concern on the part of my colleagues, and I believe one of the things we must do is do more research in terms of actually proving or trying to prove, in trying to deal with the issue, whether or not some form of plain packaging will reduce consumption, will reduce the attractiveness, particularly to young people. Unfortunately, there has not been a great deal of research done in that area. I do know there is some indication, from what I have read, that the attractiveness of the package does in fact have something to do with consumption.

I know, for example, that in the former East Germany, prior to unification in 1990-91, there was essentially plain packaging in East Germany, because they were all state cigarettes that people were smoking. After unification, consumption almost doubled in East Germany, or what was formerly East Germany and is now part of the whole.

I just don't know, however, whether in fact health care agencies, in their hurry to go towards plain packaging, have done enough to prove their case. One of the things, though, that we have to worry about in terms of the health care issue is that tobacco companies unfortunately have the reputation, as we know, through the 1960s and 1970s when dealing with this health care issue, of saying some of the most outlandish things in spite of conclusive medical health care research. I think in a lot of cases they have damaged irreparably their reputation, their credibility, when they say this doesn't affect the consumption of tobacco vis-à-vis the plain packaging. Therefore, I think there's a role in terms of government in dealing with this.

2350

I want to deal just very briefly next with the vending machine issue. I felt that, quite frankly, the federal government had done an adequate job in dealing with the vending machine issue. That was that they said they were going to ban the sale of cigarettes from vending machines, save and except in licensed premises. Quite frankly, I think that was good enough to deal with that issue.

We asked the government to deal with the compensation of people who owned vending machines. The government refused to accept our amendment to compensate the people: good, hardworking people who had put their money and efforts into running what was entirely a legal business, and as of January 1, 1995, they are going to lose their income and probably not be able to get a fair market value for their machines.

I don't think you should put people out of business by regulation, by legislation, without trying to deal with compensation. Perhaps if we had in fact dealt with what I mentioned in my opening remarks, if we had put a sinking fund or a pool of money or a bank account aside, 1% of the tax we collect in terms of tobacco each year, we could have compensated these people fairly for this change in our legislation.

I don't know how much longer we can go on in terms of legislating more and more regulation dealing with tobacco and how effective that will be in cutting down consumption and stopping young people from starting to smoke. I feel we're getting at the edges of the area of how far we can go in terms of dealing with this issue within this Legislature.

As I say, however, the habit, the addiction and the results of tobacco are so horrendous, and it has been recognized as far back as 1975 by the World Health Organization that the single most progressive thing any industrialized country can do in terms of improving the health of its citizens is to cut down the consumption of tobacco, there could be no doubt that that's still a direction we must take. I only don't know how much farther we can go in terms of dealing with it within the context of this Legislature. Perhaps we have reached that limit. I am still willing to talk to people about other changes.

Lastly, I want to say one thing that I have been very, very disappointed by, and that has been the fact that two of my colleagues in this Legislature would be very, very much affected by plain packaging. I have worked in the past with the Heart and Stroke Foundation. I have worked with the Canadian Cancer Society. I've worked with the Non-Smokers' Rights Association. They lost a lot of credibility, in my view, when they put ads in the local papers of these members, attacking them, I think very unfairly, in terms of the content of those ads.

I believe these members believe in what they're saying. I can only say that I think their case was misrepresented by the non-smokers' group, and I see Mr Mahood sitting up in the gallery, so I'm saying this directly to him. I was greatly disappointed by it. I think they've hurt their cause by taking this tack on two of my colleagues when they know in fact they have a great deal of support not only in the government caucus and in the Liberal caucus but in my caucus as well.

I say that as a warning to all lobby groups. That is their right, but they also need cooperation at times, and we have to talk to each other. When you confront my colleagues like that, with an ad which stretches the truth, it's very, very hard to respond at times.

The Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Carleton for his contribution to the debate and invite any questions and/or comments. Is there further debate? Seeing none, the Minister of Health has an opportunity to conclude the debate.

The member for Mississauga South on a point of order.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): No, it's not a point of order. I just have a question and comment, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: I did call earlier.

Mrs Marland: I know.

The Speaker: The member was not in her seat. Is there unanimous consent of the House? Agreed?

Interjection: No.

The Speaker: I heard one negative voice. The Minister of Health has an opportunity to conclude.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member was not in her seat at the time. I asked for unanimous consent and there were several negative voices, not allowing the member to have two minutes to express her views.

Mr Stockwell: Best two out of three.

The Speaker: I will place the question again. Is there unanimous consent for the member for Mississauga South to have up to two minutes for comments? Agreed.

Mrs Marland: Thank you, Mr Speaker -- and I'm sorry; I was moving into my seat at the time that you asked -- for permission. I simply wanted to say that this bill is a bill that in my opinion is important to the people in this province. I realize that there is an element in this bill that is of concern to a few areas in the province in terms of the job aspect to do with the packaging. One of those companies actually is in Mississauga, and we are concerned about jobs.

But overall, our major concern is about the health of our young people and our adults who have the problem of an addiction to smoking. For the main direction of the bill, the main thrust of the bill, in terms of trying to come to grips with how to solve the problem of smoking and the addiction to smoking and the real costs in terms of human health and the indirect costs in terms of the health care system, I would like to say, for the record, that I do totally support the bill.

The Speaker: The member for Carleton has up to two minutes for his reply. No?

The Minister of Health has an opportunity to conclude the debate.

Hon Mrs Grier: Let me merely thank all of those who have participated and all the work that has been done by groups outside the Legislature and around the province to bring us to what I think is really a historic conclusion of a very important piece of legislation.

The Speaker: Mrs Grier has moved third reading of Bill 119. By previous agreement of the House, a division has been deemed to occur and a deferred vote will occur tomorrow immediately following routine proceedings.

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): In light of the time, I think it probably would be appropriate to just move adjournment of the House.

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

This House stands adjourned until 10 of the clock tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 2359.