Journal des débats 1995-oct-31 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

On October 29, I had the pleasure of attending their first anniversary celebration dinner. In its first year of operation, the Yee Hong centre has established a solid reputation as being a leader in the care of our seniors. The centre has taken a leadership role in outreach in the local Chinese community. With such leaders as Dr Joseph Wong, chairman, and Florence Wong, executive director, the Yee Hong centre has been recognized and studied as a model for geriatric care. They have also taken progressive initiatives in private fund-raising to support the work they accomplish.

I continue to be very impressed by the seniors who live at the Yee Hong centre. They are vibrant and active individuals, and they are very important members of our community.

Please join me in recognizing the contribution of the hardworking individuals at the Yee Hong centre -- staff, volunteers and residents -- who have contributed to the success of this project. They must be encouraged to continue with their important work, providing dignified service in a home environment for our seniors. On their first anniversary, we wish them congratulations on their accomplishments and every encouragement to continue with the important work they do.

Mr Speaker, I also want to recognize Chike Gardiner from Winston Churchill Collegiate, another outstanding Scarborough North community individual who is in the audience today.

NURSING HOMES

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I'd like to direct my statement today to the Minister of Health. Mr Minister, on October 16, your ministry announced the sale of 25 beds at the Cochrane nursing home in my riding of Cochrane North to the Heritage Green Nursing Home in Stoney Creek. I understand this move is to increase the profitability of Heritage and increase the provincial average of beds available in the Stoney Creek area.

What about the profitability of the Cochrane nursing home? The future of the home does not look bright. Until recently, the Cochrane nursing home beds have been full, as it serves not only the town of Cochrane, but also many other communities in the area.

A needs study of this community has been requested, and any decision concerning the reduction of beds at this home was asked to be delayed until the study had been completed. This request was ignored by your government. Extendicare also made a commitment that if the beds were to be sold, the quality of care and the physical plant at Cochrane would be improved. The request for a feasibility study was ignored. How then can we trust you on your commitment to improve the situation at the home upon the sale of the beds?

The reduction of 40% in the size of the home will have a tremendous impact on health care in my riding of Cochrane North. Also, there will be more unemployment due to the loss of jobs. I'm concerned about this. The Cochrane District Health Council is concerned about this. The people of Cochrane North are concerned about this. Mr Minister, the reduction in beds at the Cochrane nursing home could prove to be a catastrophe for the health care of everyone in Cochrane North.

HAMILTON CHEFS FIGHTING HUNGER

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): I rise today to bring to the attention of this House how volunteerism is having a positive impact on those less fortunate in the city of Hamilton.

On October 24, 1995, the Hamilton Spectator reported that some of Hamilton's best-known chefs would be giving free cooking lessons to people who are on social assistance. The skills and experience of this group of chefs will help families who are on social assistance to prepare meals that are both cost-effective and nutritious.

Mr Trevor Hamilton, a chef at the High Bonnet Cafe in Stoney Creek, contacted other chefs and asked them to volunteer their services and get involved in the community. They have come together and organized a group called Hamilton Chefs Fighting Hunger. This group of people will be volunteering their expertise to people on social assistance in order to provide them with shopping hints on where to go and how to buy the ingredients needed, and with cooking ideas on how to cook nourishing meals inexpensively. Classes are scheduled every Monday in November and will feature different chefs every week.

Since Mr Hamilton has undertaken this volunteer initiative, I am told that his phone has not stopped ringing from people wanting to help: chefs, dieticians, nutritionists, grocery store owners and mothers, all wanting to help and get involved.

It is exactly this type of initiative that the Premier and this government want to encourage. I commend Mr Hamilton and the people of Hamilton-Wentworth for once again showing leadership.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): The Common Sense Revolution is leaving in its wake a collection of misery and suffering unmatched in this province's history. Every day I hear from my constituents about the pain and agony many in my riding feel on a day-to-day basis.

However, there is one particular situation that I would like to share with this House. Jennifer Fairclough is a resident in the riding of Yorkview. She and her five children share a two-bedroom apartment in an apartment building which, incidentally, was recently shut down because of severe building deficiencies.

Unfortunately, Jennifer's story does not end here. You see, she was also saddled with a close to 20% rent increase while at the same time losing 20% in her welfare payments.

Despite these living conditions and her economic situation, Ms Fairclough has valiantly tried to make ends meet, but fears she is losing the battle. She has been attending night school, trying to make a better life for herself and her children, but slowly feels her opportunities slipping away.

If the government restricts the options and potential solutions for people such as Jennifer Fairclough, it only perpetuates the cycle of poverty and dependency. If the Harris government is truly committed to getting people off public assistance, it should at the very least give them a fighting chance.

Mr Ron Johnson (Brantford): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: that the House may recognize, sitting in the members' gallery, the Honourable Phil Gillies, who was a Conservative member from 1981-87 in Brantford.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): You do not have a point of order.

1340

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): Given that this government has attempted to shut down any kind of democratic participation in its rush to bring into law the anti-worker Bill 7, I have today thousands of cards that I'm receiving, in addition to petitions, that I'm going to send across the House to the Minister of Labour in the hope that she will at the last minute realize that this kind of anti-democratic procedure is not in the tradition of this great province and it's not acceptable to the majority of people in the province of Ontario.

The government has attempted to suggest that because the opposition parties did not agree to its sham of a process, somehow it can abdicate its responsibility to provide democratic input. That's not the case, and the people of Ontario will not accept that. You're the government. You have the obligation to make sure that people have an opportunity to participate. You have decided that you're going to shut off the tap of democracy and that there will be no input. You will have to answer to that.

You think this will be over today when you jam this bill through and make it law by the end of today. I'm telling you that's not going to happen. People will not forget, and the labour movement is not about to lie down and let this anti-democratic government roll over it.

They are going to rue the day they decided to tell Ontarians, "Forget about democracy; you don't deserve it." You will rue that day. I'd ask pages to take this over to the Minister of Labour's desk, please.

OKTOBERFEST

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): Given that we are now at the end of October, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the over 3,000 volunteers who helped make the 27th anniversary of Oktoberfest in Kitchener-Waterloo a resounding success.

Over the years, Oktoberfest has grown in size and popularity. Its events this year drew over 650,000 participants to the 20 fest halls and the 50 family cultural events that make up the festival. What is even more notable is that over 60% of those participants came from outside the region, making Oktoberfest not only a tremendous cultural experience but an economic success.

This year, Oktoberfest generated over $18 million in economic benefit to the area economy. I am also pleased to report that the net revenue gained from Oktoberfest events, which, I might add, are run by over 70 not-for-profit groups, is being directly reinvested into the local community to help those families and children in need.

I know I speak for all members of the House in warmly congratulating the organizers of Oktoberfest and wishing them continued success. As we all know, the strength of Ontario rests with the strength of our communities. The participation and dedication of event organizers and corporate donors as well as the community spirit shown by all volunteers on a daily basis is an indication of what can be accomplished at the local level if people commit themselves to getting involved. This is precisely what the Common Sense Revolution is all about.

HIGHWAY 17

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): My statement is directed to the Minister of Transportation. On August 27 of this year, a transport truck was involved in an accident with a vehicle from Alberta on Highway 17, the Trans-Canada Highway, between Vermilion Bay and Kenora. Both occupants of the car were killed.

On May 7, one person was killed on this highway in a two-car accident. The OPP tell me that this stretch of Highway 17 was recently closed more than five hours due to yet another accident. Unfortunately, this accident occurred at the bottom of a hill and resulted in two jackknifed tractor-trailers and a traffic jam involving hundreds of vehicles.

I could go on and on about many incidents along this stretch of the highway. The Kenora OPP detachment has informed me that although they patrol this section of the highway, little enforcement can be done because they are afraid to pull vehicles over to the side of the road, fearing that they will fall off the shoulder.

For more than two years, the Kenora OPP policing committee has been demanding government action. To date, no improvements have taken place, despite the design plans being completed by the MTO officials.

At a recent community policing meeting, the following question was asked of the minister: How many more lives do we need to lose before we use the design work that is sitting on one of your bureaucrats' desks to move ahead with this much-needed upgrading between Kenora and Vermilion Bay? We are still waiting for an answer from this minister.

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): On July 21, 1995, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing wrote to municipalities and promised help to those communities which would lose because of the Conservative cuts to social services. The minister said, "The Ministry of Community and Social Services will be prepared to consider one-time payments to those municipalities so they can protect services."

The regional municipality of Sudbury is in that position. Under our government, the region had 90% of its welfare costs covered because of the high caseload in our community. It also received extra help with administrative costs. As a result of the Tory cuts, local taxpayers will now pay $152,000 more to support the system.

The region also previously received 100% provincial dollars for some 166 Jobs Ontario child care spaces. The Tory cut to the subsidy means local taxpayers are now paying $20,000 more a month to maintain the spaces. Without them, the 166 social assistance recipients who are using the spaces because they are back in school or at work for training will end up cut off work, out of school and back on assistance.

The chair of the regional municipality wrote to the Minister of Community and Social Services on August 16 to request the one-time funding, and I have personally called to follow up. To date, there is no formal reply and the region has no money.

This government made the commitment to municipalities. It's time to live up to that commitment.

CONDOMINIUMS

Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): The quiet enjoyment of one's home, a right that is guaranteed through the Condominium Act, has disappeared in many properties, including some in my own riding, as a direct result of too many people living in too small a space.

The units that generate the problems are usually owned by an absentee landlord who seeks to raise his or her income by increasing the number of tenants who occupy a unit. The fact that condominium units are used to house many people, such as two or three families per unit, is a contradiction of the original intent of condominiums, which was to provide equity ownership to families at all levels of income.

Although the entire Condominium Act is undergoing changes, this matter of overcrowding can and should be dealt with immediately. Changes to the act should address the need to restrict the number of occupants of a residential unit.

Since taking office last June, I have met with many residents concerning this matter. The people of the city of Etobicoke, in addition to the city officials, are just as concerned as I am. I know this government is also concerned, and I am confident that we will address the overcrowding through the Condominium Act by giving this issue the attention it deserves.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

NATIONAL UNITY / UNITÉ NATIONALE

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I want to say that it is with a great deal of pride as a Canadian that I rise in the House today to comment on yesterday's vote in Quebec.

Last night, I watched the results with my family. We went through the range of emotions that I believe most Canadian families went through during the evening: fear, apprehension, excitement, concern, relief, joy, and at the end of it all, a reflective weight of responsibility that is on all of us in this country in the aftermath of this vote.

It's been an emotional time for Canada. Of course, it has been a very emotional time for the people in the province of Quebec.

Last Friday, my son Michael Jr and I travelled to Montreal to take part, not as Premier but just as a family, an Ontario family, on behalf of, I hope, all those in Ontario who wanted to be there but couldn't on a working day.

I understand that we ran out of buses. You couldn't rent another bus in Toronto on Friday. Many were left standing who wished to go. We went to show support for keeping our country together.

I want to tell you that I was moved very much by that experience. We've all seen the speeches and referred to them -- at least, I hope we have; they've been talked about. It was a marvellous feeling, that sense of those who spoke on behalf of change, but change within Canada.

1350

I want to tell you where I was touched. I was touched, as were I think a number of other Ontarians, by the comments from Quebeckers, from Montrealers, from those who were living this referendum and getting ready to vote. They reached out, they touched, they wanted to shake hands, they shouted out -- hundreds -- things like, "Thank you for coming; thanks for caring," to me, some of them perhaps because they recognized me, but to any they identified as somebody from outside of Quebec. It was, "Thank you," some with tears in their eyes, "thanks for coming." One young girl said at the rally, "It's about Canada." She was a girl who looked a little younger, actually, than my son. In the words of that very wise young person yesterday, it was about Canada.

Today and tomorrow and the next period of time, though, will be as much about Canada as was yesterday's vote. Now the challenge really begins as we work towards a federation that better serves all Canadians, better serves Quebeckers, better serves Ontarians, better serves Canadians all across the country.

Last night Quebeckers, in my view, voted 100% in favour of change. The majority -- a slim one but a majority -- voted for that change within Canada, but all voted, I believe, wanting change. Ontarians, like our neighbours in Quebec, reject the status quo as well. They want change. I've talked to premiers across the country who have told me the same, that the mood in their province is for change in how governments are operating -- federal governments, provincial governments, even through to local governments. So Ontario is committed to working side by side with the Prime Minister, with the other nine provinces, with two territories, with all Canadians, with all members in this Legislature to bring about real change in the Canadian federation.

Ontarians, Quebeckers, Canadians from all provinces share so many of the same goals: jobs, opportunity, safe streets, a strong education system, accessible quality health care. Yes, Quebeckers are concerned about their language and their culture, but I heard so much more in this referendum campaign compared to the one 15 years ago about jobs and the economy and future jobs for their children and less about concerns over language and culture. It's still there, but this referendum really struck out at many more changes than simply language and culture, asking for many, many more things from us.

As we work together I believe we now must consult broadly ourselves. The buses travelling down the 401 last Friday, the thousands of people in Montreal and from every corner of this country, highlighted once again the importance of including Canadians in these efforts. People in every community of our province have a love for this country. They want the best for this country, and I have faith in those people. We must listen to them as we embark upon this program of change. I have confidence in Canadians; I have confidence in them.

We have an opportunity now to seek changes that will make us stronger, that will make us more self-reliant, that will make us less dependent on others, that will make us greater masters of our own destiny instead of somebody else who we owe money to outside of this country telling us and influencing our policies. That means paying our own way. It means balancing our budgets. It means creating competitive tax climates. It means doing more for less. It means finding creative ways of delivering quality services. All Canadians, I believe, are seeking these kinds of changes in how government operates.

So there's much work to be done and there are many challenges to be met, but I believe that what lies ahead is an exciting opportunity for all Canadians -- an exciting opportunity, not something to be feared; something that we ought to look forward to to help shape the future of this great country of Canada.

On a final note, let me again pay tribute to each and every one of you in this chamber, particularly to Mrs McLeod and to Mr Rae, who gave their complete cooperation, who gave their assistance, and to the people whom everybody in this chamber represents, who, as we have acknowledged from time to time, don't agree on how we ought to achieve the goals but agreed unanimously that we wanted this country to stay together, wanted Quebec to give Canada a chance.

I think Ontarians can be proud of our efforts as a province. We've worked hard to keep our country together. The past few weeks have been no exception. The next few weeks and months and years will be no exception. We'll be called upon to lead. We'll be called upon to make some very difficult decisions and we will not shirk that responsibility.

You reached with an open heart to our fellow Canadians living in Quebec and you said, "We want you to stay in Canada." I just wanted to say thank you to all of you. I look forward to working with each of you in the weeks and months and years ahead as we meet the challenges of protecting, but the challenges, in my view, of building and of strengthening the greatest country on this planet, Canada.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I think we should take a moment to celebrate the fact that Canada won last night. Those of you who happened to see my daughter in tears last week will be glad to know she woke up this morning smiling, as we all did.

Last night's vote in Quebec was clearly a vote for change; everyone has recognized and acknowledged that. I think what pleases us most and gives us the most reason for hope is that a majority of Quebeckers have voted for change within the Canadian federation, and what that means to me most essentially today is that we have the opportunity to continue to build a strong and united country.

I think it's also important for us to recognize that the mandate for change within the federation comes from a strong majority of Quebeckers. The polls showed us that approximately one third of those who voted Yes believed that they were supporting negotiations for a renewed federalism. When you add that vote to the No vote, it's clear that a majority of Quebeckers rejected separation, and that is a good base from which to begin again to build.

There is as well a strong base of support from Canadians across this country. In recent days there has been an enormous outpouring of the commitment of Canadians to the future of our country, a passionate concern that we do not lose what we have struggled to build for over 200 years, that we not sacrifice the unity of our nation.

Without that clear commitment from Canadians across the country, there might not have been a victory for No. With such a narrow victory, I believe that Canadian citizens across this country can feel that their contribution did make a difference.

Last week we saw Canadians from every province join in partnership and support with Quebeckers who wanted to stay Canadian. That partnership, that sharing of values, is something that we Canadians have never demonstrated so tangibly before. Never before have Canadians expressed the love of their country so strongly, and never before have we joined together in such a passionate commitment to preserve and to work to make stronger the nation that we've built.

We agreed before the vote that a No would not be taken as a vote for the status quo. No one is satisfied with the status quo. We look forward to working with the people of Quebec and with all Canadians across the country to ensure that we satisfy everyone's desire for a strong Canada and a healthy economy that creates jobs.

We will find the ways to work together to understand the needs and how the concerns of Quebeckers and the concerns of all Canadians in every region can indeed be addressed. We will find the ways to work together so that a majority of Quebeckers, hand in hand with a majority of people across this country, can commit themselves wholeheartedly to a shared future in a strong and united Canada.

Last night was a victory for a Canada that includes Quebec, but I believe last night was also a wake-up call. We saw the continued existence of our country as we know it threatened, and Canadians responded to the sense of crisis. But our response and our commitment will outlast the crisis. Canadians across this country, and not just in Quebec, have given their governments a mandate to bring about real and lasting change.

Je suis heureuse que les Québécois et les Québécoises aient choisi le Canada.

1400

Mr Bob Rae (York South): In speaking to the House today, I must say I come at it perhaps from a slightly different perspective. Of course, all of us are pleased that on balance, after a very long night counting, the people of Quebec voted No to the proposition that was put to them by their government. However, I think it's important for us to recognize that the challenge we face as a country is more real and more serious than it has ever been.

I've had the opportunity since coming here to speak on many occasions on this question. I've done it from this seat, from that seat over there and from that seat over there. And on many occasions I've had chances to say to members that I thought that this question of our relationship with the province of Quebec and Quebec's continuing active partnership with us within Canada was at issue and at stake. We said it over Meech; we said it over Charlottetown; we've said it on a number of occasions.

It's one thing for people to go down the 401 and to express their solidarity with the people of Quebec. I think that's an important thing that we did. I think it's an important expression of the faith and the feelings of the people of this country.

It's going to be quite another for us to find it within ourselves to listen to what it is that a significant majority of people in the province of Quebec are saying, not simply about a desire for change that is precisely the same as it may be for some, but about a desire for recognition.

Each one of us wants to have our identity affirmed. It just so happens that for the people of Quebec, this issue of the affirmation of their identity within the country has become a critical issue. It's grown in its importance and in its significance, and the fact that on a number of occasions, twice in this last decade, that identity has not been affirmed in the Constitution now proves to be a very significant problem and challenge.

I believe it's important for us to say that today, that we accept Quebec's desire to be affirmed and recognized in the Canadian Constitution. We've done it before. In my view, we should continue to do it.

I would also say, with great respect to the Premier, that I do not believe it's as simple as saying that there is a desire for change that is the same in all parts of the country. I say, with great respect, this is not about the Common Sense Revolution. That's not what this is about, and we should not make the mistake of assuming that our own agendas are necessarily those that are going to achieve consensus and constitutional agreement across the country.

It's important for us to work together, I agree, and I'm certainly determined to do that, but from my experience as Premier, the one thing one must not do is to assume that one's own views and one's own perspectives are necessarily shared by everyone at the table. The key to success in any round of discussion and negotiation is to listen to what the others are saying and to understand that in some sense we have to listen and learn and reflect what they are saying: native people, westerners, easterners, the people of Quebec.

Ontario's historic strength, its position in negotiation, has not been because we've gone in with a sense of our own agenda, which we were prepared to simply state was widely shared, but because of our capacity to listen and because of our capacity to learn and then to lead. That's a capacity this province must continue to show.

Nous devons continuer de montrer notre détermination de garder un pays uni, un pays fédéral, mais un pays où la diversité et les différences sont bien reconnues dans notre constitution. C'est ça que nous cherchons et c'est ça que nous devons travailler ensemble pour l'avenir du Canada.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Minister, during the election campaign and repeatedly since in this House, you and the Premier have talked about helping people on welfare return to the workforce, and you have expressed great confidence that in communities across this province there are community agencies providing the services that are needed to give people that hand up. But in fact, Minister, according to Family Service Ontario, effective December 31, you are slashing $3.9 million in funding to 40 community agencies that operate job counselling services for people on welfare and for the working poor. Minister, can you confirm the cuts?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Community and Social Services): I think once again we're talking about our core services here.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Just answer the question.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The member for St Catharines.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: We're also talking about the fact that we have a huge fiscal problem. The difficulty we've had with prior programs dealing with ideas such as workfare, or workfare types of programs, is that the programs have always been that of counselling and training and leading persons not to employment. I'll tell you, when people are on welfare, I can't think of anything more disheartening than for someone to embark upon a program which is to lead him to a job, go through the training, and stand at the end of this tunnel and see nothing, no light there, only darkness again and no jobs.

When we transform this system, our workfare and learnfare programs will lead to actual jobs. However, we are looking at all kinds of programs across the province right now, with the assistance of many of our MPPs, including one of the members of the opposition right now who has kindly pointed me to one program, in which we are looking for made-in-Ontario solutions.

The Speaker: Wrap up your answer, please.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Clearly, our objective is to get people back into work.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, let me try it again. You and the Premier have both said that you want to help people who are on welfare get back into the workforce. You've said it again today. But you are eliminating funding for job counselling and support programs that are provided by community organizations providing the job counselling and support to exactly those people on welfare you keep saying you want to help get back into the workforce.

For example, you are eliminating $310,000 for a job counselling program offered by the Family Services Association of Metropolitan Toronto. That particular cut affects 900 families. In my home riding of Thunder Bay, you're eliminating $97,000 for the entire general counselling program of Family Services Thunder Bay.

Minister, if your goal is to help people on welfare return to work, why are you eliminating funding for the community organizations that do just that?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I think there's a huge difference between looking at some of the inherited programs that we have right now in our ministry where the cost of trying to put a person through training is an enormous cost and has no effect. With all due respect, the objective here is to ensure that we get people back into the job workplace, but we also have another responsibility, and that's to the people of the province of Ontario, to ensure that we do this in the most cost-efficient manner possible. Unlike "tax and spend, tax and spend," we are looking at doing things better and more efficiently.

1410

Mrs McLeod: I don't know what's going to be left, because the minister and the Premier both keep telling us that as they make the cuts in what government can do, the community is going to take over; the community services are there. We've been told that time and time again. But they're pulling away the community services.

Minister, I don't know how to make it any simpler unless I draw you a picture, so let me tell you about that particular agency in my home community of Thunder Bay. Family Services Thunder Bay has been providing counselling services for about 28 years now. During the past six months alone, 192 families were counselled at Family Services Thunder Bay. Thirty-five per cent of those families are on welfare; another 42% make less than $20,000 a year. Yet you are totally eliminating the funding that allows that agency to provide counselling for these people.

Minister, I have to ask you, in light of the statements that have been made by you and the statements that have been made by the Premier, how could this happen? Do you not think it is hypocritical to talk about giving people a hand up while you cut off all the support the communities are offering to make that possible?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: It's a simple question. Perhaps we can answer that simply. Yes, we are trying to do things in a smarter manner; we're trying to do things that are cost-efficient. There is not an endless pool of money out there and that's what our challenge is right now, frankly, to make sure that these programs for workfare and learnfare are cost-efficient and work. That's your simple answer. Your simple answer is learnfare and workfare.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Mr Speaker, I'm dissatisfied with that answer. I believe that people in counselling agencies are dissatisfied, people across the province, and I want you to know that I will be serving official notice of dissatisfaction.

RENT REGULATION

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My second question is for the Minister of Housing. Minister, in recent days there has been a great deal of confusion about your government's policy on rent controls, so I just want to take you back over what we've heard and ask you for some explanation.

In September 1994 the now Premier told the Toronto Real Estate Board that he would scrap rent controls, yet in the middle of an election campaign, you put out a brochure, distributed in your riding, that quotes the same now Premier as saying, "We want to bring in a rent control program that will protect tenants and give them lower rents."

Minister, which of these two conflicting sets of instructions have you been asked to follow as Minister of Housing?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): It's quite to the contrary; they're very consistent messages. The system that we have in place right now doesn't work. It doesn't work for tenants; it doesn't work for landlords. We've been consistent in saying that we are going to take out the existing Rent Control Act and bring in something that protects tenants, and we intend to do that.

Mrs McLeod: That answer is at least consistent with the answer the minister gave to my colleague from Oriole last week. The only problem is it doesn't do anything to clear up the confusion. You've said again today then that you intend to bring in something called tenants' protection. You've also said at the same time that you would -- let me get this quote right -- "remove a system that doesn't work."

I ask you very simply: Does removing a system that doesn't work mean you are going to scrap rent controls, or does tenants' protection mean keeping a system of rent controls, as you said in your brochure you were going to do?

Hon Mr Leach: It means that this government is going to bring in a program that will help tenants and also get the private sector involved in building rental accommodation again, something they haven't done for the last 10 years at least. It's a very consistent message. I'm really at a loss to understand why the member across doesn't understand that. We are going to bring in a tenants' protection act and we are going to get rid of the existing system that doesn't work.

I have a great many supplementary questions about how this minister and this government would manage to control escalating rents if they remove rent controls, but what we need to find out before we get into that is whether they're going to scrap rent controls.

Again I say, Minister, on October 3 in this House you said categorically -- you didn't dance quite so much back then -- that you would scrap rent controls. Your campaign brochure says that a Mike Harris government would bring in rent controls. So, Minister, I have to ask you who we should believe.

Should we believe what the Premier said before he was elected, should we believe what you said when you were campaigning or should we believe what you're saying now that you've been elected, if we could figure out what it is you're saying now that you've been elected? The bottom line is, are you or are you not going to scrap rent controls?

Hon Mr Leach: I hate to be repetitive, but we've answered the question at least four times in this House. We said we're going to get rid of a system that doesn't work. We said that we're going to create a system that protects tenants and also generates building by the private sector.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Leach: That's right, that's exactly what it says: real protection for tenants -- real protection, not that nonsense that's in there at the present time.

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

Mr Bob Rae (York South): I thought real protection was about deodorants, not about rent control.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Bob Rae (York South): My question is to the Minister of Labour. We've now been presented with a package of over 60 amendments to the government's bill on labour relations. Some of the amendments that we've received changed the amendments that we received on Friday. So over the weekend the government has obviously changed its mind yet again as the drafters catch up with the process.

I want to ask the minister this question: Can she tell me why not one of the amendments explains why the government has taken the word "fair" out of the purpose clause in the new Labour Relations Act? What's your hangup about fairness?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): First of all, I would like to indicate to you that we did send you amendments on Friday and we have subsequently made some additions to those amendments. We hope that you will appreciate the fact that we have taken the time to consult with labour and employers. Certainly our amendments reflect exactly that.

I would just like to say to the member opposite that our entire package of reforms that deal with the repeal of Bill 40 and deal with the changes that we have made to the Labour Relations Act do reflect fairness. In fact, for the first time we are going to give all employees the opportunity to make choices regarding certification, strike votes, ratification and decertification in order that they can vote and in order that there is fairness in the workplace.

Mr Rae: I won't ask the minister a skill-testing question about the 63 amendments that she brought forward because, given the task, we all know the only people who will understand these amendments are those who've drafted them. Just as we had the mixup over the regulations on social services, we're going to have huge problems with these particular ones.

But I want to come back and ask the minister again, because I don't think she's answered the question: You took the word "fair" out of the purpose clause. I'm asking you, why did you take the word "fair" out of the purpose clause? What were you trying to achieve in that dropping of the word?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I would indicate to you, if you take a good look at the purpose clause, you will see in there that we have totally reworded the purpose clause in order that the entire wording now indicates the need for fairness. We talk about the need for communication; we talk about the need for cooperation between the workplace parties. Our bill is totally devoted to the concept of fairness and equality, and that's why we've tried to enhance the rights of the workers in the workplace.

1420

Mr Rae: Again, there are 63 amendments that have now come forward. We had a letter yesterday from the Information and Privacy Commissioner which the minister clearly, from her answer yesterday, hadn't even seen. They've now produced an amendment which deals with only half of the problem put forward by the privacy commissioner, not the other half.

I want to deal directly with the minister and ask her with respect to that question. The privacy commissioner says, and I quote, "Many individuals, including government employees, will be denied the right of access to their own personal information which is in the hands of government organizations."

Can you please tell me -- you're now getting prompted by your colleague from Management Board, just as you were by the Deputy Premier. You people here are ramming through a change and you don't even know what you're doing. It's unbelievable in terms of what you're putting forward: 63 amendments, you don't even know which ones you've changed; you don't even know what the impact is going to be.

I wonder if you can tell us why the second of the concerns that the privacy commissioner has that he expressed in his letter to you yesterday -- why you have not addressed that question in any of your amendments.

Hon Mrs Witmer: First of all, I think we need to be abundantly clear. You knew very well yesterday, when you asked the question, that I had not received the letter. We received it yesterday by courier at 2:30, so we appreciate that.

Furthermore, I'm very surprised that the leader of the third party would be indicating to me that you don't understand the changes that are contained within the Labour Relations Act. They are really quite simple, and you of all people, I would think, would be well versed in the Labour Relations Act. So I can't understand why you would indicate your inability to understand the changes we're making.

Regarding the letter yesterday, I would like to assure you that the Chair of Management Board has met with the commissioner and has tried to address some of the concerns that have been expressed.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): I have a question for the Minister of Health. On July 12 the Premier, in a release on the Ministry of Health letterhead, I might add, stated that:

"Over the next 60 days, the Minister" of Health "will meet with key people in the long-term care system. He wants to get their ideas on how best to coordinate community-based long-term care services."

I wonder if the minister could tell me, since it's over 100 days now, not 60 days, how it is that when he was in opposition he had all the answers to the problems of long-term care in this province and how now he can't seem to bring forward a model, regardless of the time that he's given to do so.

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): The honourable member is correct that on July 12 the Premier and I made an announcement with respect to Bill 173. At that time we made it clear to the people of the province that we would not be moving forward with the NDP government's multiservice agency program and that we would not be implementing the 80-20 rule and some of the other sections of Bill 173 which frankly were offensive to front-line providers in this province.

Since that time our parliamentary assistant, Helen Johns, the member for Huron, on behalf of the ministry, has met with some 68 major provider groups in the province. A report was compiled and that's now being circulated back to those groups and we're waiting for further input.

It's a very good question and I've asked those groups, in bringing them together -- when we were in opposition they told me they had many of the answers, and so we're still searching for some of those answers and hope to come forward with a plan. I assure the member that it will not be a plan that imposes the will of this government or the will of any one particular group on all of the communities of the province, because we understand that flexibility is needed in the local communities.

Mr Laughren: My, how times change, Minister. Could I bring an example to the minister where the community has its act together, the small community of Chapleau in my own constituency. For more than a decade the people of Chapleau have been working on a plan for appropriate care of their seniors in that community.

Five years ago your ministry sent them back to the drawing- board and said, "We want you to come up with a plan that would integrate services and share facilities for maximum efficiency." Chapleau did just that. Not only did they do that, they also raised over $1 million from a community of 3,000 people to help pay for this facility that would have chronic care beds attached to their hospital. All approvals are now in place. The community is just waiting to go ahead with tenders.

Would you make a commitment today, since there are no other roadblocks except your approval for them to go ahead to ask for tenders, that you will remove the roadblock, namely yourself, to allowing this community to go ahead with this plan?

Hon Mr Wilson: Thank you very much for the question. If the community of Chapleau meets all of the criteria that we set out in the announcement of July 12, then I'd be very pleased to remove any other bureaucratic roadblocks that would be in the way and allow them to go ahead.

I look at my own community in Simcoe county, the Collingwood area, Barrie, Wasaga Beach, Alliston, Tottenham, and I find the system isn't as broke as the NDP let on when it was ramming through Bill 173. So I probably have a great deal of sympathy for the honourable member, and if Chapleau has come up with a local solution, I, for one, would not want to stand in the way of implementing that solution.

Mr Laughren: I must say that the minister demonstrates a lot of chutzpah in talking about anybody ramming anything through, given his government's performance these days.

I would simply say to the minister that if he's prepared simply to remove the roadblocks, that's fine. If he still has some problems with approving the project, I would simply ask him to meet with local officials who've worked so hard for so many years to make this project a reality.

Hon Mr Wilson: I thank the honourable member. I certainly accept the invitation and will undertake to do that. Hopefully, we will come to the conclusion that you've come to, obviously, and that is that there's no need to hold up this particular local solution, and I'd be happy to facilitate that.

VEHICLE SAFETY

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): A question for the Minister of Transportation: As you know, Minister, yesterday the inquest examining truck safety came up with 31 recommendations. Those 31 recommendations were strongly supported by the OPP front-line officers and the families of the unfortunate victims.

What concerns me, Mr Minister, is that last week when you unveiled your truck safety plan, the response from the front-line people, that is, the provincial truck unit, officers like Woolley and Sergeant Mark Wolfe, said that no one from your ministry, none of your staff, your bureaucrats, had the time to call them and ask them for their input. These are the people who are there where the tire meets the road. They're underneath the trucks. They've been there right where they're needed, yet no one had time to call them. Why did no one in your ministry find it important enough to get input from these front-line people?

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): I would certainly like to differ with my honourable colleague there. Truck safety and road safety remain a priority of this government.

As far as the allegations that the OPP were not consulted, or trucking associations were not involved in our think tanks, that is completely wrong. We had OPP implementation in our think tank and we also got together with the Ontario Trucking Association and other members to make sure that whatever we were going to input was going to work.

Mr Colle: In the Toronto Star last week it was reported again, Sergeant Mark Wolfe -- this is the OPP sergeant -- said:

"`We kept waiting for a knock on the door but it never came.'...`We are the front-line people...where the rubber meets the road. We are in this squad because we want to make a difference but government never asked for our opinions.'"

Senior Constable Cam Woolley, this OPP officer, told an inquest "that the truck unit, which is the only authority that investigates truck accidents in the Greater Toronto Area, was never asked for any input into the safety plan."

Who is telling the truth here, Mr Minister, you or the OPP officers who testified at the inquest?

Hon Mr Palladini: This government, like I said, is going to work with our partners in making sure that truck safety is a priority, and we are going to commit to that.

I would like to remind the honourable member that if he would like to find out who's telling the truth, I would suggest that whoever that officer that he's referring to is would speak to his superior and he would automatically tell him who's telling the truth.

1430

CLOSURE OF FORT FRANCES JAIL

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is for the Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services. As he indicated yesterday, his ministry is proposing to close up to 14 jails around the province. I want to ask a question about one jail. It's the jail in Fort Frances, the jail that serves an area of 10,000 square miles. The nearest practical alternative jail is in Thunder Bay, three and a half hours away.

The police in the communities that are served indicate that no money will be saved by this closure. The minister might be able to show a saving on his corrections budget, but the police forces in Fort Frances and Atikokan and the OPP feel that they will incur greater costs transporting incarcerated people back and forth to Thunder Bay.

So I want to ask the minister: If you're not going to show any net savings, if you're dealing with a jail that serves an area of 10,000 square miles, if the nearest alternative practical jail is three and a half hours away, why would you propose to close such an institution?

Hon Bob Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I suppose I could say to this member, why are you asking this question, given the fact that I've offered the opportunity to this member and other members of the Legislature for a meeting, this Thursday, to meet with the Provincial Auditor and talk about the 14 jails that he mentioned in his report in 1993 that the government should be taking a look at in terms of continuing to operate? This member spoke to me a few days ago, last week, with respect to his concerns. I indicated we're going to consult, we're going to give him an opportunity to ask the kinds of questions, get the kinds of answers he's looking for at that meeting. Yet when I sent him out a letter advising him on the date and time of the meeting, I want to say that we had, within a day, copies of his letter that had been sent all over the province.

So he looks for consultation, he looks for opportunities for input. What's he do? He sends his letter out across the province, and he gets up here in the House and raises the issue. I'm somewhat befuddled, to say the least, in respect to this member's approach. I appreciate his concern. I want to give him an opportunity to have input, and what's he do? He's playing this up for all the political gain he can make.

Mr Hampton: The last time I checked, the issues of law enforcement and public safety were public issues and are things to be questioned and debated and asked about in public, not behind closed doors. I am merely exercising my privileges as a member of this Legislature and representing a very important area of the province. If the minister objects to that, then perhaps he objects somehow to democracy, and he has a problem.

Let me ask the minister another question, since I really didn't get an answer the first time: Of the total inmate population of Fort Frances Jail in the last year, over 45% of the incarcerated individuals had committed a serious criminal offence, a level 1 offence, that is, an offence like sexual assault, use of a firearm in the commission of an offence, assault causing bodily harm. Of the remaining offenders, 50% were guilty of offences dangerous to the public: attempted sexual assault, narcotic offences, firearm offences. So fully 95% of the people incarcerated in this jail are guilty of serious criminal offences.

Not only that, the town of Fort Frances is one of the larger entry points from the United States into Canada. In the last year alone, there were 29 drug seizures at the border --

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Would you put your question, please.

Mr Hampton: -- and 19 weapons offences. So I say to the minister, why would you be proposing to close a jail when it serves so many communities and where you have serious justice and law enforcement issues that this jail deals with?

Hon Mr Runciman: We're not considering closing 14 jails, as the member suggested. This is the Provincial Auditor's report that we're talking about and we're going to look at. And this member, and his party, this member particularly, has more nerve than a canal horse to be raising this issue.

I want to say he was a member of the cabinet of the former government, and what did the former government do with respect to jail closures? They closed a jail in Perth, in a Conservative riding. They closed a jail, Camp Hillsdale, in a Conservative riding. Did they consult? They didn't even talk to the mayor. The announcement came like a hammer to the forehead. That's the kind of consultation you believe in, and you get up here in the House today and say we don't believe in democracy, we don't believe in consultation. Give me a break.

The Speaker: Member for Peterborough.

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): Mr --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Come to order, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the House come to order. Order. The member for Cochrane South is out of order, as well as many other members. The member for Peterborough has the floor.

DEVELOPMENT CHARGES

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): My question is directed to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. There are many Ontario municipalities that have development charge bylaws that are expiring after five years and will have to be replaced or renewed if they wish to continue to collect charges under the act. Minister, is your ministry considering reforming the Development Charges Act?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I thank the member for the question. Again, as with rent control, we're fulfilling an election commitment to home builders and home buyers. The current system of charges does not work, and we are concerned that too many extra charges are being forced on developers and ultimately home buyers. We think that development charges do make some sense for hard services. There is a question if they make sense for other services, and we will be reviewing that entire act.

Mr Stewart: As a supplementary, I wish to ask the minister, in light of other proposed changes to restructure local government, will municipalities have direct input as to the kinds of changes that should occur before your ministry in fact drafts the legislative reform?

Hon Mr Leach: Again, thank you to the member. Yes, I've already had several meetings with AMO and I've already met with the home builders, and they will continue to have input into the process until such time as the revisions are ready to bring to the House.

CHILDREN'S NUTRITION

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): My question's for the Minister of Education and Training. It's been 145 days since the Premier promised to deliver a province-wide nutrition program as Premier -- 145 days. It seems quite longer, actually. I've asked the Premier when and how, and although he talks about the good work that's been done, we haven't seen any results yet.

In desperation, I'm seeking now, through the Ministry of Education, if indeed you're committed to the health and wellbeing of children, are you prepared to amend the Education Act to encourage school boards to cooperate with other ministries to provide programs where the needs exist?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): It has been my experience in working with school boards over the last 145 days, and longer, that they need absolutely no encouragement to work for the betterment of children, particularly children who are in need.

Mrs Pupatello: I hate to burst his little bubble. I know the --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order.

Mrs Pupatello: The Premier did make his promise to start this nutrition program. He's assigned it in fact to his parliamentary assistant's special assistant's assistant. I don't know how far down the line it went. However, I think he does realize that the problem is more complex in that, and so the solution may be.

The fact is that the Minister of Health may not realize that through the health units, 42 of which are across Ontario, they are already mandated to ensure that children receive proper nutrition.

1440

While the Premier's assistants and on down the line are busy organizing luncheons with the Chanel set to discuss volunteerism and throw in a token mention of nutrition programs, I think we've got to say clearly if the Minister of Education would commit to initiating discussions with his colleague at the Ministry of Health to ensure the program gets the necessary attention and that it indeed is a priority.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I am just surprised and I must say disappointed with the cavalier attitude that the member opposite has taken to the very serious issue of children's nutrition in this province. I would like to assure the member opposite that school boards, members of the business community and certainly members in this chamber are committed to making sure that children have the nutritional needs they need.

NURSING HOMES

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): To the Minister of Health: On October 16, your ministry announced the sale of 25 beds at a cost of between $50,000 and $100,000 per bed from the Cochrane nursing home to the Heritage Green Nursing Home in Stoney Creek. I understand this move is to increase the profitability at Heritage and increase the provincial average of beds available in the Stoney Creek area.

This decision was made without the benefit of results of the needs study which had been requested. I might point out that Mayor David Hughes of Cochrane, Reeve Ron Boivin of Glackmeyer township, and the chair of Lady Minto Hospital, Wayne Konopelky, are all concerned that the commitment was made during the election campaign that health care wouldn't be touched; it would be protected. Now they're losing beds from northern Ontario to southern Ontario and they're very much concerned that the future of this facility could be closed completely, taking that many beds out of it. What about the profitability of the Cochrane nursing home, Mr Minister?

I would like to know why the request for a needs study was ignored, and what the minister's plans are for the future of the Cochrane nursing home. Will it be closed, and will you meet with these people to discuss the issue?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): Just to clarify matters for the honourable member and members of this House, we are following the same policy that has been in place for about 10 years in this province over three different governments. That is, in this particular area, Cochrane, they had 183 nursing home beds per 1,000 population over the age of 75. Stoney Creek was considerably underbedded and there was a need, when the opportunity arose, to move some of those beds to the Stoney Creek area. The provincial average for nursing home beds, long-term-care beds, is 112 per 1,000 population over the age of 75. There still remain 37 beds at the Extendicare Cochrane nursing home, and I would be happy to have discussions with the community as to the future of that home.

You should know that I had a great deal of input, almost from the first day I was sworn in as Minister of Health, from the local community and we had a lot of back-and-forth discussions. At the end of the day, though, Stoney Creek needed the beds. It was a tough decision but one that I had to make.

Mr Len Wood: On the front page of the local newspaper they're saying that with 37 beds left in that facility, it's not profitable and it probably will close. With the number of beds being reduced by 40% and the additional jobs that will be lost in the area creating more unemployment, not being able to take care of their own relatives, friends and neighbours in the community because there are hundreds of miles they have to go to another home in this area, can the minister tell us how many jobs he is planning to reduce in Cochrane as the result of the decision that you've made to take health care out of Cochrane and move it to Stoney Creek? How many jobs are you prepared to sacrifice in Cochrane?

Hon Mr Wilson: We will be monitoring the situation in Cochrane, in all sincerity. The ministry and I are of the opinion that there are enough beds there now to serve the population. Certainly Stoney Creek and many other areas in the province didn't have the bed-to-population ratio that's deemed acceptable by health care experts in the province and providers. So I will undertake to continue to monitor the situation and receive any input from the honourable member that he may deem necessary. My door is open to you, Mr Wood, and any time you want to discuss this issue I'd be happy to.

AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

Mr Gary Fox (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): The Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs recently held town hall meetings across this great province involving over 1,300 producers and processors. One of the priorities that surfaced was that of developing and expanding the agrifood export market in Ontario. Can the minister tell this House how this important sector of Ontario's economy is performing?

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): I want to thank my colleague for the question. It's something that many people do not know, the importance of the agrifood sector. The agrifood sector produces $25 billion worth of food products and exports over $4 billion every year. A lot of people don't know that. During the table talks, our farming community, our agrifood community asked us to make it known to the public in Ontario how important the agrifood sector is to our province, and we are in the process of doing that.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Absolutely.

Hon Mr Villeneuve: The member for St Catharines is really not interested, and it's rather sad because in his riding he seems to think the automotive industry is king, but they all eat, and it comes from the farm.

We've had a more than 10% increase in exports so far this year. We will be exporting $5 billion of exports this year.

Mr Fox: My supplementary question is as follows: How is the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs encouraging growth in this industry?

Hon Mr Villeneuve: We have good demand for grain this year and good prices for grain. We will be exporting grain. We have trade missions. We have export commissions, and we will be improving and increasing our exports to all parts of the world but particularly to the United States, because it's awful nice to get those American dollars into our economy.

1450

MINISTRY ADVISER

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Minister, I'm informed that the registrar of the land registry office in Ottawa-Carleton has been seconded to your ministry at an annual salary of $100,000 to work on welfare reform. I'm also informed, Minister, that this Ottawa resident, at the taxpayers' expense, will be provided with Toronto accommodation, weekly air travel between Ottawa and Toronto and three free meals daily. At this time, when you're telling a single person on welfare that they should be prepared to eat on $90 a month, do you support this type of arrangement with somebody in your ministry?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Community and Social Services): The individual in question is working for our ministry, has been seconded. The reason this person is needed in our ministry is that she has the expertise to support the government's welfare reform agenda. This is just following the government guidelines that the previous two governments had, so this is nothing new.

The whole point here is that in order for us to transform the system that everyone wanted to monkey around with for the past 10 years -- and it hasn't worked -- we have to change the system from one of a cycle of dependency, which was supported by the prior two governments, to one of self-sufficiency, which we support as a government.

Mr Chiarelli: Yes, we have to change the system, and I can recall very, very well that the present Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations rose in this House to criticize the former NDP government about a very similar arrangement that was made with a former Ottawa alderman who was appointed head of the Ontario Housing Corp. This person, who is now a minister in your government, severely criticized the NDP government for making that type of arrangement with somebody, including air travel between Ottawa and Toronto, including accommodation.

Your Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations criticized the former government for that. Are you saying now that you are standing up here in this House and defending that type of arrangement? Yes or no.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I understand that the honourable member has pointed out a similar situation with the previous government. I suspect that if we went back to when your party was in power there'd be many instances of the same thing. In fact, I would suggest that perhaps we should look at some instances so we can compare them in the House.

But I want to point out something here: The fact of the matter is --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The member for Essex South is out of order, and I will not warn him again. You're out of order.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: The point I was trying to make was that the system obviously isn't working; the system has to be fixed.

I had the privilege of being at a function the other day with the Chairman of Management Board, and at this particular function the Chairman of Management Board was able to say two things to this crowd.

The first thing was the fact that over the last 10 years, over $40 billion was spent on welfare and in the system. The point is, people didn't understand what $40 billion was. But when the Chairman of Management Board rose and said to these people, "Do you realize that the cost right now of the debt is $1 million an hour? We have been here for two and a half hours and it's cost you $2.5 million," believe me, you could not miss the sound of jaws hitting the floor.

COURT FACILITY

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): I have a question to the Chair of Management Board. The minister stated earlier in October that a final decision would be made by the end of October on the future of Windsor's new courthouse. The minister will know that this is a project that has been planned for over 20 years, promised by three governments, and I'd like to know from the minister whether this project is going ahead.

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): We are in the process of reviewing the courts. I did indicate, about the end of October, that there would be a report back from the Ministry of the Attorney General, not only with regard to the court in Windsor but with regard to about four other courts across the province of Ontario.

I'm happy to report to the member opposite that the reports are coming along, and I expect that the Ministry of the Attorney General will be reporting very shortly to Management Board. I'm confident that the member won't have long to wait for the final answer.

Mr Cooke: Our community's been waiting for a --

Applause.

Mr Cooke: The applause couldn't have been for the answer, so it must be for the supplementary question I'm about to ask.

My community's been waiting for this new courthouse for over 20 years.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Wasn't there an NDP government for five years?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Will the House come to order, please. The member for Etobicoke West is not in his own seat and he's out of order. The member for Windsor-Riverside has the floor.

Mr Cooke: I'd simply like to ask the minister, when there has already been $12 million spent on the acquisition of land and phase 1 of construction, the underground parking, and when if the project is cancelled there would be another $17 million in costs to compensate developers, how can your government, if it wants to be fiscally responsible, even consider cancelling this project?

Hon David Johnson: It is unfortunate perhaps that Windsor and the people of Windsor waited for this project for about 20 years. I wouldn't dare to point out, though, who was in office for the last five years preceding this. Obviously, the previous government had difficulty coming to grips with this issue. On behalf of the taxpayers of the province of Ontario, on behalf of the taxpayers who have a debt of about $100 billion piled on by previous governments, on behalf of the taxpayers who are having to pay about $9 billion a year in interest payments, we are looking at all construction, at all projects.

I understand that this particular project is well under way. That will certainly be taken into account, I'm sure, in the final report which I expect from the Ministry of the Attorney General on about five courthouses across the province of Ontario, on what we can afford for the future of the province of Ontario to invest in courthouses across this province. That's a report I think we should get. That report will be coming very shortly, and then I'm sure all your questions will be answered.

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

Mr Ron Johnson (Brantford): I have a question for the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation. It's a very serious question. I know it affects a number of people in this province, and I would hope that all members in this House take heed of the question and the answer because it is a very important issue.

In my riding over the last few months I've had a number of people, immigrants, come to me with concern. They have a common concern, and that concern is that they come to this country and settle in Brantford with tremendous skills, high levels of education, high levels of training and very marketable skills. However, they're having trouble getting those skills recognized within the province of Ontario.

What is the provincial government's position on problems that foreign-trained individuals face in getting their education and training recognized in this province?

Hon Marilyn Mushinski (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): I thank the honourable member for Brantford for the question. Ontario receives over 100,000 immigrants each year. In fact, Ontario receives more than 50% of Canada's immigrant population in any given year. There's no doubt that many of these immigrants are highly educated and highly skilled individuals. In fact, over 30% of those immigrants have post-secondary degrees and specialized expertise in their chosen occupation.

We recognize that access to trades and professions is a barrier that should be removed to allow equal opportunity for all Ontarians, and we are committed to achieving an immigration and settlement agreement with the federal government in order to address that issue.

Mr Ron Johnson: I'm certainly pleased to hear that the minister understands that this is a problem within the province. It's refreshing to see a government that truly understands that and is committed to doing something about it.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order. The member for Hamilton East is out of order, and the member for Windsor-Sandwich.

Mr Ron Johnson: In my riding we have a number of immigrants who really make a valuable contribution to my community of Brantford, and I'm very pleased at the response.

My supplementary is, quite simply put, what is the ministry doing specifically to address this issue?

Hon Ms Mushinski: That's a very good question. The ministry is developing best practices to build on the experiences of recently funded demonstration projects. These best practices can serve as models which can be applied across different professions and trades. To this end, $130,000 will be spent in this area in this fiscal year.

1500

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I have a question for the Minister of Transportation. Mr Minister, you have already confirmed in this House that cutbacks to winter road maintenance will begin on November 13. These cutbacks include reducing patrol hours from 24 to 16, increasing the area of patrol from 115 kilometres to 190 kilometres, and cutting the number of sanders and snowplows by over 10%. Yet you insist that your standards have not changed, that you "will maintain the standards Ontario has been used to."

Will you commit today, Minister, to the members of this House and to the people of Ontario that these standards, as contained and detailed in your ministry document M-700-1 outlining winter maintenance standards in the province, will be absolutely adhered to this winter despite your cutbacks?

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): I would like to remind or confirm to the honourable member that this government is committed to maintaining the safety standards as far as winter maintenance is concerned.

But I can understand, being in government in the second-last term and how you used to spend money -- this government is going to do better for less. We are going to do what we said. We will maintain those standards.

Mr Gravelle: I think the minister has just said he's not willing to maintain the standards. I think he just said that now.

It's important for you to understand, Minister, these casual assurances you've given us before don't begin to calm the real fears of people living in northern Ontario and other snowbelt regions of the province, in fact the entire province. We need a legislated guarantee that winter road maintenance standards will be met. That is why later today I'll be tabling a private member's bill that will entrench those standards so that they must be met. Obviously, we need this kind of bill.

If you want to assure the people of Ontario that you will maintain the standards Ontario has been used to, as you've been quoted as saying several times, will you today commit to support my bill, which will legislatively commit the province to meet these standards?

Hon Mr Palladini: I will commit today to the honourable member that we are going to be spending $130 million to maintain winter maintenance. That is a commitment that will suffice as far as the standards are concerned. So $130 million is my commitment and this government's commitment.

HERITAGE LANGUAGES

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I have a question for the Minister of Education and Training. The minister, I'm sure, will be familiar by now with a program that is funded through his ministry called the international languages program. It's a program that provides teaching of languages other than English or French to elementary school students.

It was started in 1977. Some 120,000 students are now involved in this program in 52 different languages that are taught throughout the province. As has been mentioned by certainly many members in this House over the years, it's a program that provides young people both an opportunity to learn their home language and indeed to learn other languages, because it's open to anyone to learn any language they wish.

In the Common Sense Revolution, the government says it is committed to safeguarding classroom funding. My question to the minister simply is, can he commit today to see this program continue to be funded at the same level that it is funded now, which is to the tune of $16.5 million a year?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I'm sure the member won't be surprised to find out that I am not today going to table our grant program for next year, but I can assure the member opposite that I consider the national language program to be very important. Heritage languages are very important to the people of Ontario, and it in fact will be one of the competitive advantages, I believe, that Ontario faces in the future, because we have such a diverse culture here in Ontario.

Mr Silipo: I have to say that I am, in part, surprised and pleased to hear the comments from the minister. I think it's important that he as Minister of Education recognize the economic importance that being able to speak the different languages of the world provides us as a community.

I know the Minister of Economic Development and Trade has spoken about that strength, as I've heard the Minister of Culture also speak about the strength of our multilingual population. Indeed, the Premier, during the election and before the election, spoke about the value of the program.

But I want the Minister of Education today to tell us -- and I think it's a very straightforward question, because he and his government have committed to protecting classroom spending, to not cutting classroom spending, so I don't think my question is that unreasonable at this point -- to get him to say here to this House that he will not cut spending to this program and that whatever reductions in spending will have to come may have to come from other areas of administration, as they have talked of many a time, but that this program, as a classroom program, will be protected like all other classroom programs.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I'm pleased that the member opposite has brought forward today and restated for the people of Ontario, first of all, the appreciation we have as a government for the value of the multicultural society we live in and the appreciation we have as a government for the possibility of that multicultural society. I'm also glad that the member opposite has restated our commitment, and our very serious commitment, to making sure that the quality of education in the province of Ontario is enhanced, that the value the taxpayers receive for that education system is the best value possible, in fact the best value across Canada.

I look forward to tabling our grants for next year in the Minister of Finance's statement later on this fall.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: In the Minister of Labour's response to the leader of the third party today, she indicated that amendments to Bill 7 were provided to the opposition parties on Friday. That is not the case. They were received Monday morning, and indeed a number of the amendments were received as late as 11:15 today. Would you, sir, move to correct the record of what was said in the House earlier today?

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): That is not a point of privilege.

MOTIONS

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance and Government House Leader): I move that the House do now proceed to orders of the day.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

It will be a 30-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1507 to 1537.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Will the members please take their seats.

All those in favour of Mr Eves's motion will please rise and remain standing until you are counted.

Please take your seats.

All those opposed will please rise and remain standing.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 71; the nays are 34.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

I will now leave the chair and proceed to committee of the whole.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

LABOUR RELATIONS AND EMPLOYMENT STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL ET L'EMPLOI

Consideration of Bill 7, An Act to restore balance and stability to labour relations and to promote economic prosperity and to make consequential changes to statutes concerning labour relations / Projet de loi 7, Loi visant à rétablir l'équilibre et la stabilité dans les relations de travail et à promouvoir la prospérité économique et apportant des modifications corrélatives à des lois en ce qui concerne les relations de travail.

The First Deputy Chair (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Perhaps before we start, I will read the following:

"That, pursuant to standing order 46 and notwithstanding any other standing order of the House relating to Bill 7, An Act to restore balance and stability to labour relations and to promote economic prosperity and to make consequential changes to statutes concerning labour relations, when Bill 7 is next called as a government order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill" --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Dispense.

The First Deputy Chair: Dispense? No? -- "without further debate or amendment; and at such time, the bill shall be referred to committee of the whole House;

"That two hours shall be allotted to consideration of the bill in committee of the whole House. At the end of that time, those amendments which have not" --

Interjections.

The First Deputy Chair: Order, please. The member for Grey-Owen Sound, take your chair, please.

"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" --

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): On a point of privilege, Mr Chair: I want to ask, in light of my rights as a member and those of my colleagues, that there be some opportunity, before we steamroller this through, to at least read this document that is the clause-by-clause --

Interjections.

Mr Christopherson: This is the clause-by-clause analysis that landed on my desk two minutes ago.

Interjection: When?

Mr Christopherson: Two minutes ago, and that is totally unacceptable, and I can't believe the government is going to accept that. Mr Chair, my rights as a member and my role as the critic are being interfered with.

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

Mr Christopherson: How can I do my job when --

The First Deputy Chair: Take your seat, please.

Interjections.

The First Deputy Chair: Order.

"That consideration of the third reading stage of the bill be completed on the same day that it is reported from committee of the whole House and that notwithstanding standing order 9(a) the House be authorized to meet beyond its normal adjournment time until completion of the third reading stage of Bill 7."

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): Mr Chair, I would ask that the Ministry of Labour staff be permitted to assume their seats at the table and also that I be permitted to --

Interjections.

The First Deputy Chair: Minister, are there any amendments that you'd like to bring in?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I would like to the move the following amendments:

Subsection 3(3.1) of the bill; subsection 5(6) of the bill; subsections 6(4), (5) and (6) of the bill; section 8.1 of the bill; subsection 11(2) of the bill, subsection 1(1.1) of the act; section 12 of the bill, subsection 1.1(1) of the act; section 12 of the bill, subsection 1.1(2) of the act; section 12 of the bill, subsection 1.1(3), paragraphs 12 and 13 of the act;

Subsection 16(3) of the bill, subsections 4(13.1) and (13.2) of the act; subsection 19(1.1) of the bill, subsection 7(2) of the act; subsection 35(2) of the bill; section 45 of the bill, subsections 42(2.1) and (2.2) of the act; section 50 of the bill, section 52 of the act; section 61.1 of the bill;

Subsections 65(8) and (9) of the bill; section 65.1 of the bill; section 69 of the bill, subsection 13.1(2) of the act; section 69 of the bill, subsection 13.1(4) of the act; section 69 of the bill, subsections 13.1(7.1) to (7.6) of the act; section 69 of the bill, subsection 13.1(7.7) of the act; subsection 73(1), clause 58.1(2)(a) of the act; section 76 of the bill;

Subsection 79(1) of the bill, subsection 65(6) of the act; subsection 79(1) of the bill, subsection 65(7) of the act; subsections 79(2) and (3) of the bill; subsection 80(1) of the bill, subsection 52(3) of the act; subsection 80(1) of the bill, subsection 52(4) of the act; subsections 80(2) and (3) of the bill; section 82 of the bill; subsections 83(1) and (2) of the bill; subsection 83(4) of the bill;

Schedule A, subsection 4(1) of the bill; schedule A, subsections 7(9) and (10) of the bill; schedule A, subsection 7(13) of the bill; schedule A, subsections 8(2) and (3) of the bill; schedule A, subsection 8(5) of the bill; schedule A, subsection 10(1) of the bill; schedule A, section 16 of the bill;

Schedule A, subsection 37(2) of the bill; schedule A, subsection 43(8) of the bill; schedule A, section 44 of the bill; schedule A, subsection 48(4.1) of the bill; schedule A, subsection 48(11) of the bill; schedule A, subsections 48(12.1) and (12.2) of the bill; schedule A, section 53 of the bill; schedule A, section 53.1 of the bill;

Schedule A, subsections 62(3) and (4) of the bill; schedule A, subsection 62(7.1) of the bill; schedule A, subsection 62(9) of the bill; schedule A, subsection 62(10.1) of the bill; schedule A, subsection 62(14.1) of the bill; schedule A, subsection 78(3) of the bill; schedule A, subsections 78(5) and (6) of the bill; schedule A, subsections 95(6) and (7) of the bill; schedule A, subsection 98(10) of the bill;

Schedule A, section 101 of the bill; schedule A, clause 110(2)(l) of the bill; schedule A, section 130 of the bill; schedule A, section 144 of the bill; schedule A, subsection 145(4) of the bill; schedule A, subsection 160(2) of the bill; schedule A, section 164 of the bill; and schedule A, subsections 166(2) and (3) of the bill.

1550

The First Deputy Chair: Are there any further amendments? The official opposition.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): No amendments.

The First Deputy Chair: Shall sections 1 and 2 stand part of the bill?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed -- You want to discuss section 1?

Mr Duncan: Mr Chair, are we dealing with sections 1 and 2 right now?

The First Deputy Chair: Section 1 only.

Mr Duncan: Section 1. Are we permitted at this time to ask questions?

The First Deputy Chair: On section 1, if you so wish.

Mr Duncan: Yes. Given the fact that we've only been provided with this information, is the wording in this section correct?

"1(1) The Labour Relations Act, 1995, as set out in schedule A, is hereby enacted."

Is that correct?

Hon Mrs Witmer: Yes, that is correct.

The First Deputy Chair: Any further questions on section 1? Shall section 1 carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): On a point of privilege, Mr Chair: We do not have copies of these amendments. The minister goes through her litany of subsection and section numbers. How can we ask questions when they don't provide members of this House with copies of the amendments? She refuses to read them into the record. She has no regard for democracy, no regard for this House, no regard for this Legislature, no regard for the roles and responsibilities and obligations of members of this Parliament. She shows disdain not only for this institution but the public of this province, the voters of this province --

The First Deputy Chair: Thank you. This is not a point of order.

Mr Kormos: Why won't the Chair act in a fairminded way and --

The First Deputy Chair: Please take your seat.

Shall section 2 stand part of the bill?

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): We have a job to do, Mr Speaker, and we have no material.

The First Deputy Chair: Shall section 2 stand part of the bill? The question has been asked.

Mr Pouliot: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The good people in Lake Nipigon have asked me to do their job, a very simple job, which is to represent their interests. I'm trying to do this, but I need the material to do so. What we have is a minister who is hiding behind numbers. We don't have the actual details of the amendments that are being proposed and I trust there are more than 40 of them. A simple request, a reasonable request: Where is the material so we can follow the legislation?

The First Deputy Chair: The question has been asked. Debate on section 2?

Shall section 2 --

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): On a point of order, Mr Chair: I just want to know how we're going to follow this procedure. I'd like a copy of this so I can know if I'm for or against that section. I haven't had a copy of this legislation and amendments. Could I have a copy so that I will be able to know if I support it or do not support it?

The First Deputy Chair: The understanding is that copies have been given.

Hon Mrs Witmer: On a point of order, Mr Chair: Let me indicate to you that there are obviously some games being played. We communicated with both of the opposition parties on Friday afternoon. We indicated that the amendments would be made available to them. They were made available to the opposition. I understand they got them Friday at 6:30. They had asked for them. On Friday, we provided them. We know that they have ample copies to do the job that is necessary.

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): On a point of order, Mr Chair: I think that the minister knows better than what she just said. We got some amendments on Friday. We were promised that we would get the final amendments on Monday. We didn't get them on Monday. You were debating all day yesterday, at policy and priorities board of cabinet, your policy decisions on amendments to this bill. We didn't get them last night, as your House leader's office had promised we would. We got the final amendments this morning at 11 o'clock, the ones that are consequential, that are major amendments.

You would never have stood for this when you were over here. Why don't you do the right thing so that the legislation is right and correct? Adjourn the House and give the House time to take a look at the amendments.

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

Mr Duncan: On a point of privilege, Mr Chair: We did not get the amendments to this bill until this morning. Indeed, some of the amendments we received this morning changed amendments that you had given us previously. No amendments were received in this office, in the office of the official opposition, until after the close of normal business, and they were not received formally. It is completely false to suggest that we had the weekend or even had an opportunity to review these amendments.

The First Deputy Chair: Take your seat, please. This is not a point of privilege.

Interjections.

The First Deputy Chair: Please take your seats.

Mr Christopherson: Point of order. I have got a point of order.

The First Deputy Chair: Take your seat, please.

Mr Pouliot: He's got a point of order. He's a member, Mr Chair.

The First Deputy Chair: Take your seat. I'd just like to remind you that two hours have been allocated, and you are now using that time instead of debating the amendments.

Mr Christopherson: On a point of privilege, Mr Chair: You have to appreciate that to do the job properly, at the very least we have to have the information. You've heard it said that the minister is not entirely accurate. I think that's as strong as I can put it parliamentarily.

I just got the package. I'm the critic for this party. I just received the package of amendments a couple of hours ago. The clause-by-clause explanation, the analysis -- look at this: 649 pages I got some five or 10 minutes ago. If you won't listen and the government won't listen, for God's sake, will the media pay attention to what's going on in here. This is outrageous. Look, nobody knows what's happening.

The First Deputy Chair: Order. As far as the table knows, the amendments have been submitted by 2 o'clock. The question that has been asked is, shall section 2 stand as part of the bill?

All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

On section 2?

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): On section 2. Mr Chair, we're being asked to comment here in regard to section 2, and what we're talking about here is the new act versus the old act. I would like to point out, as the member from Hamilton did, that we're being asked to comment on the section. There were no amendments brought forward until roughly about an hour ago. This is what I'm being asked for as a member representing the people of Cochrane South in this province in regard to this bill.

What do I have? I have government amendments that have been brought forward to me, merely just a few minutes ago, and I'm being asked to vote and to speak and to try to figure out what to do with this bill while this government is steamrolling the whole democratic process and saying to the people of Ontario: "Be damned with democracy; we know best. We're Tories, we know it all, we know what to do. You have no rights as a democratic opposition in this country." Be damned with you, Madam Minister.

1600

Hon Mrs Witmer: I think we have to be totally honest about what's happened. First of all, as I indicated before, phone calls were made to the two opposition parties. It was indicated to you that the amendments would be available starting on Friday night. The amendments were made available to you on Friday night. Further amendments were provided to you yesterday and today, and I have just received a note indicating that you chose not to pick up your amendments. They were available. Furthermore --

Interjections.

Mr Duncan: Point of privilege.

Mr Cooke: Mr Chair, that is not a point of order. I have a point of order.

The First Deputy Chair: Will you please take your seat, Minister. I will listen to your point of order.

Mr Cooke: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I indicated earlier -- and the minister knows that she is not presenting the facts -- there were no amendments provided to us yesterday; they were provided today. We got the most important amendments today, a couple of hours before the House reconvened, and then this book at another period of time. Nobody in this House except for the critics even has the amendments, and they only got them a couple of hours ago.

Maybe you should try to figure out, in your own ministry, what you committed yourselves to and what you didn't do. We did not get amendments yesterday. We got the minor amendments on Friday night at 6:30 and the major amendments this morning.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Don't shake your head.

Mr Cooke: Don't shake your head. They came into my office, as the House leader, and we got them this morning. Your House leader's office called yesterday and said we would not get them. That's the fact.

Mr Duncan: Point of privilege.

The First Deputy Chair: Please take your seat.

Mr Duncan: My privileges as a member have been denied.

The First Deputy Chair: We don't have a point of privilege at the moment. Take your seat, please.

Mr Cooke: And then you sit there and laugh. What an absolute, arrogant hypocrite.

Interjections.

The First Deputy Chair: Order, please. Order. The member for Windsor-Riverside, I would ask you to withdraw that remark.

Mr Cooke: I'll withdraw it because I want to be here to vote against this bill.

The First Deputy Chair: The question that has been asked was on section 2. Shall section 2 stand as part of the bill?

All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Sections 1 and 2 are carried.

Mr Duncan: On a point of order, Mr Chair: This clause-by-clause analysis has not been provided in both official languages, and I believe it has to be in this House.

Le Premier Vice-Président : Les amendements ont été soumis en français et en anglais. Si vous désirez en obtenir une copie, je suis assuré que c'est certainement possible de le faire. We will now deal --

M. Pouliot : Monsieur le Président, je vous en prie.

The First Deputy Chair: Another point of order, the member for Lake Nipigon.

M. Pouliot : On a point of order, Monsieur le Président: je suis un peu en état de choc. Non seulement, avec respect, je reçois la copie du projet de loi 7, mais tout à coup je regarde -- pas un seul mot en français.

Vous savez, je sais bien que nous sommes au lendemain d'un référendum. Je sais qu'hier soir les gens se sont prononcés, mais je sais aussi qu'au fil des ans, à travers l'unanimité de la Chambre, on a toujours insisté que notre droit de recevoir le matériel en français, aussi bien qu'en anglais, naturellement, en était un de privilège. Je demande que ceci me parvienne en français pour que je puisse contribuer avec Madame la Ministre.

Monsieur le Président, c'est à vous de décider. C'est vous qui avez cette sagesse, c'est vous qui avez ce pouvoir, mais mes droits non seulement comme individu mais comme membre de l'Assemblée législative exigent, ma langue maternelle étant le français, que je puisse me défendre, que je puisse m'intégrer au projet de loi qui est présenté aujourd'hui.

Comment pourrai-je faire mon travail si on ne me donne pas, si on ne m'offre pas l'outil de travail qui est le texte en français ? C'est une requête tout à fait normal, tout à fait raisonnable, vous en conviendrez, Monsieur le Président.

Le Premier Vice-Président : Voici, Monsieur le député de Lac-Nipigon, pour répondre à votre question : il semblerait, d'après l'information que nous avons obtenue ici à la table, que les documents auraient été remis en français. Par contre, pour vous rendre la tâche encore plus facile, je vous permets tout simplement de venir les lire ici à la table.

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell): Mr Chair, on a point of order: What's going on today, I've never seen anything like it before. As a former mayor of a municipality, I've always preached to my colleagues, "Never vote on a document that you haven't read." Today we are presented with a motion here and it seems that the majority of us hasn't seen this document. I just can't vote with it. I prefer walking out of the House instead of voting.

The First Deputy Chair: To answer your question, the table understands the documents were given by 2 o'clock. It's up to you to decide to read those amendments. It's not up to the table --

Mr Bisson: Mr Chair, hold it, Monsieur.

The First Deputy Chair: Please take your seat. The member for Cochrane South, take your seat, please.

The member for Welland-Thorold, please take your seat. Please take your seat. I have a point of order to answer.

The documents were given. It was up to you to read them.

Interjections.

The First Deputy Chair: The member for Cochrane North, order.

I would ask your cooperation. This is your House. Everybody has the right to debate the question that has been asked. We're debating section 3.

Mr Kormos: Mr Chair, on a point of order: I want to speak to section 3.

The First Deputy Chair: The amendment hasn't been introduced yet.

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): Mr Chair, on a point of order: I would like the minister to clarify one particular point. We have just heard that further amendments were provided this morning to the critics, further amendments to the package which was presented to those critics on Friday. I'd like to ask the minister, did you make more amendments to the package which was presented to the critics on Friday?

Hon Mrs Witmer: Yes. I would just say to the member opposite, the only requirement is that the amendments be in the House before 2 o'clock. We were waiting for amendments from your party, the Liberals and the NDP, and we have received none. So these are the only amendments we're dealing with.

Mr Kormos: I'd like to speak to the amendment.

The First Deputy Chair: The amendment hasn't been moved yet. We haven't debated it. It hasn't been moved yet.

Minister, the amendment on section 3.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I move that section 3 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"(3.1) Despite subsection (2), in a proceeding relating to an application for certification of a trade union as a bargaining agent, the presiding person or body shall apply sections 5, 8, 9 and 9.1 of the old act and not sections 7, 8 and 10 of the new act. This subsection applies only with respect to applications for certification made before October 4, 1995."

The First Deputy Chair: Questions or comments. Please go ahead.

Mr Kormos: If you take a look outside this building, southeast of here, on Queen's Park Circle, you see a plaque dedicated to the printers of 1872 who marched in the thousands, indeed 10,000 of them, over a century ago, to this very site, to fight for a nine-hour workday; not a five-day work week, not a six-day work week, not an eight-hour workday, to fight for a nine-hour workday. They were met with the brute force of the government of the day. They were met with the jackboots of a government of over 100 years ago that is more than equalled by the Harris Tories of today. And I speak to section 3 of this bill, of this very important Bill 7.

1610

Chair, you've got to understand that I, like a whole lot of my colleagues, like more than a few of these Tory backbenchers, come from communities where working women and men now for decades and generations have fought fights, all of them difficult, some of them bloody, many with great sacrifice to themselves and to their families and to their children; working women and men who faced the truncheons on the picket line, who fought for the simple notion of the right to strike, and who, until the introduction of Bill 40, when they took the desperate and serious and oh-so-frightening action for so many workers, when they made that hard-fought decision to remove, to withdraw their work from the workplace, also faced the prospect of the potential for violence and the actual violence that scabs -- they're not replacement workers; please, they're scabs. They were scabs when Jack London called them scabs and they're scabs now in 1995.

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Chair: Are we in the clause-by-clause questions and comments? May I ask you what clause we're on and what specifically the member is speaking to? I would ask that you remind the member that we're in this and what we're speaking to.

The First Deputy Chair: I would like to remind the whole House to cooperate with the table. I would ask also the member for Welland-Thorold to debate the amendment on section 3; nothing else. If you don't, I will interrupt you and bring you back to order. Is that clear? The member for Welland-Thorold, you have the floor on the debate on the amendment on section 3.

Mr Kormos: I speak to section 3, Chair, of course I do. In the course of any number of these debates I've discovered that the Chair is adamant and insistent that one address oneself, when one is debating this clause by clause, to the appropriate section. But you have to understand the section and the context of the bill because, after all, it's a section that amends the whole bill.

We can talk about the section, but we also have to talk about Bill 7, because to talk about it in isolation goes beyond naïve. It walks into the arms, into the spider's web of a government that halters, of a government that would prevaricate, of a government that indeed would impose its will on a community of some 11 million people, including millions of hardworking women and men, through this bill and through this very amendment, without a single opportunity.

Because, you see, as I discuss this section, section 8.1, government motion 3, I have to also discuss it in the context of the reality that the people of this province will never have a chance to present their views, their critique, their opinions, their approach, their response, in a public forum.

I've been blessed, because I've been given an opportunity, over the course of the last mere two or three minutes, to review this very amendment. The fact is that the government backbenchers haven't got the slightest idea. They know diddly-squat about either government motion 3 or any of the other motions that are being moved as amendments to this bill.

They have neither the wit nor the courage to stand up and insist that they too be permitted to be involved in debate over Bill 7 and its respective amendments so that their constituents know where they stand, so that their constituents, their workers, the women and men in their ridings, will understand where they stand on the right of working women and men to organize freely, the right of working women and men to withdraw their labour from the workplace without fear of scabs and thugs on picket lines.

We've seen thugs lately, Chair. We've seen the thuggery of a government that permits the most modest debate on one of the most substantial pieces of legislation, legislation that rolls us back into the previous century as we now face entry into the next millennium.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Is that parliamentary, Mr Speaker?

Mr Kormos: You're darn right it's parliamentary. What's unparliamentary, Chair, is shutting down debate, silencing the opposition. What's unparliamentary --

The First Deputy Chair: Order. Will you please take your seat for a minute. I just want to let you know that you have to be very careful in the type of words you use. I'm just telling you, be careful when you choose your words. Be careful.

Mr Kormos: Thank you, Chair. I should indicate to you that I have chosen my words exceptionally carefully, and when I accuse this government of paltery -- and it indeed, if guilty of nothing else, is guilty of the utmost paltery -- it's something about which this government should be neither proud nor pleased, nor should its backbenchers, nor should its little blue-suited people who are here following marching orders without even the capacity -- because just as we've been denied access to these amendments, so have they -- to understand what it is they're going to be called to vote on.

They have displayed in short order a disdain for one of the fundamental obligations of the majority, and that is to protect the rights of the minority. Members of the opposition know they're in the minority here; that's why they're members of the opposition. But there is an honourable and long-held obligation on the part of government.

Take a look up at those walls, and you see, facing the respective sides -- and this is in the context of amendment to the bill, because we have to consider this amendment within the context of our role and responsibilities as legislators. We look up there and we see the eagle encouraging the opposition to be tenacious, encouraging the opposition to be bold in its protection of the rights of the minority and, in this instance, of the rights of working women and men.

I point out to government members that on that side is an owl, which is supposed to impart a sense of wisdom. I'm afraid that the myopia from the government benches has prevented them from watching that owl, because the wisdom is --

Mr Sergio: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I'd like to ask the minister, those amendments, today's and Friday's, were they also not presented to your own members?

The First Deputy Chair: This is totally out of order. Please take your seat.

Interjection.

The First Deputy Chair: Take your seat. The member for Welland-Thorold, before you start, I'd like to remind you that we're debating an amendment to section 3. I just want to remind you.

Mr Kormos: This amendment to section 8.1 of the bill speaks specifically about how subsections 78(3) and (3.1) of the new act do not apply with respect to a strike that begins before the day on which this new act, the Labour Relations Act, 1995, comes into force.

A bill, a piece of legislation, has to be taken in its whole context. You know full well, Chair, with your experience as a legislator in this Legislature, that the interpretation of legislation requires one to look at the whole context. You can't isolate a subsection or a clause and interpret that standing on its own. When we're talking about section 8.1, the amendment that's contained here in motion 3 by the Minister of Labour -- how dare she call herself that. When we look at this subsection --

The First Deputy Chair: Order. Section 8.1 I'm not familiar with. I'm familiar with (3.1).

Mr Kormos: That's what we're getting to, Chair. Please. I understand that it's distracting to have people hollering and hooting and carrying on, and I appreciate that the Chair may on occasion have difficulty hearing me, but I'm doing my best. I'm doing my best, Chair.

1620

I'm telling you that what's repugnant and what's offensive to the people in Welland and Thorold, what's offensive to the working women and men in the industries and in the service sector and in the construction trades where I come from, what's offensive to members of IAM, who work at the airport transporting people's baggage, like Jason Barlow sitting here in the members' gallery today, what's offensive to people who have dedicated their lives to the trade union movement, is a government with jackboot tactics, is a government with --

The First Deputy Chair: Order. I will not accept that type of language.

Mr Kormos: I withdraw "jackboot tactics" -- is a government with a style that would make General Pinochet blush, a government that has disdain for democracy --

The First Deputy Chair: Order.

Mr Kormos: I withdraw that comment.

The First Deputy Chair: Order. The member for Welland-Thorold, please take your seat. Please be careful with your language.

Mr Kormos: Mr Chair, I'm being extremely careful about my choice of words because I want what I say to represent dearly what I feel and what I believe about the subversion of democracy that has taken place here over the course of the last couple of weeks.

You know, Chair. You've sat on both side of this House, and you know how important it is for public hearings to accommodate the views of the public. You know it is only a lack of courage that would preclude a government from letting the public comment on this motion before the House right now, section 8.1 of the new bill, as amended by this motion. You know how it is unprecedented in this Legislature by any number of governments for there to be a denial of access on the part of the public to public hearings.

What can motivate that? Is it fear? Is it fear on the part of the government that indeed their legislation not only lacks popularity but is an attack on the very heart, the women and men who will be impacted by this subsection and all the other sections of Bill 7 as amended, and amendments as amended? Is it fear? Or is it because the government would have to illustrate that it indeed has no interest or concern for working people but that its true boss is their rich friends, their rich corporate buddies, the rich guys in the blue suits, the ones who are going to get the big tax breaks on the backs of the poor, on the backs of women, on the backs of children, on the backs of the seniors, on the backs of the sick, and now on the backs of working women and men?

I tell you, I find this repugnant. This is intolerable. I tell my colleagues across the way, many of whom sit in this Legislature for the first time in their careers, that they should be ashamed. They should be ashamed. They should be ashamed that they have violated their oath, they have betrayed their constituents, they have attacked not just workers but the very institution, a democratic Parliament, that we have come to accept as the backbone of our society.

The First Deputy Chair: Any further questions or comments?

Mr Duncan: On subsection (3):

Why is it that section 8, Minister, will not be applied?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I would like to indicate to you that the motion we're dealing with, as you well know, deals with the applications for certification. What we needed to do was to make a determination regarding the timing of the filing of certifications, so what we have done here is determine that any certifications initiated prior to the introduction of Bill 7, which would be on October 4 or before, would be decided under the old provisions of the Labour Relations Act, and any certifications that were filed after, on October 5 or later, would be dealt with and decided under the new provisions of the Labour Relations Act, which, as you know, would mean the secret ballot vote.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): The amendment would be much easier to understand were it presented to the House at the appropriate time. Our member has asked a very appropriate question and would have many other questions, but it's very difficult in speaking to this amendment to be cognizant of all its ramifications when this is not provided.

The members of this House should witness what is happening this afternoon. There's total disarray. The amendments have come in at the very last minute. The government would have been better to take a day or two longer to at least get its act in line on these amendments so we could have an interesting discussion. All you're going to get this afternoon is disruptiveness and a lot of frustration expressed because the amendments weren't provided in a timely fashion.

Mr Christopherson: I want to concur that with regard to this particular section and every other section of the bill as it's being amended, these are the kinds of documents being dropped on our desks literally, in the case of the final package of amendments, a few hours ago. Contrary to what the minister may believe, the amendments in their final package were not provided until just a few hours ago. I would hope that anybody at home listening, whether they support your package or not, would appreciate what that does to the democratic process and how impossible it makes the job of opposition members to participate in a proper way.

Analysis: Because I don't have the ministry folks I once had when I was over there and certainly don't have the ones you do, we need the information provided to us. That is why governments provide, when bills are moving through the House, background information that provides technical expertise in a way laypeople can understand, so we can properly represent our constituents and participate.

The First Deputy Chair: The member for Hamilton Centre, we're debating an amendment to section 3. It has to take place. That is the debate taking place now, nothing else. It's the amendment to section 3. That was the question I brought to you.

Mr Christopherson: Mr Chair, I am speaking to that point. What I am identifying is my and my colleagues' inability to talk at any great length or with any expertise about what's in front of us. As I speak to this particular section that's now before us that you're asking me to comment on, like my colleague from Welland-Thorold, I'm extrapolating that to the extent that I can't speak about that section in isolation. So I am still speaking to that section, Mr Chair.

The First Deputy Chair: I will advise you if you don't; I will bring you back to order.

Mr Christopherson: The detailed information on that section I believe is contained in this document called the clause-by-clause --

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Where?

Mr Christopherson: Well, where? Who knows? It got here 20 minutes ago, just before the debate began.

My point is that it's absolutely impossible, without benefit of public input -- what does business think about this particular section? I want to know what they think so I can consider that in evaluating my position. What does the labour movement think? All those things were denied because there are no public hearings.

This section in front of us is one of the key sections that denies unions democratic rights they've had for decades. Section after section, piece by piece, the government is taking away the rights that workers have had for decades, and it has not allowed any public input -- none.

They give us the information, the members of this House, who have certain rights and privileges -- this is not supposed to be a dictatorship; it's supposed to be a democracy. In order to participate, we need the specific information in front of us, Mr Chair. You're going to find, sir, with great respect, that with regard to this section and every other section, I and my colleagues on this side of the House will continue to make the point that democracy cannot take place without information. We're being denied information about this particular section, about every other section.

1630

Look at this: 649 pages of analysis. Part of this is about the section in front of us, and it was given to us 20 minutes ago. How can a Tory or a Liberal or a New Democrat or someone non-aligned, a reasonable person, believe that this is any kind of democracy? This is not a simple bill, this is not just housekeeping.

This particular section is a part of fundamentally changing the way that labour relations existed in this province for decades, as well as the rights that workers have had, not just for their own benefit but for the benefit of employers and the economy and communities. This section, more than most, plays a critical role in denying workers those rights, and the government knows that. That is why, on this section and every other section, they don't want to take it out to the public: because the public -- employers, labour groups, others who use the Labour Relations Act -- can point out why this is ideology only and not good governance.

This particular section ensures that workers' rights are watered down in this province. The minister can speak all she wants about fairness, but we know that the word "fair" was even taken out of the purpose clause as it relates directly to this section, because fairness is what used to be here before this section amended it.

Now we know without any doubt that the agenda of the Tory government, with this kind of amendment, is meant to deny workers their rights, Mr Chair. You will hear that from all my colleagues this afternoon as we point out that this is not just a fight about this section and whether it's right or wrong; this is a fight about democracy and the right of the opposition and the right of the people to comment on this section, not just us, recognizing that even our comments on this section are not as specific as they should be because the government waited till the last second to give us the analysis.

Mr Chair, believe me, for whatever little time is left for us to comment, you will hear over and over -- and I would ask you to consider using your authority to bring this farce, this insult against the people of Ontario to a halt and at the very least allow us adequate input. You've still got your majority, you could still make the law, but give people a chance to comment on this section and every other, because we're being denied that. The people of Ontario are being muzzled.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I find it very interesting. I sat across, in the place of the member who just spoke, for almost five years. I will tell you that once I received a bill as the critic for Labour, I always believed that I personally had a responsibility, because I can assure you that the NDP certainly didn't go out and say to me, "This is what this means," or "This is what that means." I went out and, with my staff, I sought the best advice possible, whether it was from anybody --

The First Deputy Chair: Minister, please talk to the amendment.

Hon Mrs Witmer: -- employers or employees, on this amendment or on any other amendment.

I would certainly indicate to you that this act was introduced 26 days ago. We are dealing here with a provision which, as you well know, actually promotes and enhances the rights of the individual workers. I don't know why you are so afraid to give workers the opportunity for a secret ballot vote. What better way is there to demonstrate support for a union than allowing all of the individuals in a workplace to vote by ballot? What are you so afraid of? I don't know.

Mr Duncan: It's really saddening, and I think the government members should take notice, because on subsection (3.1) I asked the question I did because it's apparent that in this section, as in others, there are mistakes in the legislation. There have already been 63 amendments brought forward.

I would suggest to the minister and to her colleagues on the other side of the House that it won't be long before your supporters in the business community are pointing out flaws in this legislation. I would suggest on this clause, and on others, that you will have to open it all again and that your haste to close debate on this is very ironic in light of what the minister just said respecting this clause and respecting the rights of workers to democratic freedoms and secret ballots.

What about the right of management people and working people throughout this province to have an opportunity to look at this? I can tell the minister that earlier today I submitted the bill and the proposed amendments to the bill --

The First Deputy Chair: Please speak to the amendment.

Mr Duncan: -- including, Mr Chair, this particular amendment, to a group of management-side labour lawyers. They all expressed to me their concerns that the government may be creating a statute that will not serve the process of labour relations in this province very well. So I would suggest to those of you on the other side who are accepting or allowing yourselves to just have this thrown at you -- and we're saddened by it, this amendment in particular, because we can't have real, meaningful discussion.

I'm saddened by it as a new member. I wasn't here when the other members were having their fights over past bills, but when I came here I believed that we would have an opportunity to discuss these amendments, particularly this amendment, which is obviously so important. I'm saddened and I'm sure the people watching this today are saddened. I think they're saddened.

The problem, Minister, is that you're creating a statute that you're going to have to reopen again. This particular subsection -- when I asked you the question about section 8 in the new versus section 8 in the old act, it was apparent that even the government doesn't fully understand everything that's being written into this. I'm given to understand that your officials were up all night drafting this. I recall that when you rush these kinds of things, especially a statute that is so important, and this section, which is so important to working people -- and there are others that are important to management.

I would suggest that what we need here is an openness and a willingness to discuss these issues in a more appropriate forum with more debate. You will find, Minister, and your colleagues will find that you have a seriously flawed bill, and that's unfortunate, because we will have to open the Labour Relations Act again. I can assure you, when we open it again we'll have the same discussions on this and the other kinds of regressive steps you've taken on this bill and on all the bills that are contained in Bill 7.

Hon Mrs Witmer: Speaking to the amendment, and I suspect that perhaps the member opposite is not quite sure what it is that he specifically is concerned about, let me tell you, this is an amendment which establishes that applications for certification that were filed before October 5, 1995, will be decided under the old Labour Relations Act provisions. This amendment ensures that those people who did not have any knowledge of the provision are not covered under it. In this respect, this probably does favour unions.

1640

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): In speaking to this section, after just listening to the minister, I think I have a disagreement with her position on this, but of course she has had more time to read and study some of the amendments that she's making. But I doubt very much, given the size of the one document we have over here, that even she knows what the content of this bill is today, which I find very scary, the fact that we have a bill that has such a huge impact on people.

It's my understanding of this section that we're talking about that it's going to affect workers in a retroactive way. I am speaking to this section and I'm speaking to all of the sections that I've had the opportunity to have a look at here, which isn't very much.

I'm going to say to the minister, when she said here today that we have had plenty of time and she, as in opposition, took her responsibility seriously and went away and read her material and came back prepared, let me remind her of what she said during five weeks of hearings. She said, and I'm going to quote her:

"I'd just like to register the concern of the Ontario PC Party regarding the starting date of August 4. Unfortunately, we had hoped to give people in this province sufficient time to prepare their presentations and we're looking at a startup date one week later. Certainly we're very concerned about the short time that groups and individuals are going to have for making their presentations."

My point here is quite relevant to this section and quite relevant to this entire bill. My point is, if you look at what the minister said in opposition, that we members, let alone the public out there, haven't had a proper opportunity to study this bill and the amendments that were being worked on last night.

This bill, and this section that we're talking about here, has huge implications on the hundreds of thousands of working people who are affected by this bill. Not only do they not have the opportunity to speak on these amendments that are being presented in this House today, not only do the workers not have the opportunity to speak on this amendment that I'm speaking to now, but the critic in this House got some amendments a couple of minutes ago. Is that fair? What kind of bill are we going to have here? The minister doesn't even know herself.

I agree with the Liberal critic on this. She is going to be back here hanging her head in shame at some point because there are going to be so many problems associated with this bill and the quickness with which it's done. This is not democracy. This truly is dictatorship. I will say to the minister and I will say to the new members who may find this amusing: No matter what your position is on this bill, I can assure you this has never happened before in this House. You are going to have to answer to people on this no matter what you think about the bill. The reality is, you are muzzling people out there and you are muzzling people in this House. It's never happened before.

Minister, I will say to you that you are going to pay for that. You are going to pay for that -- the first time in the history of this province such a thing, such a monumental bill, has ever happened, and you, Minister, truly should be ashamed of yourself. What the hell are you afraid of? I ask you, what the hell are you afraid of? Why isn't this bill going out to the people? Why do people out there not have an opportunity to tell you what they think of this section?

The First Deputy Chair: Order. The member for Riverdale, please take your seat. I would just like to remind you that your language is a bit irritating and abrasive and I would ask you to refrain from using that type of language.

Ms Churley: In wrapping up here, because I know some of my other colleagues would like to comment on this particular clause, I would say that I am truly shaken to my shoes by what's happening here, because it goes beyond the grain of what democracy in this province, and indeed in this country, is all about.

I sincerely ask the minister right now, this moment, to reconsider pushing this bill through. You know you're going to win at the end of the day. After all, you are the government. So I would ask her --

The First Deputy Chair: Debate section 3.

Ms Churley: I would ask the minister to --

The First Deputy Chair: Debate section 3, amendment 3.1.

Ms Churley: I would ask the minister to give the people out there an opportunity to come forward and tell her and her government the effect this particular clause will have on their lives, in their working lives.

Mr Christopherson: Let the people speak.

Ms Churley: So I would ask the minister to let the people speak, as the critic next to me has said many times.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I can understand how the member opposite feels. It certainly had been our wish, certainly my wish, that we would have had an opportunity to take the legislation to the committee, that we would have had an opportunity for public hearings. However, you know as well as I do that unfortunately your party did not give us the opportunity to set up committees and take the bill out.

What we have done instead is we have tried to consult with as many people as possible, both from the union side and from the employer side, in order to get the feedback that was necessary. As a result of the feedback we received, we have before you today the amendments which we believe will make the bill better.

The First Deputy Chair: Any further comments on section 3?

Mr Bisson: It is with great pleasure that I finally have an opportunity in this House to speak on section 3 directly, and section 3, Mr Chair, if you will allow me, I think demonstrates far well the undemocratic process that this government is undertaking not only here in section 3 --

The First Deputy Chair: No, no.

Mr Bisson: Mr Chair, listen. I'm going to read specifically --

The First Deputy Chair: I want you to debate on section 3.

Mr Bisson: Mr Chair, specific to section 3 --

The First Deputy Chair: If you don't, I will interrupt you.

Mr Bisson: Specifically to section 3, section 3 of the bill, subsection (3), talks about that section 3 creates an exception which allows first-contract arbitration that is going at the time of the enactment to continue in accordance with the old act where the two parties agree.

In other words, if the employer says, "You went out and you had an organizing drive during the time of the old Bill 40 and you have applied for first-contract arbitration," you will not be entitled, even though you organized in good faith and you've done so under the old act -- if both parties don't agree, the workers' rights are taken away and the employer's rights are maintained. Does that sound democratic? I ask people in this House, is that democratic?

Interjections: No.

Mr Bisson: Well, this is Tory policy. This has nothing to do with democracy.

Further on to section 3, subsection (4) -- this is very interesting and I'd like to read. Subsection (4), according to the -- we have to share our comments on the enactment in regard to the amendments the minister has brought forward because our caucus was only given one copy. What a farce.

Interjection: Half an hour ago.

Mr Bisson: A half-hour ago, one set of copies for 17 members on this side, one set of copies for the 30-some-odd Liberal members on my right, don't have an opportunity to be able to comment. Now, specifically on section --

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): On a point of order, Mr Chair: I think we need to clarify for the purposes of those who aren't privileged enough to be sitting in this chamber and are watching on TV. I think it's important to clarify that the prop that keeps being thrown on the desks on the other side is in fact a duplicate of the bill which was published on October 4, and there is nothing new, and that all the amendments pursuant to the democratic vote in this House which passed the time allocation motion which speaks to a two-hour notice period, all of the amendments, which are really in this document here, were circulated on Friday, with the final draft presented before 2 o'clock today.

1650

The Chair (Mr Bert Johnson): New point of order.

Mr Wildman: On the point of order, Mr Chair: The member opposite has argued that the blue-covered document --

The Chair: I don't want to hear what the other member said. I want to know your point of order.

Mr Wildman: I'm speaking to his point of order.

The Chair: I want to know your point of order.

Mr Wildman: My point of order deals with what he had to say. Mr Chair, you have a responsibility to protect the rights of the minority in this House.

The Chair: My ruling is that he does not have a point of order.

Mr Wildman: You heard him out, Mr Chair. I have a different point of order, then.

The Chair: Your point of order, please.

Mr Wildman: It has been alleged that the amendments were provided to the opposition on Friday and that we had the opportunity over the weekend to study those amendments to be prepared for this debate. That does not deal with the fact that the amendments were also added to today. Some of the amendments that were submitted today -- this morning -- changed the amendments that were provided to the opposition on Friday, and for any member to allege that there was lots of time is to not be factual.

The blue-covered document that has been referred to by members in this House was provided to members, to critics on this side of the House just prior to the beginning of the debate. It is over 600 pages. To suggest that we had lots of time to read it and to understand it to prepare for this debate is not to be factual. To suggest that that document is exactly the same as the bill is also to engage in sophistry. In fact, it is an analysis, a clause-by-clause analysis of what is in the bill. It analyses what is in the bill, what does each clause mean, what does it do. To suggest, to understand that to read what it means is not to add to the bill is, again, to engage in sophistry.

Mr Chair, it is your responsibility -- and I know you take it very seriously -- to protect the rights of the minority in this House. The government benches are supported by a majority and they have the responsibility to carry forward their agenda and to pass legislation, but it is the responsibility of the person occupying the chair to ensure that members of the opposition have the opportunity to do what they're supposed to do.

I know members across the way are laughing. I wonder if any of them understand any history, have read anything that great Conservative leaders of the opposition have had to say about the rights of the minority -- people like John Diefenbaker, for instance, who stood for the rights of the minority in Parliament for years. He did not accept the kind of mirth that is coming from that side when the rights of the minority were trampled on.

Mr Chair, it is your responsibility to ensure that the public understands that the rights of the majority are being used to trample the minority in this House and to stifle democratic debate.

Mr Bisson: Section 3 I think speaks directly to the heart of what this government is all about. This government is a revolutionary government that believes that it will rule by consensus only after it has done something, because it doesn't believe that there's a process called democracy by which people within our citizenry of Ontario have an opportunity to speak out.

Specifically to section 3, let's go through it clause by clause according to section 3. The first part: What this clause is dealing with is that it's saying, "This section applies with respect to proceedings commenced under the old act" -- that's Bill 40 for those people watching -- "in which a final decision has not been issued...." That means to say that if you were out there engaging in any kind of labour activity under Bill 40 -- let's say, April 1995 -- and an occurrence happened where you and the employer had a difficulty where you brought your issue to the board, this part of the section says that you will have to forget about hearing this under Bill 40. Even though all of this happened while Bill 40 was in place, you're going to have to hear it under this new act. So you're retroactively --

Mr Stockwell: Did you hear about Bill 4? Remember Bill 4? That was retroactive.

Mr Bisson: Read section 3, exactly what it's saying. What they're doing under section 3 is that they're saying, if you're out there --

The Chair: I'd remind the member that we're on the amendment to section 3.

Mr Bisson: I am working on amendments to section 3 and I'm allowed to speak to section 3, and that is exactly what I am doing, the point being that what they're doing here in section 3 is they're saying that if you were out there and you had a difficulty where you had to go before the labour board or any other body that has authority under the Ministry of Labour and that activity happened prior to this bill being put in place, you would be dealt with as under the new act. That's the same as saying that the officer who stops you on the highway and charges you with an offence says, "I will charge you differently than what the law intends and what the law says now." You're driving down the road in June 1995, you get stopped by an officer and he says, "You were doing 85 in an 80-kilometre zone" and gives you a ticket. After that, come the new act, the speed limit has been increased, and he retroactively sends you a higher speeding ticket.

That's in effect what these guys are doing. Does that sound like democracy? I say no, not at all. It has nothing to do with democracy. It has to do with retroactively taking away the rights of working people in this province, because they don't believe that working people should have rights in this province.

Let's move on to subsection 3(2) of the act. The other thing it does is that if you are lucky enough to have been able to put together your case before the Ontario Labour Relations Board or any other body under the guise of the Ministry of Labour, the board, after the enactment of this act, will be able to discharge your hearing and not have to hear it, even though you had a legal right to be before that board or that body, because the occurrence happened under Bill 40.

They're saying: "Never mind that you followed the democratic process as set out in the Legislature of this province, as voted on by the majority of the people in this House and as commented on by people who came before a standing committee of the Legislative Assembly for five weeks when we had this bill out on the road, and prior to that on the discussion paper we had. If you are out there and you have a case before the labour relations board, forget it." They will have the right to say, and I want to read specifically what it says --

Interjections.

Mr Bisson: Listen, they're howling on the other side because they bloody well know we're right here. You're retroactively taking the rights away. It says specifically:

"(4) The presiding person or body shall terminate all or any part of a proceeding if continuing it would serve no practical purpose in his, her or its opinion."

The difficulty with that is that it gives a heck of a lot of power to one individual at the board. If I'm the Minister of Labour, for example, and I decide I want to appoint an anti-labour person to hear a hearing -- and that's what the minister is going to do, of course -- that person is supposed to be an official of the Ministry of Labour listening to the democratic rights as put before it by the labour movement or the person representing that individual, and in his or her opinion they don't have to hear the hearing.

How is that democracy? Is that democracy? No. That is about taking away -- you can shake your heads all you want over there on the back bench, but that's the truth. The truth is that you're taking away the democratic rights of individuals in this province in the guise of the majority of this House. You have a lot of nerve.

Let's go on to talk about section 3 and whatever travesties of democracy we have seen under section 3. Subsection (5) says:

"Without limiting the generality of subsection (4), that part of a proceeding relating to section 11.1, subsection 41(1.2), section 64.1, 73.1" -- the list goes on and on -- "a provision of a collective agreement described in subsection 43.1(1)" -- for those people listening, that's first-contract legislation -- "or an agreement described in subsection 73.2(16) of the old act shall be terminated."

That means you were out there, you were organizing under Bill 40. First-contract legislation was a right brought in, not under Bill 40 -- and that's our argument about this bill -- but way before Bill 40. First-contract legislation was passed under the government of Mr David Peterson, and the majority of this House, in a minority Parliament, said, "Working people of this province, should they decide to democratically associate themselves into a union, have the right, if the employer is trying to stymie the process, to negotiate a first collective agreement, to apply to the Ministry of Labour for first-contract arbitration."

That has been a right that working people in this province have enjoyed for almost 10 years, that had been put in place by a Liberal government in a minority Parliament, was supported by the members of this party, the NDP; was then supported when we were government for five years. This government has the gall to say: "We won an election. We have the right to do what we want. Be off with you." Like Marie Antoinette: "Off with their heads." You're saying the heck with working people.

Laugh all you want. It's the truth. The truth is that you're saying that these people, who have exercised their democratic right to associate themselves -- because you forget, the tenet of this society is that people have the right to associate together and speak out against their government if they so choose. You're saying, according to section 3 of the act, that those workers who have decided to associate themselves into a union by a democratic process, as established under the act, and unfortunately are unable to get to a first-contract settlement with their employer because their employer is being hostile lose the right to first-contract arbitration. What kind of right is that? You're taking away the democratic rights of individuals.

1700

Onwards into section 3 --

Mr Kormos: They don't give a damn about the workers, Gilles.

Mr Bisson: They don't; that's the point. It's bad enough that they don't give a damn about working people in this province -- and you can laugh and smirk all you want. At the end of the day, the people of this province will remember that you're taking the democratic right of not just working people; you're taking away democratic rights of a majority of people within this province. You have a lot of nerve, like the Minister of Labour, to sit in this House with your smiles like the cat who sat there and watched the mouse come by, and to swallow it all in one gulp, to sit there and smile at the members of this opposition and of the Liberal Party. You have a lot of nerve.

Now, subsection 3(5) --

Interjections.

Mr Bisson: All on topic. I look at it again. If we take a look at the narrative that's supplied to us -- we've got 30 minutes we've had the opportunity to look at this. But I've had an opportunity, in listening to the debate, to look at only one section. Your own application of section 3 is most interesting, because it says that subsection 3(5) terminates any part of an ongoing proceeding related to the old section of the old act.

Here are some of the things that you're repealing. I spoke about unilateral access to first-agreement arbitration, gone. Is that democratic? No, very undemocratic. Deem that the just cause protection of collective agreement be gone. The just cause: We can get into a whole debate, but that's a tenet of what this democracy is all about. Because other members want to speak, I'll jump over that. Successor rights are gone. That means to say that the government can privatize everything it wants under the sun and that --

Hon Mrs Witmer: He is not speaking to the motion.

Mr Bisson: I am speaking directly, Madam Minister, if you would know your own legislation, directly to section 3. Why don't you read it? Directly. This is your book. Take a look. Section 3, Madam Minister. You have a lot of nerve trying to tell me I'm not on topic and I don't know what the hell I'm talking about. Section 3, here it is.

The Chair: Would the member for Cochrane South come to order.

Mr Bisson: I am right to order.

The Chair: Would the member for Cochrane South come to order.

Mr Bisson: I am at order.

The Chair: No. This House will not tolerate profanity.

Mr Bisson: "Hell" is not profanity.

The Chair: You might continue.

Mr Bisson: I will withdraw, because I want to be here to vote against these sections of the act.

The minister has the gall to sit there and say, "No, that doesn't do that." Yes, Madam Minister, it does. It's right in your own amendments. It's right in the narrative that explains what this bill is about. This is the problem with the whole process: We have an opportunity here in this House in a two-hour period to take a look at what amounts to almost 600 pages of information in regard to the act, which was just given to us recently to supplement the small copy of amendments that were brought to us last Friday, and we're being asked in this House, as the rest of the people in this province, to comment and give this bill -- I tell you, it is hard to contain oneself for the contempt that these people have for democracy.

Successor rights, under subsection 3(5), gone. Is that democratic?

Mr Stockwell: Yes.

Mr Bisson: The member for Etobicoke West, who is not even in his seat -- hello, Mr Chair, that's you. He's not in his seat. Would you pay attention? This guy's not in his seat. He says this is democratic. People who have freely associated into a trade union movement who have decided to organize themselves within the public sector under a union are losing their successor rights when this gang of thugs decides to privatize the entire private civil service of this province. That's not democratic. You're thugs. That's exactly what you are.

The Chair: Would the member for Cochrane South --

Mr Bisson: Oh, look who just woke up. Under subsection 3(5) --

The Chair: Would the member for Cochrane South take his seat.

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I would ask you to address the member from Cochrane that he withdraw the comment that the members across this aisle are thugs. I find it totally, absolutely unparliamentary.

The Chair: I'd like to do that. I'll ask the member for Cochrane South to withdraw the --

Mr Bisson: Okay, Mr Speaker, I will not call them thugs in this chamber. Maybe I'll do it outside.

Under subsection 3(5) they're removing section 73.1 of the old act. Guess what they're taking? Scabs will be the norm in this province. Isn't that wonderful? Isn't that a nice, democratic right? Put all the power in the hands of the employer and say to the employees: "You have no rights. You have no protection. The heck with you." That's some of the stuff they're just doing in section 3.

Moving along, here's what really is disturbing, and it speaks to what the members here have been talking about in terms of democracy within this House. These are the last two points I will make.

Under subsection (5) we're prohibiting the discharge without cause prior to the first collective agreement. In other words, if the employer discharges somebody in the process of an organizing drive and that person is fired without just cause, the employer will have full right to do so.

What happened to just cause? The tenet of law, the basis of the law of this country and of this province, is that people have to be treated fairly and you have to have just cause when moving against them and trying to take away their rights. "Fairly" has been taken out of the purpose clause of the act, and we're saying that under subsection 3(5), by the repeal of section 81.2 of this bill, the employer will have the right, by inference, to discharge an employee during the process of organizing without due consideration to just cause.

Is that democratic? I say no. That's what this is. These are a gang of revolutionists. They're revolutionists. They're saying, "We're going to go out and do what we want because we have the power to do so, and then we will try to build a consensus afterwards to show just how smart and how great we are." If you wonder why the members of this opposition and the members of the Liberal Party are upset, we have every bloody right to be upset, because never in the history of this Legislature has an opposition party or parties been subjected to this kind of act against democracy.

In the very last part under subsection (5), they're repealing section 92.2 of the act, taking away the ability to expedite hearings for complaints against illegal discharge. Under Bill 40, if a worker, under his or her own volition, decide they want to organize into a union and become part of a union organizing drive within the plant, prior to Bill 40 the employer was able to fire that person and the employee had an opportunity to come back under the old act to represent themselves in terms of the discharge that was wrongly done by the employer. It took a long time, but the employee had some kind of provision under the act. We've lost just cause, and now you're saying we're not going to do it as an expeditious process as under Bill 40.

I will only say at this point, because other members want to speak -- and I apologize to other members in this House; I've taken a good 10 minutes -- you guys are running a steamroller over the democracy of this province. You should be ashamed. This whole process is a farce. This minister calls herself the Minister of Labour? I call her the minister of terror from hell.

Mr Duncan: On a point of order, Mr Chair: It's a little difficult to know precisely what amendments we are dealing with, and I'll give the minister an example. Section 76: We've now been provided with three separate sets of amendments on section 76. The one that's included --

The Chair: I'm not interested in 76; I'm interested in section 3.

Mr Duncan: The point comes back to section 3, Mr Chair. For instance, in this document, if the minister will turn to page 175 -- and I thought this was the most recent document -- she'll note that subsection 76(1)6 is not included in here, as it is in the amendment that was sent to our office at 2 o'clock today.

I wonder, has anybody on the government side even read these amendments? This is the most blatant example.

I'm concerned about subsection (3.1) because the minister still hasn't answered my question.

1710

Section 76, on the copy that was sent at 2 o'clock, has a subsection 6. In the clause-by-clause, that's not there. I'm just curious as to which amendments are we dealing with. Has anybody in the government read them? I hope folks are listening, because I think the minister's been busy getting ready to fire the WCB board tomorrow. That's the other thing we've heard. Maybe we could talk about that. Mr Gilchrist raised the story about this.

But I'd like to know, has anybody on the government side even read this? I'm just concerned. Subsection (3.1), section 76, obviously --

The Chair: Order. The member for Windsor-Walkerville will please take his seat.

Interjection.

The Chair: I can't get him to sit down. I will name the member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I would just like to draw to your attention that this is the original bill which you have received. You've also received a package of amendments which amend the bill.

As we sit here today -- and you've indicated that additional motions have been brought to your attention -- I want to point out that most of the motions you were given today respond to concerns that were raised by labour; for example, the timing of strike votes, the issue of exempting the construction industry from ratification and strike votes, adding the protection in the case of certification regarding employers, and also clarifying the time as to the mandatory certification.

We have had an opportunity, we have worked very hard to make sure we have responded to the concerns of individuals, and I don't apologize. At least we have done our work, we have consulted and we have brought the amendments forward.

Mr Kormos: Mr Chair, on a point of order: I just got three phone calls from folks down in Welland-Thorold who've been watching this on television, and I want to tell you something: They're aghast. They want to know how the Minister of Labour can stand and lie like she has all afternoon about having listened to working people, about having listened to labour. These are the questions they're asking me. I wonder if the minister would like to explain to them how it is that she can stand here and lie all afternoon.

The Chair: I would ask the member for Welland-Thorold to reconsider. I would ask the member for Welland-Thorold to withdraw those remarks.

Mr Kormos: It's not something I said; it's something three phone callers have asked me. I'm not telling you she's lying. I'm telling you that three of my constituents have called and wanted to know why she's standing there lying all afternoon about her commitment to labour, so-called, and about having listened to labour when they insist that it's not true.

The Chair: I will not accept indirectly what I will not accept directly. I would ask the member for Welland-Thorold to withdraw.

Mr Kormos: Not having called the Minister of Labour a liar but having recounted to you that three of my constituents are asking why she's lying, I expect her to answer that. She can say she isn't or she can explain why in fact she is.

The Chair: No. I would ask the member for Welland-Thorold to reconsider.

Mr Kormos: I've reconsidered. I've been considering it ever since I got those phone calls, because those constituents of mine make a point, a very strong point. She stands here without permitting public hearings, she stands here misleading any number of people about when they got these amendments, and I think my constituents deserve an answer.

The Chair: I'd like to remind the --

Mr Kormos: If I'm not entitled to be a conduit, a voice to articulate the concerns of my constituents, then what is there left in this place?

The Chair: I'd like to remind the member for Welland-Thorold to temper his remarks. I'll ask him to withdraw that. I'll have to warn you.

Mr Kormos: I'll temper my remarks, and I withdraw that.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I'd just like to respond to the member opposite. I had indicated that we had engaged in consultation. I notice that in the gallery today is Mr Moffatt from the Toronto-Central Ontario division of the Building and Construction Trades Council, and I think he would quite acknowledge the fact that we have had consultation not only with him but with most of the construction trades and unions.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I'm interested to see what other labour leaders the Minister of Labour has consulted.

The Chair: Are we on the amendment?

Mr Len Wood: Yes. The phones are ringing off the hook. People are concerned about the way this legislation is being railroaded through. There's been no consultation with labour; there's been no consultation, other than some special-interest groups in this province.

Bill 40 was a job saver. Bill 40 created labour peace in this province. People do not want to see Bill 40 destroyed and the use of scabs and strikebreakers on the job when there are legal strikes. They're very upset throughout this province because this bill is being rammed through this House, no consultation with anybody whatsoever.

The Minister of Labour cannot tell us who else from labour she's consulted. I don't believe she's consulted with anybody else. She tells us the amendments were brought in on Friday. The Labour critic is saying he only received the amendments at 2 o'clock this afternoon, a binder with 650-some pages. How do you expect people to absorb all this information in the Legislature?

The listening public out there is very angry with what this 82-member Conservative government is doing to labour in this province. They're very upset and they're going to speak out. There are going to be labour problems in the workplace all over the province.

When Mike Harris said there were going to be thousands of jobs lost in 1992, the facts were that there were 178,000 jobs created under Bill 40. It was good labour legislation --

The Chair: I would like to remind the member for Cochrane North that we're on amendment.

Mr Len Wood: -- it worked and it's working now. Why do we want to bring in Bill 7 that is going to destroy labour peace in this province? It's unfair to the people of this province.

They campaigned for five weeks and said, "We have a mandate to do whatever we want." They do not have a mandate to bring in strikebreaker and scab legislation that was outlawed for the last number of years. It's very unfair to the people in this province.

People are going to take action. I know the OFL convention is coming up in about 10 days' time. They're very upset with the way this Conservative government is just ramming this legislation through. There have been no public hearings whatsoever.

When Bill 40 was brought in, there was travel around the province. We had all kinds of consultation. People brought in all kinds of amendments. The labour legislation was working; it was working well. Just because Mike Harris goes out and makes a promise during a campaign that he's going to scrap Bill 40, he did not have the right to turn legislation back 30 or 40 years, and this is what has happened.

In Cochrane North we know that people have died because of legislation that they're bringing in now. There's been violence on the picket lines, people went to the guns and they died. There are monuments up in Cochrane North to prove it. Your legislation is going to permanently injure people, cripple them on the job, and people are going to die. It's happened in the past and it's going to happen again.

They don't care. The Minister of Labour sits there and laughs. When we talk about people dying and being crippled and injured on the job, she's laughing about it; she's laughing, as are the backbenchers in the Conservative caucus. All they're interested in is making their special-interest groups in the business community rich. That's all they're interested in.

They couldn't care less about democracy in this province, giving the ordinary workers the right to have labour peace, and labour peace between management and union. It's worked. The strikes in this province have been drastically reduced since 1975. There's been labour peace. Now we have a new government and they're going to cause nothing but turmoil throughout every workplace in Ontario. It's going to be drastic. The women, the people who have special needs, they all want to be protected. They want to be able to go to work, and, if there is a labour dispute, they do not want to be faced with violence on the picket lines when there are scabs and strikebreakers. Some call them "blisters."

1720

It's very unfair, what this Conservative government is doing. They say they have a mandate, they went out for five weeks and talked about it. They didn't tell the truth to the people. They said there were going to be jobs lost. As I said before, over 178,000 jobs were created throughout this province. In the pulp and paper industry, we had close to $1 billion that was invested in the province of Ontario last year. There will be another $800 million invested in 1995.

People were not fearful, business was not fearful about investing in the province of Ontario. They invested with the labour legislation that was there. It was good legislation; it was fair. It was fair to the employers, it was fair to the workers and it caused labour peace within the province of Ontario -- the best labour legislation there ever was in North America.

Now, because they have a few business people who were elected in a majority Conservative government in Ontario, they're going to destroy that. They're going to tear that down. They're happy when they see violence on the picket lines. I see them laughing and smiling about it over on the other side. We have the experience throughout northern Ontario, where there's been --

Mr Wildman: This guy knows what he is talking about. He has been on those lines and he has been dealing with this violence.

Mr Len Wood: It's sad. As I said, the phones are ringing off the hook. I've talked to some of my other colleagues. People are phoning in and they're saying: "Do whatever you can to stop this government from bringing in legislation that is going to hurt the workers in this province. If they don't care about the workers in this province, it's up to the NDP caucus and whatever there is in the Liberal caucus to stand up and fight for what's right and fair in the workplace."

Mr Bob Rae (York South): On a point of order, Mr Chair: As a point of information to the House, members may not have heard that Premier Parizeau announced about 15 minutes ago that he's resigning.

Interjections.

The Chair: The member for Prescott and Russell.

Mr Lalonde: I hate to criticize something that I haven't read. This document, amendment to (3.1), at the present time none of us has received it. I really believe there were 130 members on June 8, and we were elected to make a decision and also to represent Ontarians.

Really, the Common Sense Revolution said it: We have to reduce the bureaucrats. But at this moment I think the bureaucrats are telling us what we should do, without us taking a look at this document. I really feel that probably we should consider adjourning this House today to give us a chance to read all the amendments.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I would just remind all of the members opposite, your critic does have a responsibility to share with you copies of the amendments. Obviously, when they were received on Friday that should have been done.

Mr Sergio: With all due respect, it is one thing not to provide the complete documents or any of the amendments, but it's even more ridiculous that the members on the other side, the government side, who have the full responsibility of approving the final bill in its entirety at the end, even they have not seen the content of those amendments. Where is the responsibility of the government?

By speaking on (3.1), it's addressing the entire bill itself, because every part has not been fully debated, properly presented to the House. I wonder how the government has the courage to present to the people and say, "This is what we have done," when democracy has not been working in this House.

I'm appalled, without sounding perhaps too harsh on the other side, but when they speak of democracy, democracy is in action when the governing majority gives the minority an opportunity to be heard, and this is not being provided in this particular House.

So (3.1) or (4.1), it is the same thing when at the end the government is going to approve the bill and there's not given the opportunity to debate even one single amendment, as they have not been provided to any members of the House.

In answer to the minister that the critic's supposed to inform the members, how can we have been informed when our own critic has received the amendments to the amendments only a couple of hours ago? I think it is incumbent on the government to give us enough time so even the people out there can say the government has seen the light, has given way to reason and said, "Yes, we cannot ram this down the throats of the opposition or the people out there."

I believe, Mr Chairman, if you were to consult the people out there, they are not aware of what this government is proposing here today. It is totally contrary to what they were promising their own people -- their own people, who elect the members on the other side. This is contrary to what they were promising during the election to their own people. Let me tell you, if they were to propose to their own members today exactly what they are proposing here in this House, they wouldn't be sitting on the other side today.

I'm asking the other side to reconsider what our side is saying here, as we had a number of proposals which would have improved the deal instead of ramming it through. We have said all along, "Fine, you're going to approve it, but there are a number of amendments which make sense," and I think we should be listened to instead of ramming it down our throats. I really do hope that we are given the opportunity to assess every amendment as it is being proposed and that at the final end the government will consider that.

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I listened to the comments from the opposition and they've outlined concerns that they have with this bill, but they haven't mentioned another important aspect of the bill that I'd like to hear more about, and that's the provisions relating to workplace democracy. I wonder if the minister would care to elaborate on that issue.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I would also just like to respond to the member from the Liberal Party who just spoke. We did have set aside today two hours, which would have given us an opportunity to do clause-by-clause. Unfortunately, because of the rhetoric, we are still only dealing with the very first amendment. We have 62 others to deal with, and it's unfortunate that we couldn't have had some more discussion and debate rather than the conversation that has been ongoing.

We have before us here an amendment that does deal with the workplace democracy measures. As we had indicated prior to the election, one of our concerns was with the fact that workers in the workplace did not have the right to make a choice freely and democratically whether or not to join a union, and so --

Mr Bisson: On a point of order, Mr Chair: She is not speaking to section 3 of the act. Section 3 does not deal with what she's talking about.

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): Mr Chair --

Mr Sergio: Mr Chair, on the same point --

The Chair: I think we should give the minister a chance to get through before you vote on it.

Mr Bisson: On a point of order, Mr Chair: The responsibility of the Speaker or the Chair of the committee in the House is to protect the rights of all members in this House. She is not speaking to section 3, and you cannot pick and choose, as the Chair of the committee of the whole, to decide what you will or will not hear. You have to be specific as to section 3.

The Chair: I'd like to remind all members that they speak to the amendment.

1730

Mr Sergio: Mr Chair, if I may. Point of order, Mr Chair. Hello, Mr Chair.

The Chair: I'm sorry; I need to know your right to speak.

Mr Sergio: Point of order. Thank you very much. Mr Chairman, with all due respect, we have just heard from the minister to go on clause by clause. Apparently, she's not addressing the particular clause in question at the moment. There is the voice of reason. How can we go and vote on a clause-by-clause basis when our own critic has only had a couple of hours to sift through 300 and 600 pages of material. I think the minister has to be more responsible and say it is not enough time to give one member or the opposition side or the minority side.

To ram this through and say, "We have given it to you" -- with all due respect, if a member of the other side is being called by one of their constituents who says, "What does (3.1) contain for us?" I would like to know their answer.

The Chair: I'd like to say that I came to this House going by the rules that were left by those who came before. In this ball game there are four balls and three strikes, and that is not a point of order.

The member for Sudbury East.

Ms Martel: I'd like to participate in the debate today and pick up from where some of my colleagues left off, specifically on section 3.

Hon Mrs Witmer: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I believe that I had the floor. I was responding to --

Ms Martel: Well, I was recognized.

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): The minister has not finished her answer.

Hon Mrs Witmer: No, I wasn't finished. I think you had allowed the member opposite to speak on a point of order.

I would just like to indicate to the member opposite who indicated that indeed I was not speaking to the amendment, I am. As you well know, section 3 does deal with certification votes, and that is one of our workplace democracy issues. That was exactly the point that I wanted to make.

We had requests from many, many employees throughout this province, while we were in opposition, to introduce exactly such an amendment as the one we have here. They wanted to be able to make the choice freely and without any coercion or any intimidation from either the union organizer or the employer, and they were asking for a secret ballot vote.

The other thing they also asked was for us to ensure that prior to certification taking place they have access to information so that they would know exactly what their rights were. We have provided not only the information that is necessary to vote secretly and make your decision, we have also provided the opportunity for a secret ballot vote which enhances the right of the workers in the workplace.

Mr Duncan: On a point of order, Mr Chair: The minister is not speaking on subsection (3.1) of the bill and the minister's understanding of the distribution of the documents related to this bill, and the amendments in particular, is very different from that of this party and that of the third party.

On the point of order, we should be discussing subsection (3.1). Subsection (3.1) in its entirety is extremely important. It deals with matters of grave concern to working people. So I would ask, Mr Chair, that you use your position as Chair and allow other members to speak rather than to let the minister use up what little time is left, because so little was allowed, to allow members to have a say on this piece of legislation.

The Chair: I'd like to remind all members in the House that they're speaking towards amendment (3.1).

Ms Martel: I am pleased to participate in the debate and speak to subsection (3.1). I want to pick up from where the minister left off in speaking about intimidation, because I wonder, with the government moving now to permit scabs and strikebreakers to operate in the province of Ontario, if she understands what kind of intimidation that represents for working people everywhere across this province.

When the member for Cochrane North got up and told people in this House just a few short moments ago that when you allow strikebreakers and when you allow scabs on picket lines, you will have violence and you will have people getting killed, members of the Conservative Party laughed. They thought that was funny.

You ought to talk to this member, who in his own home town of Kapuskasing had three people die on a picket line in 1963, folks. That's the reality in Ontario. That's the kind of legislation you're allowing to take place in this province again. Even your own party, when it was in power during the 1970s, thought that was appalling, thought that was ridiculous, and outlawed that kind of stuff, thought it wasn't right.

That's why I was proud when this government was in place and we put forward the changes that we did to the OLRA. We said: "You aren't going to allow that kind of thing to happen. You aren't going to allow employers to come in and intimidate workers, bring people across the line, have violence, have bloodshed, have the police, have people be killed." It's wrong, and all of you ought to be ashamed that this is the kind of legislation you're bringing back into this province. Shame on all of you.

I want to say something else with respect to this process. You wonder why the members of the opposition today are so angry and so frustrated about the process. The fact is, contrary to the minister's saying, as she did here today, that "we have done our work," this whole process has been a farce. I want to remind the members who were here before --

Interjections.

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): Did you, the opposition, turn down four days?

Ms Martel: -- between 1990 and 1995, of the process that took place under our government when we made extensive changes to the Ontario Labour Relations Act for the first time in 15 years. For those members who are yapping away, who weren't here, you should be quiet because you might learn something about what I have to say.

When our Minister of Labour decided to make the changes that he did, we put out a draft bill and we went around the province with, first of all, a draft bill to outline to the public the kinds of changes that we wanted to make. Our Minister of Labour, when he did that, went to 11 communities across the province. He met with 195 business and employer groups, 109 labour and union groups, 28 community organizations. That was just on the draft bill. Then we brought the bill into the House. We had extensive second reading debate. We took that bill out across the province for five solid weeks. We went to communities like London, Kingston, Ottawa, Sudbury, Thunder Bay, Toronto and Windsor. We weren't afraid to take this bill out and to have the people of the province have their say.

Why are you afraid to have working people take a look at this piece of legislation? Why are you trying to shut down this process, as you have been trying to do for the last three days in this House?

The minister herself, when she was on this side and when she was the critic, condemned the government and said during the start of the public hearings that five weeks wasn't enough, that people needed more time to have their say. That's what she got up and said when she was on this side of the House.

Why is there a change now, when she sits in government, when she's the Minister of Labour? Why is she afraid to have working people have their say? It was okay when she was over here -- it was okay for business to come, it was okay for us to go around the province for five weeks, it was okay for us to go to a number of communities -- but when she's the minister and when she's bringing in a most regressive piece of labour legislation, it's not okay for working people to have their say. Shame on the minister for that kind of attitude. Shame on her for treating people in that way. Shame on all of you for thinking that process is okay, because it's not.

With respect to the closure motion, and that's what's really at the heart of what's happening here today --

The Chair: I'd remind the member that we're on section 3.

Ms Martel: I'm on section 3, Chair.

I was a House leader in this place. I've been on all sides of this place as well in the last eight years, and never, ever in the history of this Legislature have we seen the kind of draconian motion that the government House leader brought in here last week. You wonder why we're angry.

At no point in time when our government brought forward legislation that was so all-encompassing, that included so many changes, as we did on a number of bills, at no time did we deny the right of the opposition to have public hearings and to travel around the province so that people could have their say. Never did we do that.

1740

I challenge all of the members, those of you who were here from 1990-95, those new members who are here now, to check the record, to go back to see what happened when we were in government, because you will see that time after time after time, when our government proposed major changes, as Bill 7 is, we allowed the people to have their say. We did that even when our legislation wasn't popular, even when our members took a lot of heat out on the road because people disagreed. We were not afraid of what people had to say. Why are all of you when it comes to this bill?

I believe the real reason the government refuses to take this bill out on the road is because despite all the whining and all the snivelling that went on when this group was over here with respect to this bill, all of the dire proposals and prophesies that they went on and on about when they were over here have not come to pass. Mike Harris again and again in this House and the member who is now the minister said time and time again when they were over here that if Bill 40 was passed, the private sector would not come into this province, that there would be no private sector investment.

Well, the facts have shown that this was completely untrue. The facts have shown that everything this group tried to say when they were sitting over here did not come to pass. In fact, we saw, in the time this bill has been in place, $53 billion worth of new private sector investment in this province between 1993 and 1994. We have had $8.8 billion of private sector investment in the highly unionized manufacturing sector in 1994 alone, the highest level of private sector investment in a single year in the history of this province. That's what happened under Bill 40 when we were the government.

With respect to labour peace, 97% of all collective agreements in 1993 were passed without labour confrontation, without strikes, without lockouts; 97% of all collective agreements were signed without any trouble in the workplace. Mr Chair, $25 billion of profits from private sector companies alone in 1993-94 under this bill and under an NDP government.

Everything the Tories tried to say about the private sector coming here has proven to be not true, and they don't want to deal with that fact. That's why they don't want to take this bill out on to the road, because they know that time and time again, people will come forward and say: "Everything you had to say, all of your dire predictions, none of it was true. All you did was fearmonger." The people know that in fact there have been investments and there has been peace in labour in the province of Ontario.

As I wrap up in the last 30 seconds that I have, I want to say this government should be ashamed of itself today, because you have brought forward a piece of legislation that is completely anti-worker --

Interjections: Shame, shame, shame.

The Chair: Would the member for Sudbury take her seat.

Ms Martel: -- that takes away the rights of working people that they have had in place for decades in this province. You are bringing back a section that will allow for scab --

Hon Mrs Witmer: Mr Chair, on a point of order --

Interjections.

The Chair: Would the member for Sudbury take her seat.

The time has expired. Ms Witmer has moved amendment to subsection 3(3.1). Is it the pleasure of the committee that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

That vote is deferred.

Shall section 4 stand as part of the bill?

All those in favour will say "aye."

All those opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Deferred?

Mr Cooke: On a point of order, Mr Chair: We're going to be dividing on every section of the bill and every amendment. If the government wants to proceed, we can recognize that there will be divisions on every section and we can go through them in the proper way with the official divisions and recorded votes rather than going through them twice in the next short period of time.

The Chair: Agreed? Agreed.

An amendment to subsection 5(6). Deferred.

Amendment to section 6. Deferred?

Mr Cooke: Mr Chair, all the amendments have been tabled. All the bill's before us. If you call in the members, we can divide and deem that everything's been divided on, and we'll have the recorded vote on each section and each amendment.

The Chair: The problem is that it has to be read.

Mr Cooke: I'm sure the government House leader would agree. We're going to have a division on every section of the bill and every amendment. So if everybody agrees, then we'll deem that there's been divisions and call in the members, and let's have the recorded vote rather than doing it twice.

The Chair: Is it agreed then that we will handle it in that way and call in the members? Agreed.

Call the members in; a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1747 to 1752.

The Chair: Would the members take their seats, please.

Mrs Witmer has moved an amendment to section 3 of the bill by adding the following subsection:

All those in favour, please rise.

All those opposed, please rise.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): Mr Chair, the ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare the amendment carried.

Shall section 3, as amended, form part of the bill?

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare section 3, as amended, as part of the bill.

Shall section 4, as amended, form part of the bill?

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare section 4 will be part of the bill.

Mrs Witmer moves that subsection 5(6) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"(6) When issuing a declaration, the board may make such orders as it considers appropriate in the circumstances, including orders relating to the collective agreement, if any."

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare that the amendment is carried.

Shall section 5, as amended, form part of the bill?

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare that section 5, as amended, shall form part of the bill.

Mrs Witmer moves that subsection 6(4), (5), and (6) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"(4) The trade union continues to represent the employees in each of the bargaining units and, subject to subsection (8), the collective agreement, if any, continues to apply to them. There shall be deemed to be a separate collective agreement for each bargaining unit.

"(5) The trade union may apply to the Ontario Labour Relations Board for certification as the bargaining agent for each of the bargaining units if there is no collective agreement in force.

"(6) Upon receiving an application under subsection (5), the board shall certify the trade union as the bargaining agent for each of the bargaining units.

"(7) The employer or the trade union may apply to the board for such orders as the board considers appropriate in the circumstances, including orders relating to the collective agreement, if any.

"(8) The board may make such orders on an application under subsection (7) as it considers appropriate in the circumstances."

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare the amendment carried.

Shall section 6, as amended, be part of the bill?

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare that section 6, as amended, be part of the bill.

Shall sections 7 and 8 stand as part of the bill?

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare that sections 7 and 8 be part of the bill.

1800

Mrs Witmer moves that the bill be amended by adding the following section:

"Transition, mandatory strike vote

"8.1 Subsections 78(3) and (3.1) of the new act do not apply with respect to a strike that begins before the day on which the Labour Relations Act, 1995, comes into force."

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare the amendment, section 8.1, carried.

Shall sections 9 and 10 stand as part of the bill?

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare that sections 9 and 10 are part of the bill.

Mrs Witmer moves that subsection 1(1.1) of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, 1993, as set out in subsection 11(2) of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"`Crown'

"(1.1) References to the crown in this act shall be deemed to include a reference to the agencies of the crown to which the act applies."

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare the amendment to section 11 carried.

Shall section 11, as amended, form part of the bill?

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare that section 11, as amended, is carried.

Mrs Witmer moves that subsection 1.1(1) of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, 1993, as set out in section 12 of the bill, be amended by striking out "and" at the end of clause (a), inserting "and" at the end of clause (b) and adding the following clause:

"(c) agencies of the crown that are not designated under clause 29.1(1)(a) of the Public Service Act that employ crown employees."

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare the amendment to section 12 carried.

Mrs Witmer moves that subsection 1.1(2) of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, 1993, as set out in section 12 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"Non-application

"(2) This act does not apply with respect to,

"(a) individuals who are not crown employees;

"(b) agencies of the crown that are not designated under clause 29.1(1)(a) of the Public Service Act that employ only individuals who are not crown employees."

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare the amendment to section 12 carried.

Mrs Witmer moves that paragraphs 12 and 13 of subsection 1.1(3) of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, 1993, as set out in section 12 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"12. Persons who provide advice to cabinet, a board or committee composed of ministers of the crown, a minister or a deputy minister about employment-related legislation that directly affects the terms and conditions of employment of employees in the public sector as it is defined in subsection 1(1) of the Pay Equity Act.

"12.1 Persons who provide advice to cabinet, a board or committee composed of ministers of the crown, the Minister of Finance, the Chair of Management Board of Cabinet, a deputy minister in the Ministry of Finance or the Secretary of the Management Board of Cabinet on any matter within the powers or duties of treasury board under sections 6, 7, 8 or 9 of the Treasury Board Act, 1991.

"13. Persons employed in the Ontario Financing Authority or in the Ministry of Finance who spend a significant portion of their time at work in borrowing or investing money for the province or in managing the assets and liabilities of the consolidated revenue fund, including persons employed in the authority or the ministry to provide technical, specialized or clerical services necessary to those activities."

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare the amendment to section 12 carried.

Shall section 12, as amended, form part of the bill?

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare that section 12, as amended, is part of the bill.

Shall sections 13 through 15 form part of the bill?

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare that sections 13 through 15 form part of the bill.

Mrs Witmer moves that subsection 16(3) of the bill be struck out.

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare the amendment to section 16 carried.

Shall section 16, as amended, form part of the bill?

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare that section 16, as amended, forms part of the bill.

Shall sections 17 and 18 form part of the bill?

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare that sections 17 and 18 are part of the bill.

Mrs Witmer moves that section 19 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"(1.1) Subsection 7(2) of the act is repealed and the following substituted:

"`Certain subsections not to apply

"`(2) Subsections 48(1) to (5) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 do not form part of this act.'"

Same vote?

Senior Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare the amendment carried.

Shall section 19, as amended, form part of the act?

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare that section 19, as amended, forms part of the act.

Shall sections 20 through 34 form part of the act?

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare that sections 20 through 34 be part of the act.

Mrs Witmer moves that subsection 35(2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"(2) Subsection 24(4) of the act is repealed and the following substituted:

"`Non-application

"`(4) Section 65 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 does not apply with respect to the designation of the union or the continuation of the designation.'"

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare the amendment carried.

Shall section 35, as amended, form part of the act?

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare that section 35, as amended, be part of the bill.

Shall sections 36 through 44 form part of the act?

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare that sections 36 through 44 are part of the act.

1810

Mrs Witmer moves that section 42 of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, 1993, as set out in section 45 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsections:

"Same

"(2.1) The board shall consider whether sufficient time has elapsed in the dispute between the parties to permit it to determine whether meaningful collective bargaining has been prevented.

"Deferred decision

"(2.2) The board may defer making a decision on the application until such time as it considers appropriate."

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare the amendment carried.

Shall section 45, as amended, form part of the act?

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare that section 45, as amended, be part of the act.

Shall sections 46 through 49 form part of the act?

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare that sections 46 through 49 are part of the act.

Mrs Witmer moves that subsection 50 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"50. Section 52 of the act is repealed and the following substituted:

"Classification issues

"52(1) A provision in an agreement entered into that provides for the determination by an arbitrator, a board of arbitration or another tribunal of any of the following matters is void:

"1. A classification system of employees, including creating a new classification system or amending an existing classification system.

"2. The classification of an employee, including changing an employee's classification.

"Same

"(2) Subsection (1) applies to agreements entered into before or after the date on which the Labour Relations and Employment Statute Law Amendment Act, 1995 receives royal assent."

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare the amendment to section 50 carried.

Shall section 50, as amended, form part of the act?

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare that section 50, as amended, is part of the bill.

Shall sections 51 through 61 be part of the act?

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare that sections 51 through 61 be part of the act.

Mrs Witmer moves that the bill be amended by adding the following section:

"Transition, proceedings (related activities or businesses)

"61.1 An interim or final decision issued on or after October 4, 1995 and before the day on which this act receives royal assent in a proceeding relating to subsection 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, as it applies under the old act with respect to crown employees, is void."

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare that section 61.1 is carried.

Shall sections 62 through 64 be part of the act?

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare that sections 62 through 64 are part of the act.

Mrs Witmer moves that section 65 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsections:

"(8) Proceedings commenced under the framework collective agreement and proceedings relating to it are terminated.

"(9) An interim or final decision issued on or after October 4, 1995 in a proceeding commenced under or relating to the framework collective agreement is void."

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare the amendment to subsections 65(8) and (9) carried.

Shall section 65, as amended, form part of the act?

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare that section 65, as amended, is part of the act.

Mrs Witmer moves that the bill be amended by adding the following section:

"Transition, arbitration

"65.1(1) This section applies if the crown and a trade union agree in writing before this section comes into force to refer all matters remaining in dispute between them to an arbitrator or a board of arbitration for final and binding determination in relation to the making of a first collective agreement between them.

"(2) The arbitrator or board of arbitration shall not include or require the parties to include in a collective agreement,

"(a) a term that requires the employer to guarantee an offer of a job for employees whose positions have been or may be eliminated or that otherwise compels the employer to continue to employ them; or

"(b) a term that relates to pensions, staffing levels or work assignments.

"(3) A provision in an agreement entered into before this section comes into force that authorizes an arbitrator or board of arbitration to include or to require the parties to include in a collective agreement a term described in subsection (2) is void.

"(4) Subsections (2) and (3) do not apply when the employer is an agency of the crown designated under clause 29.1(1)(a) of the Public Service Act."

Shall section 65.1 be an addition to the act?

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare the amendment carried.

Shall sections 66 through 68 be part of the act?

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare sections 66 through 68 part of the bill.

Mrs Witmer moves that subsection 13.1(2) of the Employment Standards Act, as set out in section 69 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"Application

"(2) This section applies if, on or after October 31, 1995 one employer begins to provide services at a premises replacing another employer who was providing the services."

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare the amendment carried.

Mrs Witmer moves that subsection 13.1(4) of the Employment Standards Act, as set out in section 69 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"Successor employer's obligation

"(4) If the successor employer does not employ an employee of the previous employer, the successor employer shall comply with part XIV in respect of the employee."

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare the amendment carried.

1820

Mrs Witmer moves that section 13.1 of the Employment Standards Act, as set out in section 69 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsections:

"Information

"(7.1) Upon request, an employer providing services at a premises shall give the owner or the manager of the premises such information as may be prescribed about the employees who are providing the services.

"Same

"(7.2) Upon request, the owner or manager of the premises shall give the information referred to in subsection (7.1) about the employees who are providing the services at the premises on the request date to a person who becomes a successor employer providing the services.

"Same

(7.3) Upon request, the owner or manager of the premises shall give such information as may be prescribed about the employees who are providing the services at the premises on the request date to a person who may become a successor employer providing the services.

"Use of information

"(7.4) A person to whom information is given under this section shall use the information only for the purpose of complying with this section.

"Confidentiality

"(7.5) A person in possession of information given under this section shall not disclose it except as authorized by this section.

"Regulations

"(7.6) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing information for the purposes of subsections (7.1) and (7.3)."

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare this amendment carried.

Mrs Witmer moves that section 13.1 of the Employment Standards Act, as set out in section 69 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Employment standards officer may make order

"(7.7) If a person fails to comply with this section, an employment standards officer may order what action, if any, the person shall take or what the person shall refrain from doing in order to constitute compliance with this section and may order what compensation shall be paid by the person to the director in trust for other persons."

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare this amendment carried.

Shall section 69, as amended, form part of the act?

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare that section 69, as amended, is part of the act.

Shall sections 70 through 72 form part of the act?

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare that sections 70 through 72 are part of the act.

Mrs Witmer moves that clause 58.1(2)(a) of the Employment Standards Act, as set out in subsection 73(1) of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"(a) regular wages, including commissions, overtime wages, vacation pay (other than vacation pay based on termination pay) and holiday pay."

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare the amendment to section 73 carried.

Shall section 73, as amended, form part of the act?

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare that section 73, as amended, is part of the act.

Shall sections 74 through 75 form part of the act?

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare that sections 74 through 75 form part of the act.

Mrs Witmer moves that section 76 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Transition, employee wage protection program

"76(1) The eligibility of an employee to receive compensation from the employee wage protection program under subsection 58.4(1) of the act is determined in accordance with this section for the following:

"1. For wages, excluding termination pay and severance pay, due and owing for a period that begins before September 7, 1995.

"2. For termination pay relating to a termination of employment that occurs before September 7, 1995 other than a layoff described in paragraph 3.

"3. For termination pay relating to a layoff that is deemed before September 7, 1995 to be a termination of employment.

"4. For severance pay relating to a dismissal described in clause (a) of the definition of `termination' in subsection 58(1) of the act that occurs before September 7, 1995.

"5. For severance pay relating to a layoff described in clause (b) of that definition that begins before September 7, 1995.

"6. For severance pay relating to a layoff described in clause (c) of that definition that, before September 7, 1995 equals 35 weeks in a period of 52 consecutive weeks.

"7. For termination pay relating to a termination of employment that occurs on or after September 7, 1995 other than a layoff described in paragraph 8.

"8. For termination pay relating to a layoff that is deemed on or after September 7, 1995 to have been a termination occurring before that date.

"9. For severance pay relating to a dismissal described in clause (a) of the definition of `termination' in subsection 58(1) of the act that occurs on or after September 7, 1995.

"10. For severance pay relating to a layoff described in clause (b) of that definition that begins on or after September 7, 1995.

"11. For severance pay relating to a layoff described in clause (c) of that definition that, on or after September 7, 1995, equals 35 weeks in a period of 52 consecutive weeks.

"(2) Subject to subsections (4), (5) and (6), the employee is eligible to receive compensation from the program in accordance with part XIV.1 of the act, as it reads before sections 73, 74 and 75 come into force, for amounts described in paragraphs 1 to 6 of subsection (1).

"(3) The employee is not eligible for compensation from the program for amounts described in paragraphs 7 to 11 of subsection (1).

"(4) The maximum amount of compensation that the employee is eligible to receive from the program in respect of his or her employment with an employer is $5,000 for the following:

"1. Wages, excluding termination pay and severance pay, that are due and owing for a period that begins before September 7, 1995 and ends on or after that date.

"2. Termination pay described in paragraphs 2 and 3 of subsection (1).

"3. Severance pay described in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of subsection (1).

"(5) The maximum amount of compensation that the employee is eligible to receive from the program is $5,000 for the following:

"1. Wages, excluding termination pay and severance pay, that are due and owing for a period that begins and ends before September 7, 1995.

"2. Termination pay described in paragraphs 2 and 3 of subsection (1).

"3. Severance pay described in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of subsection (1).

"(6) The maximum amount of compensation that the employee is eligible to receive from the program for wages, excluding termination pay and severance pay, that become due and owing on or after September 7, 1995 in respect of his or her employment with an employer is $2,000."

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare the amendment to section 76 is carried.

Shall section 76, as amended, form part of the bill?

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare that section 76, as amended, is part of the act.

Shall sections 77 and 78 form part of the bill?

All those in favour, please rise.

All those opposed?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 88; the nays are 15.

The Chair: I declare that sections 77 and 78 form part of the act.

1830

Mrs Witmer moves that subsection 65(6) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as set out in subsection 79(1) of the bill, be amended by adding at the beginning "Subject to subsection (7)."

All those in favour, please rise.

All those opposed?

The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

I declare the amendment to section 79 carried.

Mrs Witmer moves that subsection 79(1) of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection to section 65 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act after subsection 65(6) of that act:

"Exception

"(7) This act applies to the following records:

"1. An agreement between an institution and a trade union.

"2. An agreement between an institution and one or more employees which ends a proceeding before a court, tribunal or other entity relating to labour relations or to employment-related matters.

"3. An agreement between an institution and one or more employees resulting from the negotiations about employment-related matters between the institution and the employee or employees.

"4. An expense account submitted by an employee of an institution to that institution for the purpose of seeking reimbursement for expenses incurred by the employee in his or her employment."

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare the amendment to section 79 carried.

Mrs Witmer moves that subsections 79(2) and (3) of the bill be struck out.

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare the amendment carried.

Shall section 79, as amended, form part of the act?

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare that section 79, as amended, be part of the bill.

Mrs Witmer moves that subsection 52(3) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as set out in subsection 80(1) of the bill, be amended by adding at the beginning "Subject to subsection (4)."

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare the amendment carried.

Mrs Witmer moves that subsection 80(1) of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection to section 52 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act after subsection 52(3) of that act:

"Exception

"(4) This act applies to the following records:

"1. An agreement between an institution and a trade union.

"2. An agreement between an institution and one or more employees which ends a proceeding before a court, tribunal or other entity relating to labour relations or to employment-related matters.

"3. An agreement between an institution and one or more employees resulting from negotiations about employment-related matters between the institution and the employee or employees.

"4. An expense account submitted by an employee of an institution to that institution for the purpose of seeking reimbursement for expenses incurred by the employee in his or her employment."

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees): The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare the amendment carried.

Mrs Witmer moves that subsections 80(2) and (3) of the bill be struck out.

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare the amendment carried.

Shall section 80, as amended, form part of the act?

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare that section 80, as amended, form part of the act.

Section 81, same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare that section 81 is part of the act.

Mrs Witmer moves that section 82 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"82(1) Section 22 of the Public Service Act is amended by adding the following subsection:

"Same, reasonable notice

"(4.1) A deputy minister may release from employment in accordance with the regulations any public servant who is employed in a position or class of positions that is designated in the regulations on giving him or her reasonable notice or compensation in lieu of reasonable notice.

"(2) Subsection 29(1) of the act, as amended by the Statutes of Ontario, 1993, chapter 38, section 63, is further amended by adding the following clauses:

"(p.1) governing release from employment on reasonable notice or compensation in lieu of reasonable notice, including requiring a deputy minister to obtain the approval of the commission before exercising his or her authority under subsection 22(4.1);

"(p.2) designating positions or classes of positions for the purposes of subsection 22(4.1)."

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare the amendment carried.

Shall section 82, as amended, form part of the bill? Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare that section 82, as amended, form part of the act.

Mrs Witmer moves that subsections 83(1) and (2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Commencement

"83(1) This act, except as provided in subsections (2), (3), (4) and (5), comes into force on the day it receives royal assent.

"Same

"(2) Subsection 14(1) shall be deemed to have come into force on February 14, 1994."

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare the amendment to section 83 carried.

Mrs Witmer moves that subsection 83(4) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Same

"(4) The following provisions shall be deemed to have come into force on October 4, 1995:

"1. Subsection 1(3).

"2. Section 4.

"3. Subsection 22(1).

"4. Section 62.

"Same

"(5) Sections 68, 69 and 70 shall be deemed to have come into force on October 31, 1995."

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare the amendment carried.

Shall section 83, as amended, form part of the act?

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare that section 83, as amended, is part of the act.

Shall section 84 form part of the act?

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare that section 84 is part of the act.

Shall sections 1 through 3 of schedule A form part of the act?

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare that sections 1 through 3 of the schedule form part of the act.

Mrs Witmer moves that subsection 4(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, as set out in schedule A to the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"Certain crown agencies bound

"(1) This act binds agencies of the crown other than,

"(a) those that employ crown employees as defined in the Public Service Act; and

"(b) those that are designated under clause 29.1(1)(a) of the Public Service Act."

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

1840

The Chair: I declare the amendment 4(1) is carried.

Shall section 4 of the schedule, as amended, be carried?

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare that section 4, as amended, is part of the schedule.

Shall sections 5 and 6 of the schedule form part of the schedule?

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare that sections 5 and 6 of schedule A are part of it.

Mrs Witmer moves that subsections 7(9) and (10) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, as set out in Schedule A to the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"Bar to reapplying

"(9) If the trade union withdraws the application before a representation vote is taken, the board may refuse to consider another application for certification by the trade union as the bargaining agent of the employees in the proposed bargaining unit until one year or such shorter period as the board considers appropriate has elapsed after the application is withdrawn.

"Same

"(9.1) If the trade union withdraws the application after the representation vote is taken, the board shall not consider another application for certification by the trade union as the bargaining agent of the employees in the proposed bargaining unit until one year has elapsed after the application is withdrawn.

"Notice to employer

"(10) The trade union shall deliver a copy of the application for certification to the employer by such time as is required under the rules made by the board and, if there is no rule, not later than the day on which the application is filed with the board."

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare the amendment to subsections 7(9) and (10) of the schedule A carried.

Mrs Witmer moves that subsection 7(13) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, as set out in schedule A to the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"Same

"(13) If the employer disagrees with the description of the proposed bargaining unit, the employer may give the board a written description of the bargaining unit that the employer proposes and shall do so within two days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays and holidays) after the day on which the employer receives the application for certification."

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare the amendment carried.

Shall section 7, as amended, form part of the schedule?

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare that section 7 of schedule A is carried, as amended.

Mrs Witmer moves that subsections 8(2) and (3) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, as set out in schedule A to the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"Direction re representation vote

"(2) If the board determines that 40 per cent or more of the individuals in the bargaining unit proposed in the application for certification appear to be members of the union at the time the application was filed, the board shall direct that a representation vote be taken among the individuals in the voting constituency.

"Membership in trade union

"(3) The number of individuals in the proposed bargaining unit who appear to be members of the trade union shall be determined with reference only to the information provided in the application for certification and the accompanying information provided under subsection 7(12)."

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare the amendment to subsections 8(2) and (3) carried.

Mrs Witmer moves that subsection 8(5) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, as set out in schedule A of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"Timing of vote

"(5) Unless the board directs otherwise, the representation vote shall be held within five days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays and holidays) after the day on which the application for certification is filed with the board."

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare the amendment carried.

Shall section 8, as amended, be part of the schedule?

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare that section 8, as amended, form part of schedule A.

Shall section 9 form part of the schedule?

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare that section 9 is part of the schedule.

Mrs Witmer moves that subsection 10(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, as set out in schedule A to the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"Certification after representation vote

"(1) The board shall certify a trade union as the bargaining agent of the employees in a bargaining unit that is determined by the board to be appropriate for collective bargaining if more than 50 per cent of the ballots cast in the representation vote by the employees in the bargaining unit are cast in favour of the trade union."

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare the amendment carried.

Shall section 10, as amended, form part of the schedule?

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare section 10, as amended, part of the schedule.

Shall sections 11 through 15 form part of the schedule?

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare that sections 11 through 15 form part of the schedule.

Mrs Witmer moves that section 16 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, as set out in schedule A to the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"Notice of desire to bargain

"16. Following certification or the voluntary recognition by the employer of the trade union as bargaining agent for the employees in the bargaining unit, the trade union shall give the employer written notice of its desire to bargain with a view to making a collective agreement."

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare that the amendment is carried.

Shall section 16, as amended, form part of the schedule?

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare that section 16, as amended, form part of the schedule.

Shall sections 17 through 36 form part of the schedule?

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare that sections 17 through 36 form part of the schedule.

An amendment to section 37.

Mrs Witmer moves that subsection 37(2) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, as set out in schedule A to the bill, be amended by striking out `section 31' at the end and substituting `section 33.'

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare the amendment to subsection 37(2) carried.

Shall section 37, as amended, form part of the schedule?

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare that section 37, as amended, form part of the schedule.

Shall sections 38 through 42 form part of the schedule?

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare that sections 38 through 42 be part of the schedule.

An amendment to subsection 43(8).

Mrs Witmer moves that subsection 43(8) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, as set out in schedule A to the bill, be amended by striking out `section 116' in the fifth line and substituting `section 115.'

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare the amendment to subsection 43(8) carried.

Shall section 43, as amended, form part of the schedule?

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare that section 43, as amended, form part of the schedule.

1850

An amendment to section 44.

Mrs Witmer moves that section 44 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, as set out in schedule A to the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"Mandatory ratification vote

"44(1) A proposed collective agreement that is entered into or memorandum of settlement that is concluded on or after the day on which this section comes into force has no effect until it is ratified as described in subsection (3).

"Exceptions

"(2) Subsection (1) does not apply with respect to a collective agreement,

"(a) imposed by order of the board or settled by arbitration;

"(b) that reflects an offer accepted by a vote held under section 41 or subsection 42(1); or

"(c) that applies to employees in the construction industry.

"Vote

"(3) A proposed collective agreement or memorandum of settlement is ratified if a vote is taken in accordance with subsections 78(5) to (7) and more than 50 per cent of those voting vote in favour of ratifying the agreement or memorandum."

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare the amendment to section 44 carried.

Shall section 44, as amended, be part of the schedule?

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare that section 44, as amended, form part of the schedule.

Shall sections 45 through 47 form part of the schedule?

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare that sections 45 through 47 form part of the schedule.

An amendment to section 48.

Mrs Witmer moves that section 48 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, as set out in schedule A to the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Appointment of settlement officer

"(4.1) On the request of either party, the minister shall appoint a settlement officer to endeavour to effect a settlement before the arbitrator or arbitration board appointed under subsection (4) begins to hear the arbitration. However, no appointment shall be made if the other party objects. 1992, c.21, s.23(2)."

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare the amendment to section 48 carried.

Further amendment to section 48.

Mrs Witmer moves that subsection 48(11) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, as set out in schedule A to the bill, be amended by adding the following clause:

"(j) to interpret and apply human rights and other employment-related statutes, despite any conflict between those statutes and the terms of the collective agreement."

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare the amendment carried.

A further amendment to section 48.

Mrs Witmer moves that section 48 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, as set out in schedule A to the bill, be amended by adding the following subsections:

"Power re mediation

"(12.1) An arbitrator or the chair of an arbitration board, as the case may be, may mediate the differences between the parties at any stage in the proceedings with the consent of the parties. If mediation is not successful, the arbitrator or arbitration board retains the power to determine the difference by arbitration.

"Enforcement power

"(12.2) An arbitrator or the chair of an arbitration board, as the case may be, may enforce the written settlement of a grievance."

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare the amendment carried.

Shall section 48, as amended, be part of the schedule?

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69, the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare that section 48, as amended, be part of the schedule.

Shall sections 49 through 52 be part of the schedule?

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare that sections 49 through 52 are part of the schedule.

Amendment to section 53.

Mrs Witmer moves that section 53 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, as set out in schedule A of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"Certain agreements not to be treated as collective agreements

"53. An agreement between an employer or an employers' organization and a trade union shall be deemed not to be a collective agreement for the purposes of this act if an employer or employers' organization participated in the formation or administration of the trade union or contributed financial or other support to the trade union."

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare the amendment carried.

Shall section 53, as amended, form part of the schedule?

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare that section 53, as amended, form part of the schedule.

Mrs Witmer moves that the Labour Relations Act, 1995, as set out in schedule A of the bill, be amended by adding the following section:

"Discrimination prohibited

"53.1 A collective agreement must not discriminate against any person if the discrimination is contrary to the Human Rights Code or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 1992, c.21, s.26, part."

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare section 53.1 as part of the schedule.

Shall sections 54 to 61 form part of the schedule?

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare that sections 54 through 61 form part of the schedule.

Mrs Witmer moves that subsections 62(3) and (4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, as set out in schedule A to the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"Notice to employer, trade union

"(3) The applicant shall deliver a copy of the application to the employer and the trade union by such time as is required under the rules made by the board and, if there is no rule, not later than the day on which the application is filed with the board."

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare the amendment carried.

Mrs Witmer moves that section 62 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, as set out in schedule A to the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Same

"(7.1) The board may consider such information as it considers appropriate to determine the number of employees in the bargaining unit."

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare the amendment carried.

Mrs Witmer moves that subsection 62(9) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, as set out in schedule A to the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"Timing of vote

"(9) Unless the board directs otherwise, the representation vote shall be held within five days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays and holidays) after the day on which the application is filed with the board."

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare the amendment carried.

Mrs Witmer moves that section 62 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, as set out in schedule A to the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Sealing of ballot box, etc

"(10.1) The board may direct that one or more ballots be segregated and that the ballot box containing the ballots be sealed until such time as the board directs."

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare the amendment carried.

Mrs Witmer moves that section 62 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, as set out in schedule A to the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Same, employer misconduct

"(14.1) Despite subsections (6) and (13), the board may dismiss the application if the board is satisfied that the employer or a person acting on behalf of the employer initiated the application or engaged in threats, coercion or intimidation in connection with the application."

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare the amendment carried.

Shall section 62, as amended, form part of the schedule?

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare that section 62, as amended, form part of the schedule.

Shall sections 63 through 77 form part of the schedule?

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare that sections 63 through 77 form part of the schedule.

Mrs Witmer moves that subsection 78(3) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, as set out in schedule A to the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"Mandatory strike vote

"(3) If a collective agreement is or has been in operation, no employee shall strike unless a strike vote is taken 30 days or less before the collective agreement expires or at any time after the agreement expires and more than 50 per cent of those voting vote in favour of a strike.

"Same

"(3.1) If no collective agreement has been in operation, no employee shall strike unless a strike vote is taken on or after the day on which a conciliation officer is appointed and more than 50% of those voting vote in favour of a strike.

"Exception

"(3.2) Subsections (3) and (3.1) do not apply to an employee in the construction industry."

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare that the amendment to section 78 is carried.

1900

Mrs Witmer moves that subsections 78(5) and (6) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 as set out in schedule A to the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"Strike or ratification vote to be secret

"(5) A strike vote or a vote to ratify a proposed collective agreement or memorandum of settlement taken by a trade union shall be by ballots cast in such a manner that persons expressing their choice cannot be identified with the choice expressed.

"Right to vote

"(6) All employees in a bargaining unit, whether or not the employees are members of the trade union or of any constituent union of a council of trade unions, shall be entitled to participate in a strike vote or a vote to ratify a proposed collective agreement or memorandum of settlement."

Shall the amendment to section 78 be carried?

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare the amendment carried.

Shall section 78, as amended, form part of the schedule?

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare that section 78, as amended, is part of the schedule.

Shall sections 79 through 94 form part of the schedule?

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare that sections 79 through 94 are part of the schedule.

Mrs Witmer moves that subsections 95(6) and (7) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, as set out in schedule A to the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"Filing in court

"(6) A trade union, council of trade unions, employer, employers' organizations or person affected by the determination may file the determination, excluding the reasons, in the prescribed form in the Ontario Court (General Division) and it shall be entered in the same way as an order of that court and is enforceable as such. 1992, c. 21, s. 36(3).

"Effect of settlement

"(7) Where a proceeding under this act has been settled, whether through the endeavours of the labour relations officer or otherwise, and the terms of the settlement have been put in writing and signed by the parties or their representatives, the settlement is binding upon the parties, the trade union, council of trade unions, employer, employers' organization, person or employee who have agreed to the settlement and shall be complied with according to its terms, and a complaint that the trade union, council of trade unions, employer, employers' organization, person or employee who has agreed to the settlement has not complied with the terms of the settlement shall be deemed to be a complaint under subsection (1). RSO 1990, c. L.2, s. 91(7); 1992, c. 21, s. 36(4)."

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare the amendment carried.

Shall section 95, as amended, be part of the schedule?

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare that section 95, as amended, forms part of the schedule.

Shall sections 96 through 97 form part of the schedule?

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare that sections 96 through 97 form part of the schedule.

Mrs Witmer moves that subsection 98(10) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, as set out in schedule A to the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"Filing in court

"(10) A party to an interim or final order may file it, excluding the reasons, in the prescribed form in the Ontario Court (General Division) and it shall be entered in the same way as an order of that court and is enforceable as such. 1993, c. 38, s. 67(5), part."

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare the amendment carried.

Shall section 98, as amended, stand as part of the schedule?

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare that section 98, as amended, forms part of the schedule.

Shall sections 99 and 100 form part of the schedule?

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare that sections 99 and 100 stand as part of the schedule.

Mrs Witmer moves that section 101 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, as set out in schedule A to the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"Filing in court

"101. A party to a direction made under section 99 or 100 may file it, excluding the reasons, in the prescribed form in the Ontario Court (General Division) and it shall be entered in the same way as an order of that court and is enforceable as such. 1992, c. 21, s. 39."

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare the amendment to section 101 carried.

Shall section 101, as amended, form part of the schedule?

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare that section 101 of the schedule stand as part of the schedule.

Shall sections 102 through 109 form part of the schedule?

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare that sections 102 through 109 stand as part of the schedule.

Mrs Witmer moves that clause 110(2)(l) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, as set out in schedule A to the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"(1) to determine the form in which evidence of membership in a trade union or of signification by employees that they no longer wish to be represented by a trade union shall be presented to the board on an application for certification or for a declaration terminating bargaining rights, and to refuse to accept any evidence of membership or signification that is not presented in the form so determined."

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare the amendment to section 110 carried.

Shall section 110, as amended, stand as part of the schedule?

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare that section 110, as amended, form part of the schedule.

Shall sections 111 through 129 form part of the schedule?

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare that sections 111 through 129 stand as part of the schedule.

I declare the next amendment to be out of order. The proper way to put it out of order is to vote against it.

Shall section 130 of the bill stand?

Would all those in favour please stand.

Would all those opposed please stand.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 0; the nays are 103.

The Chair: I declare section 130 lost.

Shall sections 131 through 143 stand as part of the schedule?

The original vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare that sections 131 through 143 form part of the schedule.

1910

Motion 144 is out of order for the same reason. The way to strike it out is to vote against it.

Same vote as before?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 0; the nays are 103.

The Chair: I declare section 144 struck out.

Mrs Witmer moves that subsection 145(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, as set out in schedule A to the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"Filing in court

"(4) A party to a direction made under this section may file it, excluding the reasons, in the prescribed form in the Ontario Court (General Division) and it shall be entered in the same way as an order of that court and is enforceable as such. 1992, c. 21, s. 56."

Same original vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare the amendment carried.

Section 145 of the schedule, as amended, same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare that section 145, as amended, stand part of the bill.

Shall sections 146 through 159 form part of the schedule?

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare that sections 145 through 159 form part of the schedule.

Mrs Witmer moves that subsection 160(2) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, as set out in schedule A to the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"Direction for representation vote

"(2) If the board determines that 40 per cent or more of the individuals in the bargaining unit proposed in the application for certification appear to be members of the trade unions at the time the application was filed, the board shall direct that a representation vote be taken among the individuals in the voting constituency."

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare the amendment to subsection 160(2) carried.

Shall section 160, as amended, form part of the schedule?

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare that section 160, as amended, stand part of the schedule.

Shall sections 161 through 163 form part of the schedule?

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare that sections 161 through 163 form part of the schedule.

I declare that amendment 164 is out of order for the same reason.

Mrs Witmer moves that section 164 not be part of the bill.

Same vote as before?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 0; the nays are 103.

The Chair: I declare section 164 struck out.

Shall section 165 of the schedule stand as part of the bill?

Same original vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare that section 165 of the act stand part of the schedule.

Mrs Witmer moves that subsections 166(2) and (3) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, as set out in schedule A to the bill, be struck out.

All those in favour of the amendment?

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare the amendment carried.

Shall section 166, as amended, stand part of the schedule?

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare that section 166, as amended, form part of the act.

Shall sections 167 through 171 form part of the act?

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare that sections 167 through 171 stand part of the act.

Shall the title carry?

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I declare that the title stands.

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

Same vote?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 69; the nays are 34.

The Chair: I shall report the bill, as amended, to the House.

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance and Government House Leader): I move that the committee rise and report.

The Chair: Shall the motion carry? Agreed.

The committee begs to report one bill, as amended, to the House.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Shall the report be received and adopted?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare the motion carried.

We just went through a very uncomfortable exercise for me. I'm a little bit hoarse, but I would like to thank all of those in the opposition for their consideration, and thanks to the government for getting it through.

LABOUR RELATIONS AND EMPLOYMENT STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL ET L'EMPLOI

Mrs Witmer moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 7, An Act to restore balance and stability to labour relations and to promote economic prosperity and to make consequential changes to statutes concerning labour relations / Projet de loi 7, Loi visant à rétablir l'équilibre et la stabilité dans les relations de travail et à promouvoir la prospérité économique et apportant des modifications corrélatives à des lois en ce qui concerne les relations de travail.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Does the House leader have a statement?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance and Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, it's my understanding that we have unanimous agreement to divide the time on third reading equally among the three parties. We will start with the third party, move to the official opposition and then to the government, if that's acceptable.

The Deputy Speaker: The chair recognizes the member for Nickel Belt.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): The House is empty.

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): Yes. I've cleared bigger rooms than this.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): The government's not staying to listen?

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): They're leaving in shame.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Look at that. The entire government is walking out. They don't want to listen to the public. They don't even want to listen to the opposition.

The Deputy Speaker: We'll just be a minute.

1920

Mr Laughren: I know that members had to leave for other reasons than the fact that I rose to speak on this bill. At least that's a possibility.

I am pleased to speak on third reading of this bill. I must say that I was surprised when I first looked at Bill 7, because my memory does serve me well sometimes and I remember the day we introduced Bill 40, which the Tories were so opposed to, how the present Premier, then leader of the third party, rose to his feet and introduced a one-page bill that simply repealed our bill.

During the election campaign, both before and during the campaign, Mr Harris talked about repealing Bill 40, so everybody expected that they would indeed repeal Bill 40. Nobody was surprised with the fact that they were going to repeal Bill 40. What surprised all of us was the content of Bill 7. It contained a lot more than the repeal of Bill 40.

Now, I don't want to use unparliamentary language, but certainly the Premier and others misled the public of this province when they said they were going to repeal Bill 40 and did not explain at all that they were going to go beyond that. A lot of people were very surprised and disappointed that you didn't simply carry through with what you said you were going to do, and that's repeal Bill 40. We expected you to do that; that was a major part of your platform, but the fact that you've gone way beyond that is truly appalling.

I remember the days of picket line violence, and a lot of picket line violence, and I can remember the problems it caused the government of the day with Fleck Manufacturing, with Irwin Toy and Radio Shack -- I could go on and on -- when police escorted scabs through a legitimate picket line. If that's what you want, if you want that kind of confrontation in this province, you're doing the right thing, because that's what you're going to get.

It's not something that I like to see, it's not something that most people like to see, but I have this uneasy feeling that it will not make the Tories very unhappy to see police escorting scabs through a legitimate picket line. If that's your agenda for this province, then I feel sorry for working people in Ontario because that is hardly the kind of agenda that civilized people look for.

Once you get a law in place, such as Bill 40, that removes that possibility of picket line violence, why do you tamper with it? You cannot make the argument, you cannot make the argument and sustain it, that Bill 40 cost jobs and investment. It is impossible for you to sustain that argument because there is no evidence, and my colleagues have argued long and hard about the record investments that came into this province, particularly in the manufacturing area, particularly in the auto sector, while Bill 40 was in place.

So all it is is scratching you where you ideologically itch. That's all this bill is for. It is not to bring new investment into the province, because it won't do that. It simply won't do that. As a matter of fact, if I were the investor, one of the things that I'd be shying away from would be a jurisdiction where there was violence on the picket line. I can tell you that the labour movement will not sit back, working people will not sit back and watch you do this to them, because what you are really saying is that scabs are more important than the workers in that particular place. That's what you're saying.

Interjection.

Mr Laughren: Well, you are. You can be sure you will have the police out there escorting the scabs through the lawful picket lines. That's what you'll be doing, and you'll be living with that, because it has to happen. We've seen examples in other jurisdictions in this country when you allow scabs to go to work, and I'm thinking of Yellowknife. You've seen that. You know that it's inevitable. Well, if this Bill 40 had been in place in Yellowknife, that tragedy would not have happened.

Interjection.

Mr Laughren: Well, whether you like it or not. It makes you squirm a bit over there, but I can tell you that's one of the beauties of what Bill 40 did to labour peace. It said that if people go on a legitimate strike, scabs cannot come through that legitimate picket line. Now what you're saying is, "We endorse that happening." You actually endorse it with this bill.

Interjection.

Mr Laughren: I hope you feel good about it, because I want to tell you it's been a long time since any government in this province didn't bring in legislation that at least advanced the cause of labour somewhat. Different parties did it in different ways and advanced the cause of labour by different degrees. I can't remember a government that brought in labour legislation that's so anti-worker that it takes their rights back from prior to the Bill Davis years. That's what you're doing. I can't believe that you feel that this is good for Ontario. That is not the civilized way to work any more.

I can tell you that I can only imagine how you people will be squirming, and you backbenchers will be squirming, when there's violence on the picket line as those scabs are escorted through the picket line by the police -- by your police. That might make Mr Runciman happy, but it will not make the rest of the province happy.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): You speak out against it then. Say, "I oppose violence."

Mr Laughren: I see the backbenchers are starting to heckle, because I think some of them are feeling pretty uneasy about this bill. Because, mark my word, there's going to be trouble. Not because I want it, but because you are promoting it. With this bill, you are ensuring that before your first term is up there's going to be violence on the picket line.

Mr Baird: Just say it. Say, "I oppose violence."

Mr Laughren: What a silly interjection by the member for Nepean. I mean, that is really a ridiculous interjection. What you need to say as you stand proudly with this bill in your hand is that you oppose violence. I want to hear you say that.

Mr Baird: I oppose violence. I disagree with Gord Wilson. I will not participate in violence of any kind.

Mr Laughren: Then you tell me how you can support a piece of legislation like this which condones the scabs going through a picket line, escorted by police of course -- maybe private security police. We went through that, we went through that in this province and it was not a pretty sight, and what you are doing -- somehow you think that there's going to be a political gain for you, because you can't sustain the argument that there's any economic gain. You seem to think that there will be political gain for you with this stance against working people or, as you would see it, against unions.

That's how you see it. But I want to tell you, you're dead wrong. To go back on legislation that people have fought for for so long -- and your own governments, Tory governments brought in legislation that at least brought forward workers' rights. This is the first one that's taken away workers' rights. And you know what? Needlessly. Needlessly.

Mr Baird: What about the social contract?

Mr Laughren: I can tell you, the member for Nepean arguing about the social contract, I'll stand proudly and defend the fact that we saved 40,000 jobs in the public sector, which is more than you're going to do, my friend. You'll be taking jobs away from people in the public sector. We saved those jobs. So I don't need any lecture from a government that's taking away workers' rights and taking away their jobs at the same time.

I can tell you that we in this caucus are as opposed to this piece of legislation as, I guess, anything that you're likely to do in the next four or four and a half years, because it is so fundamentally wrong. It is so fundamentally wrong to be promoting this kind of behaviour on legal picket lines, because that's what you're doing. You will be promoting it by this piece of legislation.

I won't even comment on the -- well, I will a little bit. I don't think I've seen a Minister of Labour bring forth a piece of legislation that was in such a shambles as this minister did. I mean, that was a sad performance that we witnessed this afternoon, a truly sad performance. You know why? Because you are determined to do it fast, to do it right now. That's what you are determined to do.

If you had taken our advice, taken your time, drafted the legislation properly, gone out on the road, do you think that all these silly amendments that you had to make today wouldn't have been picked up in the clause-by-clause hearings across the province? Of course, they would have been. That's why you hold clause-by-clause hearings. Oh no, oh no, ideologically you didn't want to do that. You wanted to just jam it through.

I mean, that was embarrassing this afternoon. Even I, as an opposition member, was embarrassed as I watched the Minister of Labour in that shameful performance this afternoon. All was avoidable if you people had simply done as we asked, and that was simply to hold public hearings across the province on this bill to allow people to have a say in it. I think it would have opened some of your eyes about what the dangers are of what you're doing, and there are going to be dangers in what you've done.

I regret very much that it's come to this with this bill. We are now in third reading stage and it will be the law of the land very shortly, and I regret that very much because I think it's completely unnecessary. I can tell you that I don't look forward to the day when I turn on my TV at night and watch the TV cameras show policemen escorting scabs through a legitimate picket line because of the legislation that you've brought in.

Madam Speaker, I'm going to reserve the balance of the time for my leader.

1930

Mr Bob Rae (York South): I want to say to my colleagues opposite that we fully recognize that the die is cast and that the government has made its decision, and I think really what we're doing in this debate this evening is simply setting down a few markers that we can at least point to and say, when we look at the subsequent history of labour relations in the province, that we warned the Conservative government of the day of the very shortsightedness of what they are deciding to do.

The province of Quebec brought forward legislation on ending picket line violence following a series of major and tragic events in the construction industry and in other industrial settings and the election of 1976.

To me, it's very interesting to contrast the behaviour of the Ontario business community with the behaviour of the Quebec business community in response to that particular measure. I think it's safe to say that the Quebec business community was not only sceptical but very strongly opposed to the decision of the Quebec government to bring in anti-scab legislation, but they signalled that, having opposed it, they would then be willing to work with it, and in my discussions with Quebec business leaders, of which I've had several over the last decade, I've really been struck by the maturity and by the understanding which they now have of the logic of that measure. As one of them put it to me, "We no longer have an insecure relationship; we have a secure relationship, and there is much greater mutual respect and mutual understanding and there is an appreciation that both sides come to the bargaining table with something to offer."

It's very interesting that when Mr Bourassa was elected in 1984, he did not repeal the legislation on strikebreakers; he left it in place. One might well ask why a Liberal, who was elected with a large majority in 1984, took the position he did.

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): Flip-flop.

Mr Rae: Well, you can criticize Mr Bourassa if you want, but from my experience he's one of the wisest men in Canadian public life, and I think he did it, having a very close relationship with the leadership of the Quebec business community, because they felt it was something they wanted to live with and because, on balance, it was better to have a sense of solidarity and a sense of labour peace and a sense of security and a sense of mutual respect than it was to have the opposite. Mr Bourassa did not want a return to the lack of civility, to the insecurity and to the real social tensions that were a feature of Quebec society prior to 1976. Members opposite will recall many large strikes, losses of days, weeks, months of work, extensive social conflict in that province prior to the 1976 election.

It's very interesting to me when I look at the history of Bill 40. No piece of legislation received the same kind of ideological, frankly thoughtless attacks as did Bill 40. The business community didn't want to listen. They didn't want to look at the experience of Quebec. They didn't want to look at the difference in terms of labour-management relations, the difference in terms of days lost to strikes. They didn't want to know.

There was one marvellous poster put out by the Toronto Construction Association that had a picture of I think it was Lenin, Marx and me: a most unlikely trio, if anyone really knew anything about me, and I think my colleagues can vouch for how unlikely that trio in particular is.

Mr Pouliot: I think that's insulting to your leadership.

Mr Rae: My colleague the member for Lake Nipigon has always been a most loyal and effective member of our group.

But it is fascinating to me to have lived through the comments and the statements that were made, fascinating because no group was more adamant than the newspaper publishers. No group was, frankly, more determined to move in as employers and let me know what they thought. No group was more insistent on consultation and discussion. And no group has had greater difficulty in separating out its business interests from its editorial positions.

We had the fact of the newspaper publishers coming to see me on one day, and then the next week, after a meeting in which I said that I would not relent on the major premise of the anti-scab law but we would look at other amendments and other possibilities, I then found in the subsequent weeks that the coverage began to mount up, that the editorials began to heighten and that the interest was taken up most dramatically in the event.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): Richard Nixon should have been on that billboard.

Mr Rae: My colleague from Renfrew, who of course was one of our most merciless critics, he too rode that particular wave. I would recommend to the newly elected member from Windsor that he might learn something by reading through Hansard and seeing what some of his colleagues had to say on the occasion of the passage of Bill 40.

I know that the Liberal Party, who were most adamant in criticizing us on Bill 40, will be equally adamant in criticizing the Tories on Bill 7. Then we will still be trying to surmise what in fact is the position of the Liberal Party, though I must say while we're in opposition together we're certainly prepared to work hard with them in opposition to Bill 7. Whether they prefer working with us to working with the Conservatives against Bill 40, I have no idea, and I'm not sure I really want to know the answer.

The experience of Bill 40: We were told it would cause wrack and ruin. We were told it would bring the province to its knees. We were told that there would be no more investment, ever. We were told that there would be a complete decline in job creation.

The bill was passed in the fall of 1992. The economy began to recover in 1993. It recovered most strongly in 1994. In fact, 1994 was the year of the best growth that we had in seven years.

The facts will show that Bill 40 had absolutely nothing to do with investment, frankly, one way or the other. It did, I believe, over time, because of the dramatic reduction in days lost to strikes and because of the sense of stability that was created in a great many bargaining relationships. I was struck: Now, why did it create stability in bargaining relations?

I'm not going to mention the name of the plant, but I went through a plant in London. I was accompanied by my colleague the member for London Centre. We went through a factory -- it was an organized factory -- and I said I said to the manager of the factory: "How are things? How is your relationship?" This was in 1993. He said, "It's never better." I said, "Why is that?" He said, "Don't quote me." I'm quoting him; I'm not citing him, so I'm not really saying anything out of the ordinary. He said, "Don't quote me, but Bill 40."

I said, "Why Bill 40?" He said, "Because we do not want to have a strike. And because we do not want to have a strike, we know -- and everybody knows our financial situation; it can't get any better. We all know that we're competing, that we can't afford to raise wages dramatically higher than inflation," and inflation was running at zero at that time. He said: "We have no choice but to get along. We have no choice but to work with them in terms of committees. We have no choice but to create a stable, sensible relationship. There is no possibility of our going around and trying to break this union. There's no possibility of our going around trying to create instability, and that is what is creating the climate for a stable relationship."

That is what people were telling me in private. That is not, of course, what they've said in public. But what I found remarkable about the overall business onslaught on Bill 40 was that it carried on to a peak of hysteria until the fall of 1992, and then the day the bill was passed, it stopped; we no longer had it as an issue. In fact, investment increased, investment improved. We had more foreign investment in 1992, 1993, 1994 than ever before in Ontario's history. Productivity improved, job creation improved, investment went up. We made steady progress in getting out of that recession which had been such a powerful part of our experience between 1989 and 1992.

1940

So we are left then with I guess one of the most interesting examples of what this government is all about, and my colleague the deputy leader, my good friend the member from Nickel Belt, I think has pointed out very clearly what this is all about.

This government is not about experience; it's not about the facts; it's not about what's really going on out there; it's not about, frankly, the truth; it's not about what's really taking place. It's about ideology, it's about fiction and it's about their own values being imposed on the rest of the world, regardless of the facts and regardless of the truth.

I've never seen a government that was more determined to act in accordance with an ideology rather than with the facts. Tomorrow we're going to be debating again Bill 8, in which a falsehood is told in the title of the bill, and because it's repeated -- as many propagandists over centuries have told us, if you repeat something over and over again, people might start to believe it. This government obviously fixated on that somehow it's going in the right direction, even if it's false, even if it's untrue, even if it's not the case. The more you repeat it and the bigger the untruth, as we all know from the theories of propaganda, and the more and the louder you tell it, the more likely it is eventually to be believed. But that doesn't happen to make it true.

And so we have it in this bill. We have, by rote, the statements from the government saying that Bill 40 is a job killer. That happens to be false. That happens to be completely untrue. It happens to have no basis in fact. It happens to be the biggest fib one can imagine.

But they tell it over and over again, and if they tell it over and over again, they believe that it's true. People say to me, "What is Bill 40?" because they don't know what Bill 40 is. It's just another name or title for a bill. We say, "That's the bill that prevents people from replacing workers and from bringing people across the picket line and from disrupting a peaceful strike." They say, "Well, are they saying that the existence of unions themselves is a job killer?"

You see, this puts this government at odds not with me, or not only with me -- it certainly puts them at odds with me, but not only with me -- and not only with the Liberal government between 1985 and 1990; it puts them at odds with virtually every government in this province since 1943.

I would remind you that that is when the current context of labour relations was established in Canada, because at that brief moment in time, because of the Second World War, all labour relations were covered by national law and not simply by provincial law. As we all know, it was at that time that the principles of the Wagner Act were introduced into Canada and the ability of people to organize in the private sector, for unions to be certified when a majority of people had either signed cards or expressed a desire to join a trade union, were then certified. There was then bargaining required, and then there were contracts and collective agreements which followed.

The basic structure which was put in place was not put in place by a New Democratic Party government; it was put in by William Lyon Mackenzie King and it was put in in Ontario by George Drew. Ever since George Drew, we've had a process of certification, a process of bargaining, a process in which the policy of the government of Ontario has been to encourage collective bargaining -- not only to permit it but to encourage it -- and to make sure that unfair labour practices did not take place.

The first government that we've had in modern history, since 1943, which based itself on the premise that unions are bad, that unions are to be discouraged, that the formation of unions is to become more difficult, that workers who are fired as a result of wanting to organize are not going to get the protection of the law, that there is going to be a constant encouragement to decertification and to instability in bargaining and instability in labour relations, the first government in the modern history of the province to do that is the Conservative government led by Premier Harris -- this government. George Drew didn't do it. Tom Kennedy didn't do it, Leslie Frost didn't do it, John Robarts didn't do it, Bill Davis didn't do it, Frank Miller didn't do it, David Peterson didn't do it and I certainly didn't do it, but the Harris government is doing it.

I think we have to understand the full dimensions of what's happening here. This is not simply a rewriting of Bill 40. This is not simply saying the little bit of progress that we made is going to be repealed. No, no, no, that's not what they're doing. They're doing that, but they're doing much more. They're taking money out of workers' pockets because the wage protection fund which we brought in at the height of the recession as a way of protecting the workers' wages and providing them with basic insurance is being depleted and money is being taken out of workers' pockets as a result, money which they are owed, money which they need, money which they deserve. If somebody carries employees for six weeks and then says, "Sorry, I don't have the money," they're out of luck.

Mr Pouliot: But the banks get paid.

Mr Rae: I would point out, as my colleague the member for Lake Nipigon has pointed out, the banks get paid; others are secured. What we're saying is, if it's good enough for the banks to be a secure lender and it's good enough for the trust companies to be a secure lender, then it ought to be good enough for the workers of the province to get paid dollar on the dollar for the work they have done.

The Tory party never campaigned saying it would get rid of the wage protection fund. If they'd said that during the election, if they'd said they were going to dilute it, if they'd said they were going to take the money away, if they'd said they were going to cut the program back, they would not have had the support on election day that they had. They concealed that fact from the workers of the province. They did not tell the people of the province the truth in the election campaign.

This government likes to say, "Oh well, we may be controversial but at least we're doing what we said." Not true. You said you'd protect health care; you haven't done that. You said you wouldn't cut back on health care; you haven't done that. You never said a peep, you never said a word, you never said a thing about how you were going to be taking money away from workers, how you were going to be depriving the most vulnerable people in the province of their wages that they are owed.

I think it's disgraceful. I think it's absolutely disgraceful that somebody who's owed, say, $3,000 or $4,000 in wages for work that they've actually done, for money that's actually been earned, for the sweat they've actually put out, would not have some fund to go to, to get fully compensated for that. I think it's disgraceful.

Mr Laughren: It's disgusting.

Mr Rae: I think it truly is disgusting. It's just wrong. So what we need to do is to say that workers should be paid, workers should be compensated, workers should be getting what they deserve. We were never told. It was kept hidden. It was kept secret. It was kept away from the workers of the province.

Then we have the treatment of workers in the public sector. It has been a principle of labour relations in this province that if you have a collective agreement with an employer and that employer is bought or sold, you get the contract with it, just as when you sell a house you get the tenants, and it's a basic premise -- you can't evict people simply on the basis of saying: "I want to sell. I'm sorry, you're out of luck." Imagine if the owner of an apartment that had 40 apartments in it said, "I want to sell my apartment building and you're all gone." No, no, the law would say no.

Mr Pouliot: Up till now.

Mr Rae: Up till now, anyway.

By the same token, if a large factory is sold to a subsequent purchaser, the workers don't lose the collective bargaining rights that they have. They have some rights. Those rights pertain to them. They are, if you like, the common-law rights which have been built up, protected now by legislation which is clearly in place.

1950

I find it fascinating that a government which says that it wants to bring private sector principles into government and into the workings of government would say, "We're going to treat ourselves differently than we treat any other business." On successor rights, it's very clear. On successor rights, public sector employees now are out of luck. They have no protection, they have no assurance, they have no guarantee that they're going to be well treated, that at least if we go into this exercise of privatization -- and we have no idea how extensive it is.

We were told that it was going to affect the liquor board; then we heard rumours that it was not going to affect the liquor board. We're told that there are plans for Ontario Hydro; we don't know what they are. Presumably one day, perhaps even this week, we'll hear what the government's plans are with respect to Ontario Hydro. We're told -- we hear rumours -- about work that's been going on in Comsoc and work that's been going on in MEDT and the Ministry of Transportation. There was a story in the paper the other day that perhaps at Correctional Services some facilities were going to be sold or taken over by the private sector. We don't know.

I would suspect that I'm no more or less in the dark than the backbenchers who are listening to these remarks. They, I'm sure, go into caucus fully armed with all the information that they need. For the moment, they're prepared to trust the government, because we're still in this period when of course you have great faith in the cabinet and in the judgement of the Premier.

Ms Lankin: Not after that display today.

Mr Rae: But I can tell you, you look at what happened today. You look at the experience that we've had from this government, the screwup on the regulations over welfare. Every member is on the line for those screwups, you know. It's not just the minister who has to answer the phone at the end of the day; it's each and every member who has to respond in the constituency office to people who are worried and scared and who wonder what's happening.

I can tell you -- I will guarantee it; mark my words today -- this government has made mistakes, simple drafting errors in the construction of this legislation. How do I know that? Because it always happens. My colleague from Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry knows exactly why I'm saying this. You have a government. They rush in with a huge bill. They then rush in with a huge series of amendments. They don't know what's in them; the minister doesn't have a clue as to what they're all about.

They've all been drafted by someone else. She wouldn't know what's in any of that material. She wouldn't even have seen it. She hasn't read it any more than I have. She doesn't know what's in it, one way or the other. It was clear today she didn't know what was there and what wasn't there. We got a package of amendments on Friday. Then we get another package today which amends the amendments they gave us on Friday.

Don't pretend over there that this is somehow some all-seeing and all-knowing process. As someone once said, you don't want to know how people make laws any more than you want to know how people make sausages. That is exactly what we're seeing today with this.

Mr Bradley: Who said that, anyway?

Mr Rae: I think it was Jim Bradley who said that, though I don't know whether he's a sausage eater or not. I have no idea.

But this is what I mean: As a process this truly stinks. It really stinks. Let's face it. You have a government which is driven by an ideology which has got nothing to do with the facts. It has nothing to do with what's really going on. You have companies which have practical experience saying: "Don't go so fast. We're not quite sure what this is all about."

We're hearing from people in the private sector who say: "Why do I need all this aggravation about decertification? I want to know who I'm dealing with from day to day. I don't want to have the contracts blown up every five days. I don't want to have conflict going on in the workforce. I don't want to have tension taking place in the workplace. I want to have a secure, knowledgeable, highly trained workforce."

This is where this government has such a silly attitude towards the modern workforce and what's going on. They talk about democracy. We're all in favour of democracy. It would be great to see more elections for boards of directors. I mean, talk about democratic. You want to talk democracy? We could have lots of democracy going around. A lot of democracy would be required. It might even catch on.

But what we need here is a reality test. Just as the reality test over photo-radar will be, in a year's time, whether the number of accidents and deaths has gone up or gone down, the reality test for this legislation will be, over time, whether the amount of conflict and harm has gone up or gone down. That's the test, not ideology, not "I don't like this because I don't like it."

I mentioned the example of photo-radar because anecdotally -- and we'll find out the facts over time -- I'm convinced that highway speed on the sections of the 401 that were covered by photo-radar has gone up. I would love to see the reports from the OPP, because I talk a great deal to OPP officers, and I would love to see their reports dealing with their experience and their views.

Similarly, the test of this legislation is going to be the real experience on the ground, in the factories, of what is happening: How many grievances do we have? How many days lost to strikes do we have? How much productivity has increased or decreased and whether in fact the climate and the attitude of those engaged in labour relations is made easier or harder. That is going to be the test.

I'm prepared to live by that test. I'm prepared to say to members opposite that we will be looking hard at the experience of the next while to see what changes need to be brought in in 1998 and 1999, when we form the next government.

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): Does Jim Bradley agree with that? That's the question.

Mr Rae: Look, stranger things have happened. In fact a stranger thing did happen: You got in.

Laughter.

Mr Rae: My colleagues in the Liberal Party who are laughing, you laughed at us in the early 1980s as well. Things happen.

What I would say to you is this: We have a piece of legislation which is brought in for reasons of ideology. We have a piece of legislation, as has been so eloquently described by my colleague the member for Nickel Belt, which is going to increase the amount of conflict and increase the amount of harm. We have legislation which is not going to produce a more constructive and positive atmosphere in the workplace. That is why we are opposed to it, not because of any particular ideology on my part.

Experience, I think, teaches us that unions contribute to productivity; that unions contribute to a better wage structure; that unions permit a greater equality in terms of relationships in the workplace; that they allow a democracy, because they allow for advocacy and the resolution of grievances; and that in fact they are a good expression of democracy and a good expression of people having their rights and using their rights and taking advantage of their democratic rights within the workplace. This is the experience of the Ontario people.

To me, it is a great pity, indeed it's a tragedy that we have not been able to take advantage of the positive climate that has been produced over the last several years. I regret it. I think this government has missed an opportunity to take advantage of a group of people who want to be partners. If you treat people like partners, they will respond like partners; if you treat people like outsiders, they will respond like outsiders. That is exactly what you are doing to the labour movement. The minister doesn't understand this, the cabinet doesn't understand it, the Tory caucus doesn't understand it, but I think ultimately the people of Ontario will understand it.

2000

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): It is with a certain amount of sorrow that I rise today to speak briefly about what has happened and what is going to happen.

The government has proceeded, in our view, too far and too fast in terms of its amendments to the Labour Relations Act and the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, CECBA. We believe that the proper role for government is to be an honest broker in labour relations. Labour must be recognized as a partner in growth. In Ontario we have an educated, skilled and experienced workforce and that workforce has given us productivity and growth and led to new investment in Ontario.

The steps this government has taken, both substantively in the content of the bill and also in terms of process, in terms of jamming it down our throats and into law in Ontario, has left us with both bad public policy and a dangerously flawed statute that this government will have to debate again in the none-too-distant future.

We in this party believe that workers ought to be treated as equals in the economy. We in this party are opposed to the use of scabs. We believe that the amount of violence on the shop floor will increase. We believe that the consequences of this bill will be felt for many, many years to come and that the government went far beyond the repeal of Bill 40. As the leader of the third party said, it takes us back to a time long, long ago, when it wasn't uncommon for the governments of the day to try and break unions or prevent them from coming into our province.

Indeed, it was my predecessor from the riding of Windsor-Walkerville, the Honourable David Croll, who resigned from a former cabinet when his Premier sent in the OPP to break heads. He said, "I would rather walk with the workers than ride with General Motors." I proudly join him and my party proudly joins him and the thousands of workers in this province who continue to march to this day.

This step backwards in time is, in our view, the first mistake this government has made. It won't be the last. They will regret it. They are sowing the seeds of a recession. Declines in productivity will lead to declines in investment and job growth. We too will be vigilant in seeing what the consequences of this statute are and we will speak strongly in the months and years ahead about this mistake.

When the government has to open the Labour Relations Amendment Act again -- and it will, probably fairly soon -- we will be there to address the problems that it has created by the way it has conducted itself today in forcing closure and attempting to deal with 63 amendments in the span of two hours without any public hearings. We're appalled by their actions. I'm proud to be voting against Bill 7.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I just want to speak briefly to those portions of the act that involve agriculture. I'm pleased that the definition of "agriculture" and its exclusion from this act are included under schedule A, subsection 1(1).

But I am concerned that a group like the Ontario Federation of Agriculture would have written to the minister recently, and I'm quoting from the letter: "In regards to specific provisions under Bill 7 related to agriculture, LICC" -- which is Labour Issues Coordinating Committee -- "supports the wording of the agriculture definition that will be incorporated into the Ontario Labour Relations Act." But they recommend "that a similar definition of horticulture be included. This would ensure the full range of horticultural operations," that it would be defined within the horticultural exemption. Unfortunately, the government has chosen not to put that definition in.

In addition to that, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture remains concerned about the long-term implications of Bill 7 to our industry. As you know, prior to the last government's labour reform initiatives, the union movement had attempted to challenge the agricultural exclusion under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The issue was addressed by legislation and therefore the challenge was not pursued. It is reasonable to expect that unions may again seek to test the validity of the agricultural exclusion under the charter, and the OFA trusts that the government, having restored the original agricultural exclusion, will be committed to participate fully in the defense if this becomes necessary.

We heard a lot today from the Premier earlier saying the public should be consulted and listened to and we've heard that the government should be open, but I'm afraid in this instance they've decided not to listen to agriculture, and for that I'm sorry.

Finally, I do want to point out that we did support sections 77 and 78, the exclusion of agriculture, because we really do feel that agriculture is its own special industry, that there is a time when the crop is ready, and that time is when it should be taken off and it shouldn't be delayed by any labour strike.

In general, I will not be supporting this bill, because it is so flawed; because today there have been so many amendments made by the government on such short notice, which is an indication of how flawed it is. I would hope that there are others in this House, even some on the other side, who might consider what a poor piece of legislation this is.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I rise with my colleagues in opposition to Bill 7. Bill 7, in our view, is the absolutely worst message that can be sent out at a time when this province needs balance, when this province needs harmony in the workplace, when this province needs cooperation between workers and employers. Trust and harmony between management and workers will be destroyed. This bill in my view will discourage, not encourage, investment in Ontario. This radical approach does not help create the kind of positive environment we need for business to invest and grow in Ontario.

Bill 7 sends out a wrong message. It sends out a message that in Ontario we're willing to sacrifice the most fundamental principle that is sought after by trade unions worldwide, and that is the principle and the right to withdraw services without the fear of having replacement workers come in and take their jobs.

How do we have balance when we have a situation where all the rights are given to one side and not the other? This fundamental right is very important and is a great loss to all organized labour.

Many members have spoken to the effects that Bill 7 has on labour in general. I want to speak briefly to the impact it is going to have on the construction industry, an industry that is hurting in this province.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Why are you changing your position now?

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): The member for Carleton, please come to order.

Mr Agostino: Since 1961, Progressive Conservative governments have recognized that the legislation appropriate for manufacturing and other non-construction sectors was not appropriate for the construction industry and that special treatment in the Labour Relations Act was required. This bill has taken all that away. You have failed to recognize the special needs that exist in the construction industry, the short time that is often necessary for certification and the process involved as a result of people being able to enter the industry with little capital and get into workplaces and often undermine and undercut and underbid unionized construction workers.

You are going to encourage that by the change you have made to this bill. Creating artificial barriers to the certification process as it existed prior to Bill 40 is fundamentally unfair interference with the rights of construction workers to bargain collectively, and they will regard it as an all-out assault on unionized construction workers and their employers rather than a misguided attempt to correct perceived inequities caused by the New Democratic Party government and their bill, in your view.

Bill 7 is the wrong message. Bill 7 is the type of bill that today will cause the same type of perception in this province and across this country that you believe Bill 40 caused when the NDP put it in place a number of years ago.

2010

If you're sincere about trying to restore the balance that you claim is necessary, you're not doing it with Bill 7. Bill 7 is not going to create a level playing field. It will create gross inequities in the workplace. It will cause unrest on the shop floors across this province. It's going to cause violence on the picket lines. It's going to mean that police officers, who have many other more important things to do, have to be there to act as mediators, because of the bill and the changes you have put in place.

If the Minister of Labour thinks this is not going to cause that, I'd like her to stand shoulder to shoulder with the steelworkers in Hamilton or across this province when they're on strike, then let the companies try to bring scabs across that line, because you will now allow that to happen unfettered and you're going to cause total chaos in this province.

Interjection.

Mr Agostino: This government and the minister there, who's yapping away, are going to cause the type of violence that will happen on the picket lines, because when you take away the balance and you take away the right of workers to strike without having replacement workers come in, you're going to encourage exactly what will happen.

Hon Mr Sterling: You encourage it. You take advantage of it, like Gord Wilson.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Carleton, please come to order.

Mr Agostino: Prosperity and stability will be destroyed as a result of the action of this government, and you will regret this bill. You will regret the way you've put it through. Workers across this province, unionized and non-unionized -- you're going to pay the price on election day.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): It's a sad day for us to be here, to speak to Bill 7 and its being rammed through the House in such a manner.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Mississauga South is not in her seat and is out of order.

Mrs Pupatello: In fact, I think it's likely one thing that's going to start business realizing that they perhaps shouldn't have been so supportive of this government.

What matters most to investors is the perception of business opportunity. What matters most to business is that the business opportunity actually exists.

Bill 40 needed to be balanced. That was clear. There was a perception that Bill 40 left the balance out of sync and was weighted too heavily towards labour. We believe that a compromise was required.

I spoke with business people in my home town and talked to them about what they truly think, now that they'll see the repealing of Bill 40 in its entirety. I asked them, "What is it that matters most to you in terms of what government inflicts on business?" They said, "What matters to me is the bottom line." What truly matters to business is the bottom line. What really matters is lower tax rates, specifically lower corporate tax rates. They believe in things like investment tax credits. They think that governments should let business make more money.

One company, during Bill 40's implementation, did move its next expansion to the US. We thought it was likely because of Bill 40, and I spoke with him and asked him if that was the case. He said Bill 40 was only part of it. In fact, Indiana was offering very attractive incentives to bring business to their state. That's really what drove business from Ontario to a state.

Now that this is happening and Bill 7 is coming in, this company in particular is expanding, but back in Ontario again. I said, "Is this because Bill 40 is being repealed?" He said, "No, it's because the Canadian dollar versus the American makes it much more attractive to be here." Even this government couldn't take advantage or say that you really influenced the Canadian dollar.

You see, what I've got to tell you is that government has so many ways to be of interest to business and ways to improve their bottom line. I think attacking labour won't do it. Surely, so many of us know in the House that labour is only one part of what makes business work, perhaps one fifth of all the components that are required in a successful business.

This government should be spending more time streamlining the administration business is forced to cope with. Perhaps they should be targeting corporate tax rates, much like the Liberal position during the campaign. Perhaps they ought to be improving trade opportunities with the rest of the world. Unlike the NDP government that closed down 17 trade offices around the world in June 1994, instead we should be looking to other markets, seeing how the rest of the world does business and following suit. We certainly don't see the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism standing up and proclaiming all the wonderful things he's doing for business in Ontario.

So I've got to tell you, the introduction of Bill 7 indeed creates havoc in the workplace -- less productivity, not more. This government's own numbers will show that provincial revenues are down $500 million, perhaps $750 million, and that's only in the first five months of government. Bill 7 won't help you increase your provincial revenues. It won't bring you any closer to balancing your budget.

We've seen the public response to what you're doing with Bill 7, and I've got to tell you that a very large sector of the public -- that is, the working people of Ontario -- is not pleased. The majority of the people out there want compromise, and that's what this government should have been prepared to look at -- at least consider a compromise.

I too would like to quote a member from Windsor, David Croll, the Minister of Public Welfare, Labour and Municipal Affairs in 1937 at the height of the Oshawa strike. It was interesting that he should say: "In my official capacity I have travelled the middle of the road, but now that you have put the extreme alternative to me, my place is marching with the workers."

I want to tell you that business and labour leaders can find a workable solution, they can find a compromise, but the reality is that you didn't even ask them to do that.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Sadly, labour relations in Sudbury have gone through many tumultuous times. One only has to visit the Mine Mill Hall in Sudbury to see the photos of past strikes lining the halls to gain an appreciation of the difficult times that labour has had in Sudbury. I'm fearful that with what this government has done today, we've returned to those very dark days.

This legislation is flawed and has been flawed from its very inception. In the preamble, the Minister of Labour states, "Bill 7 reforms will restore balance to labour-management relationships."

Let me give you a few personal observations within my own riding. Two weeks ago, after the introduction of this bill, Dave Campbell, president of Local 6500 of the United Steelworkers of America, quit the Sudbury Regional Development Corp because of Bill 7. Last Thursday a consumer boycott of businesses which support the Harris agenda was announced by the Sudbury and District Labour Council. On Friday, Rolly Gauthier, president of the Mine Mill United Auto Workers, Local 598, along with Local 6500 of the United Steelworkers of America, urged Inco and Falconbridge employees to withhold the spending of nickel bonuses on businesses supporting Bill 7.

Union leaders within Sudbury and from all over the province predict a return to picket line violence because of Bill 7. Bill 7 does not move labour relations ahead but in fact is regressive and destroys the relationship between labour and management. Ontario needed a balanced approach to labour relations; Bill 7 doesn't provide for that. It does nothing to spur on the economy. What it is designed to do is to empower the government with the ability to throw thousands of people out of work.

This dramatic swing to the right serves only to alienate labour by excluding them from the political process. This is a knee-jerk response to the previous government's ignorance of management and it is no solution to the current imbalance in labour relations.

Tonight, we are witnessing a government that is driven by an experiment drafted by a few corporate interests that is intentionally antagonizing labour. Make no mistake; this current government's agenda is narrow in focus and ideologically based. What we needed was an end product that would provide for job creation. Bill 7 doesn't do it.

Ontario doesn't need a return or the inception of Tennessee-style labour legislation for economic renewal and job growth to proceed. The deliberate -- and it is deliberate -- provocation of labour in this province by the current government will only serve to destabilize the economy in a time of fragile economic growth.

We should all understand that the relationship between labour and management does not have to be confrontational and it does not have to be negative. This dynamic, if brokered by a government with the right intentions, should provide an economic environment conducive to economic growth and prosperity. If brokered by a government that will listen to both labour and management in an effort to arrive at consensus, then, and only then, will we arrive at a balance in labour relations that is conducive to job creation and economic growth. And Bill 7 doesn't do it.

2020

What this province needs from this government are ideas on creating jobs and economic growth and not on the implementation of a theory that involves deliberately provoking labour with regressive components of a bill designed to kick sand in the face of labour. I want to make it very clear that this bill will not restore the balance to labour relations in this province. It is more than evident with this bill that common sense has clearly taken a back seat to ideology.

Bill 7 goes beyond the simple repeal of Bill 40. This government is using the repeal of Bill 40 to inflict damage on the gains made by labour over the past 50 years. This ideological assault on labour invites a return to the kind of picket line violence that the people of my riding, Sudbury, thought was behind them. This government clearly does not recognize the price to be paid for such ideologically based labour relation experiments.

The price will be paid in the very near future and it will be in the form of lost cooperation, lost man-hours, lost production, lost opportunities and lost profits. This price will be paid by all Ontarians.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I too rise to basically condemn the government with this action. The minister asked a few minutes ago as to what we Liberals believe in. Well, I'll tell you, Minister, we believe in consensus, we believe in reason and we believe --

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): Read the red book.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Carleton, order please. Speak directly to the Chair, please.

Mr Gerretsen: We believe in an approach where there's a true balance between labour and management, and it certainly isn't in this bill.

Now I wanted to just address not the merits of the bill or the demerits of the bill but rather the process in which it's done. I understand that there are something like 70 to 75 new members like myself in the House and I'd like to echo something that the members for Prescott and Russell and Yorkview -- did I get that right? -- said earlier today. We were asked to vote today and to deal with 69 amendments that were brought in at 2 o'clock this afternoon that only three people apparently have ever seen, and that's the minister and the two critics.

Well, coming from a municipal background, where I was involved for 16 years, I can't ever remember voting on anything when at least everybody didn't have a chance to take a look at the documentation that the council may have dealt with at any one particular time.

Then they gave us two hours -- two hours -- to deal with the matter in committee of the whole.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): It happens all the time.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Gerretsen: I don't know, Madam Speaker, whether or not you timed the length of time that it took the Chair to mumble the agreed-upon amendments that were passed, but it took him exactly an hour and 20 minutes. Now you tell me about democracy. Is it democracy to give in effect two hours to speak about a matter when it takes an hour and 20 minutes just to sort of mumble through all the stuff that basically we're asked to deal with?

Tonight is Halloween, as we all know, and the trick and the treat is really on the Ontario taxpayer. The goblins, unfortunately, are all on the other side there.

The Acting Speaker: Would the member please take his seat just for a moment. Please take your seat just for a moment. Point of privilege, the member for Carleton.

Hon Mr Sterling: On a point of privilege, Madam Speaker: I don't want to take up time, but there are quite a few aspersions going on here.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Hon Mr Sterling: I just wanted to congratulate the speaker on his Halloween costume this evening.

Mr Gerretsen: Well, thank you very much. It almost looks as if you and I went to the same tailor, and that's not saying a heck of a lot.

Anyway, I'd like to refer to something that the member for Nepean said the other day, which I found absolutely astounding for a new member in this House. He said: "We put our proposals to the voters and they rendered a clear and unequivocal verdict. We had the largest possible public consultation. We were very clear in our consultations with 10 million people across the province during the 40-day election campaign that this would be done, and we got a resounding vote of confidence as evidenced by the results of the June 8 election."

If he really thinks that an election campaign equates public consultation on a bill that is as major as this, then I would just say that he's sadly lacking in his whole notion of public consultation.

There were a total of 244 promises set out in the so-called Common Sense Revolution -- or nonsense revolution, the way I like to refer to it. Is the member suggesting that every one of the persons who voted for the Conservative Party was in total agreement with the 244 promises put in there? I would suggest that perhaps, and it may be very difficult to understand for some of the members, some of them may even have been elected on their own merits. I know they find that extremely hard to understand, but some of them may actually have been elected on their own merits.

Mr Baird: I like this guy. I'd vote for him over Conway.

Mr Gerretsen: Is that right? Okay.

The Acting Speaker: Would the member address the Chair, please; just the Chair.

Mr Gerretsen: If you follow his logic to a commonsense conclusion, only 45% of the people of Ontario voted for the Conservatives.

Interjection: If it had been a referendum, they would have lost.

Mr Gerretsen: That's right, they would have lost it. Now, by the reasoning that he used, 55% of the people voted against the Common Sense Revolution, and he should really do the honourable thing and at least take the position that, "Yes, we were elected to form the government, but obviously the people did not agree with the nonsense that's in the Common Sense Revolution."

There's one other thing and then I'll sit down and get back to the merits of the bill. It's the process that I'm concerned about more than anything else, and that is the fallacy that has been perpetrated in this House on a number of occasions. Whenever the issue's been raised, they just basically say, "Look, all Bill 7 does is repeal Bill 40," which is absolute nonsense. Read your own propaganda. You talked about the repeal of Bill 40, and we all know that this current bill, with the thousands of amendments that were brought in today, deals with much more than Bill 40.

In any event, we would do all well in the future to think about how this is viewed by the public at large. Maybe they don't care. I like to differ with that. I would think that before members in this House voted on anything, at least they'd be provided with the information so that we could all make an intelligent decision on the amendments that are brought before us.

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): Sadly, I rise today to speak on Bill 7 with a great deal of apprehension for the future of this province. The legislation introduced in this chamber confirms the worst fears of fairminded Ontarians. This legislation risks upsetting the very fragile balance between employers and employees that has been built over many years and is fundamental to a thriving economy.

This legislation, disguised as a tool for economic recovery, is anything but. It will in fact make a difficult recovery even more difficult.

I won't outline all the provisions of the legislation and its difficulties for working people. I will, however, point out that this bill continues with the Conservative agenda of polarizing people in Ontario. Far from creating a better working environment, this bill seeks to give rights to one group at the expense of another. Rather than focus on consensus in the workplace, it seeks confrontation, and rather than stress fairness, it seeks to browbeat the workers of this province. At a time when we desperately need wise leadership to spur economic recovery, we are given ideology rather than ideas and righteousness rather than rights.

2030

For the last five years in Ontario, we've had to tolerate an NDP government that ignored the needs and concerns and rights of employers. Now Ontario is faced with enduring a Conservative rule in which the needs and concerns and rights of the working people of this province are not only ignored but in fact attacked. The third party has paid a high price for catering to the extreme. I suggest to you that you have not yet learned anything from the previous government.

Ontario needs a government that reaches out to its people through consensus, public participation and equity. Unfortunately, we find ourselves governed by a party that appears to believe in none of these principles.

There are three important points on which I'd like to focus attention today.

First, it is self-evident to all but the government that any bill with broad social implications such as this one ought to be the result of a thorough, comprehensive process of public input that specifically brings employees and employers together in an effort to develop recommendations based on balance and fairness.

Instead, the government chose to avoid public input and stakeholder participation in favour of an authoritarian fast-track. Even some of Ontario's largest employers, including McDonnell Douglas and Chrysler Canada, are calling upon the government to move more slowly on labour law changes and to pursue consultation with both employer and employee groups.

The government's decision to invoke closure is not only inappropriate for such an important bill, but a repudiation of the Tory government's commitment to public and parliamentary participation. Only with thorough, full, frank and open discussion will we avoid conflict and disruption.

Second, the bill's treatment of key parts of the service sector is completely unreasonable. The narrowing of successor rights are particularly a problem when building owners change contractors for cleaning, food and security services. The new regulations eliminate the obligations of a new contractor to offer employment to the previous contractor's employees.

Allowing binding agreements to be discarded simply encourages a downward trend in wages in an already poorly paid sector. Consequently, we are likely to see employment being offered below subsistence levels. This represents a cruel attack on an employment sector that is already generally low-paid, with few benefits, and is often dominated by women. This action will surely lead to reduced job security and continued suppression of wages for an already vulnerable group.

Third, after a thorough reading of the legislation, it becomes clear that the government's intentions go well beyond simply undoing the damage of Bill 40. In fact, the government is laying the groundwork for mass privatization of the public sector through the exemption of the crown from the application of successor rights. This highly inflammatory act is no doubt causing great grief among public sector employees. Moreover, the government is nowhere setting guidelines as to what will happen through privatization and what rules it will apply, a reality which is causing a great amount of uncertainty and animosity.

In conclusion, this bill goes far beyond the repeal of Bill 40. This bill is a shame, the process is a sham, and I will gladly vote against the bill.

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I wish to add my comments with respect to the bill being presented by the government. It is unfortunate that we have to rush in 40 minutes when we should have had perhaps 40 days and debated it in a very democratic forum.

Hon Marilyn Mushinski (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): Forty days?

Mr Sergio: Forty days; yes. It's one of the very important and most undemocratic bills that this House perhaps ever has or ever will introduce.

It does two particular things, this bill, two very fundamental things. It gives the power, the money the big corporations already had, gives them to be judge and jury, and gives them the right to decertify unions at will.

The other thing it does is to remove the fundamental democratic rights that employees, workers had over the last half century.

Mr Speaker, we are not the only ones saying that. You read the papers as well, and it says that your bill, as presented, goes well before the pre-NDP era. Can you imagine the damage this bill will do? It removes every right the workers have accomplished over the last half-century. You have removed it, even to the unknowledgeable situation of your members.

If there's one particular thing this bill does, it will not create jobs, it will not create confidence in the workplace, it will not create confidence in the labour people, in the unions. If they don't create jobs, they won't create income for this particular government.

I really do hope that before this bill becomes final, you will be giving it a second, sober thought with the people out there in mind. You and I will have to face those people out there, and when they knock on your door crying that their rights have been totally eliminated, I wonder what you will be answering those people.

I will leave the last couple of minutes to my colleague. I really hope you give this a second, sober thought for the welfare of your people and our people when the time comes.

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): I think it's appropriate that Bill 7 is having its third reading on Halloween night, because this is real trick on the people of Ontario. Here's 676 pages of a landmark piece of legislation that's going to change labour relations in Ontario for decades, and it's put on our table at 2 o'clock today.

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): You guys didn't even get out for your own vote. You missed the vote already. How many of you know what's in it?

Mr Colle: Would you be quiet for a second?

If they did this at Metro council or Scarborough council, they would throw us right out of the council chamber. We took more time to pass the erection of a stop sign. If we installed a stop sign, we would invite the public in to discuss the stop sign. If we added a new bus route, we would ask people to come in. But here it is, 676 pages, and what do they say? "You've got four minutes to talk about it." Our critic has about an hour to look at it.

You know what this really shows? It shows the arrogance of this government, the pure arrogance. You think that on June 8 you got a blank cheque to do whatever you want. People will not forget your arrogance. You're pretty cocky now and you're riding high. They think they've got it all today and they can ram these things down the throats of the people of Ontario. They think they're pretty cavalier, as Mr Snobelen says, but people are going to remember that this government did not even take the time to listen to people, to ask them to come to Queen's Park, even for a day, for public hearings.

They said: "We know everything. The Common Sense Revolution is our dogma. We have no time for the public. We don't care what you think. Mike Harris tells us what to think and when Mike Harris tells us to vote" -- even on the agricultural portion of this bill, the Minister of Agriculture didn't even stand up. We had to tell him to stand up.

This is a very dangerous and ominous precedent. This is not the way you govern in Canada. You don't govern by decree; you listen to the people. They're going to pay the price for this. They're going to pay for their arrogance. People do not tolerate arrogance and they're going to remember the arrogance of this government. On Halloween night, they're going to remember, the people of Ontario were not allowed to participate in this legislation.

2040

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the third reading of Bill 7, An Act to restore balance and stability to labour relations and to promote economic prosperity. However, I think it's imperative that we make the opposition aware of a piece of information which I believe has been missing from the discussion today.

They indicated that they got a copy of this and they'd never seen it. If you haven't seen it, that means you have never read Bill 7, because this is Bill 7 in clause-by-clause form, broken out page by page. If you had read Bill 7, which was given to you on October 4, you would have known that these are the same. There's nothing new and there's nothing different. The only addition you have received was the fact that you got a package of 63 amendments.

I guess my other disappointment is the fact that no one took the time to go through Bill 7. Unfortunately, we've seen no amendments brought forward by either party. I'm quite surprised that has happened.

As members know, this legislation is designed to revitalize Ontario's economy, create new jobs and enhance and promote individual rights in the workplace. These changes are absolutely necessary if Ontario is to attract new business. Already firms, whether large or small, whether domestic or foreign, have signalled to us since the introduction of the bill on October 4 that they are committed to invest and create jobs since we are restoring balance to our labour relation laws.

Many of us have received telephone calls and letters indicating very, very strong support for Bill 7. In the past few weeks, we have also heard from many groups and individuals who have proposed changes to Bill 7 to make it more workable and practical. I know they also spoke to members of the opposition, because they told us so. I guess that's why I'm so disappointed that no amendments were brought forward by the other side of the House.

Following the input we received from people -- union, union leaders, union lawyers, management lawyers, management groups and individuals -- we introduced today a number of amendments, and these amendments reflect the result of meetings and consultations we've had. I believe that the changes here today reflect our desire to listen and that they will make Bill 7 a stronger initiative for balance and for prosperity and, in the end, make it a much more workable law.

As I said, Bill 7 consists of five key components that will benefit both workers and employers. The repeal of the bill will restore the delicate balance to labour relations. The repeal is being coupled with amendments aimed at enhancing the individual rights of workers and increasing democracy in the workplace. Many workers have indicated to us their support for our amendments. In fact, I know at one time there were members on the other side of the House who also indicated their support for these types of democratic amendments.

Under Bill 7, Ontario workers will continue to have the same basic right to organize and bargain collectively that they have had for the past half century. However, our amendments will ensure that they have more democratic options in making one of the most important decisions of their working lives, and that is the decision whether or not to be represented by a trade union.

Under Bill 7, a secret ballot vote will be required for union certifications, as well as most contract ratifications, strike votes and decertification. This secret ballot vote for certification will bring our province in line with Alberta, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, where the right to secret ballot representation votes is already in place.

As a result of the amendments that we introduced today and as a result of meetings we have had with the construction sector, strike and ratification votes will not be required in the construction sector. We recognize that the construction industry is unique and we have taken that into consideration today, and we appreciate the discussions we were able to have with the groups that came forward.

Bill 7 also rewords the purpose clause. Under Bill 40, the purpose clause of the act was dramatically changed to emphasize union certification and collective bargaining. This elevated the interest of trade unions above those of all other workplace parties, including the rights of the individuals.

Under our reforms, the purpose clause is being rewritten to recognize the importance of flexibility, productivity and the need to create an economic environment that benefits both workers and employers in this province. In other words, what we are doing in our purpose clause is formally recognizing that workplace cooperation and job creation are the defining characteristics of labour relations in Ontario.

With these amendments, the Labour Relations Act will return to playing a very constructive role in our economy. It will provide the balanced laws and regulations that will enhance the individual rights of workers and promote harmony.

In addition to the proposals I have just outlined, Bill 7 also makes major changes to other labour acts. Bill 7 repeals in its entirety Bill 91, the NDP Agricultural Labour Relations Act. Bill 7 also makes changes to the legislation overseeing the government's labour relations with its unionized employees. The changes here reflect the repeal of Bill 40 and will allow the government to fulfil its commitment to create a more efficient, cost-effective Ontario public service.

I have heard from both workers and employers who are looking forward to a better business climate in Ontario, which of course means more jobs for workers, and who are also looking forward to stronger democratic rights in the workplace.

They say this bill will be the impetus for many positive changes, and we've already seen that with the announcement of new job creation, new investment and new renovations and additions to existing business. This bill will make Ontario more competitive in the global market and invite the investment, the growth and the new job creation.

I am proud today to introduce third reading debate on this bill for our party. I would urge members to take the vital step to a brighter future for this province and for the people in our province by passing Bill 7 into law later today.

2050

Hon Mr Villeneuve: May I also take a few moments to participate in the third reading of Bill 7: the repeal of Bills 40 and 91. Particularly in the repeal of Bill 40, I'm a little bit at a loss to understand why the Liberals are adamant in supporting the maintaining of Bill 40, yet the repeal of Bill 91.

My colleague the member for Cornwall asked a question the other day regarding the St Lawrence parks and the parks that are closed. He would know well that most of those parks were closed in the time of the Liberal regime, and the reason why they cannot be reopened under the private sector is because of the particular situation in Bill 40 which does not allow the private sector to take over. Successor rights are the problem. I was somewhat disappointed to see that the Liberals are supporting this bill, yet wanting to reopen the parks, because successor rights are the major problem in reopening the St Lawrence parks.

So it's a dilemma, I'm sure, for the Liberals. They want to see Bill 91 disappear, they want to retain Bill 40, yet they want to open the parks. I don't know; you can't have it three ways. That is part of the problem and the dilemma that's facing the official opposition in this Legislature.

In agriculture, a very unique-type industry, its success is governed by the considerations of timeliness and climate. You cannot have labour negotiations interfere with that. Ontario labour is currently experiencing the major problems that are faced by our farmers: They have to be competitive. Just like our governments they cannot be spending more than indeed the traffic will bear, because farmers are the kind of people who buy wholesale and sell retail. So Bill 91 increases the labour charges to meet that objective.

In developing Bill 7 we met with farm groups. I had the opportunity of meeting with quite a number of farm groups, including the Labour Issues Coordinating Committee, a network of 14 major farm groups dealing with farm labour issues. The committee members told us that they supported the repeal of Bill 91 and that they wanted a stronger agricultural exemption, and that was previously present in the Labour Relations Act. We have responded.

In Bill 7, not only is agriculture exempt from collective bargaining, but we have included a very comprehensive definition of "agriculture." The definition, as I said in second reading, "includes farming in all its branches, including dairying, beekeeping, aquaculture, the raising of livestock including non-traditional livestock, fur-bearing animals and poultry, the production, cultivation, growing and harvesting of agricultural commodities, including eggs, maple products, mushrooms and tobacco, and any practices performed as an integral part of an agricultural operation...."

This very broad definition will provide clear direction to the Ontario Labour Relations Board in agricultural disputes and ensure that all types of agricultural operations are protected by the exclusion from the farm labour relations act. It provides farmers with the clarity and direction that they've been looking for. They do not want bureaucrats to dictate to them how they should be dealing with their employees. I can tell you that if communications break down between the farmer and his employees, there is no legislation coming from Queen's Park or coming from Parliament Hill or coming from anywhere that will solve the problem.

Upon royal assent to Bill 7, all proceedings in process under Bill 91, including any arbitration, mediation or matters before the Ontario Labour Relations Board, will be terminated. Any collective agreement in place under Bill 91 will also be terminated upon royal assent. There will be no legal recourse to strike activities under Bill 7 since agriculture is then going to be exempt from the Labour Relations Act. Work stoppages can be part of existing labour-management discussions, but because Bill 7 contains no means for organizing the family farm, strike action is not possible.

In the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario survey, 63% of the respondents to the CFFO survey conducted at the Outdoor Farm Show in September supported the repeal of Bill 91; 22% wanted some kind of amendment. So in total, of those who answered the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario questionnaire, 85% wanted changes or a repeal of Bill 91.

Many other letters that I've received, particularly from mushroom producers, are telling us: "You must repeal Bill 91. We do not need labour legislation to involve the production of food in Ontario."

I will release to my colleagues to further participate in the debate, but we must -- and the message is clear from rural Ontario -- repeal Bills 40 and 91, and Bill 7 does that.

Mr Bob Wood (London South): As many members of this House know, I am a strong supporter of the Common Sense Revolution, and the bill before us today is an important part of the implementation of that plan.

In particular, I would like to speak to the proposed changes to the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act. There are several amendments proposed to CECBA and the Public Service Act, some of which the Chair of Management Board has already addressed as the employer. I would like to elaborate further on the proposed changes and how they will help the provincial government meet its commitment to reduce the cost and size of government.

Some of the changes to CECBA are necessary in order for the Ontario public service and crown agencies to parallel the amendments proposed under Bill 7, as CECBA is the statute that governs labour relations in these groups. These amendments are needed so that labour laws applying to the public service are in line with the changes proposed under the repeal of Bill 40. Other changes we are proposing, however, are aimed at providing the government with the flexibility it needs to meet its restructuring commitment.

The current legislation restrains the government's ability to restructure the Ontario public service. The proposed amendments to CECBA will reduce these barriers and give the government the flexibility it needs to be more efficient. It will help us meet promises to reduce the size of government and make government more efficient and effective for the people of Ontario. Exempting the crown from the application of successor rights, for example, will increase the government's flexibility to restructure the OPS.

It is important to note, however, that nothing in the proposed amendments fundamentally alters the collective bargaining rights of most Ontario government employees. Unions will continue to be able to organize, bargain and arbitrate grievances. Under the proposed amendments, Ontario public service employees, except essential service providers, will continue to have the right to strike.

On the question of essential services agreements, those that have already been negotiated will remain until a collective agreement is in place. New essential services agreements will then be negotiated to be consistent with the new CECBA legislation.

Among the other amendments proposed under CECBA is a reduction in the authority of the grievance settlement board. This would give greater control over dispute resolution to those involved and means the board's power would be similar to the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

2100

A further amendment will eliminate a freeze on changing the terms and conditions of employment for essential service and emergency workers during work stoppages. In addition, as part of the proposed changes, we seek to amend the Public Service Act so that employees not covered by collective agreements can be released with reasonable notice or compensation instead of notice. This is the same as the arrangement in the private sector.

Under the proposed amendments, positions that are not covered by CECBA will broaden. Newly excluded are employees whose work includes significant time raising or borrowing money or otherwise managing the provincial finances or debt. Also excluded will be strategic policy advisers who give advice on employment-related legislation or on matters of financial policy. Employees in the Office of the Premier and cabinet office will also be excluded.

Collectively, these amendments will give the government a more flexible environment in which it can deliver the services that governments should be providing to the people of Ontario in the most cost-effective and efficient manner.

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North): It's my pleasure to get up today to speak in favour of the introduction of Bill 7. Since I joined the Ministry of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism as the parliamentary assistant responsible for small business, I have visited and spoken to many small businesses. Repeatedly I have been told by the owners that they could hire more people and create more jobs if government would stop interfering in their everyday lives with the shackles of socialistic regulations.

At this time I would focus my speech on two key areas of Bill 7, namely, the new purpose clause and the elimination of the replacement worker ban.

The new purpose clause encourages the promotion of harmonious labour relations. It recognizes the importance of flexibility, productivity and the need to create an economic environment that benefits both the workers and the employers. This reflects the intention of our government's labour law reforms to encourage investment and create jobs.

One of the many things I cannot understand about socialist parties revolves around job creation. For some reason they believe business is evil and out to undermine workers' rights. But business creates jobs. Without jobs the people of this province have no rights to fight for.

We all understand the key to balanced labour relations and the empowerment of workers. We've heard the rhetoric from the NDP and the Liberals about how the Tories are in the back pockets of Bay Street. This is clearly not the case. I fail to see any reference, allusion or endorsement of Bay Street anywhere in Bill 7.

Clearly, our government intends to restore the delicate balance between the rights and the obligations of employers, employees and unions, a balance that will tell potential investors and small business hopefuls that Ontario is once again open for business. Also, by implementing Bill 7 our government is saying to everyone in this province that we are committed to creating jobs and more jobs.

Since the introduction of Bill 40, many employers reported that it was an impediment to conducting business in Ontario. Many businesses argued that restrictions on replacement workers undermined supply chains that operate on a just-in-time basis. These employers were especially vulnerable during strikes, as were companies that depended upon struck suppliers.

The members of this House must realize that by putting supply chains at risk and putting the entire production process on hold, they are costing business an enormous amount of money. If money is continuously spent, much like in the past 10 years of this government, then the result is more layoffs, more unemployment, and surely this is not the scenario that working people in this province prefer.

In conclusion, as a small business person I can tell this House that my party and I are committed to encouraging the development of small business and entrepreneurship in Ontario. Small business is the cornerstone of our economy. It is the engine of growth and the engine of job creation.

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton North): I'm proud and honoured to direct my comments in the House today in support of this government's act to restore balance and stability to labour relations and promote economic prosperity.

Let me first convey what this government legislation stands for. This government recognizes what all of us hold to be true in a free and democratic society: the ability and right to choose without fear of reprisal whom we wish to represent us in the governance of our business, free from the pressures of groups or individuals. We have the time-treasured practice passed down to us which guarantees the democratic principles of the secret ballot.

The secret ballot allows individuals to take charge of their deepest thoughts, feelings and convictions and in the most private expression of freedom at hand make a decision that is theirs alone, a decision which is free from the taint of conviction of those opposed to their views. Bill 7 recognizes this fundamental principle of democracy and enshrines this vehicle for worker participation and for their freedom of association in the workplace.

This government believes in the fundamental freedoms addressing individual choice, and for these reasons has through this legislation cemented workplace democracy by requiring secret ballot votes for certification applications, strike votes and contract ratifications. This process has enshrined the rights of all workers in this province, protecting their privacy, respecting their freedom of associations and guaranteeing their fundamental democratic rights.

Further to the enhancement of the greater democracy in the workplace, Bill 7, in its attempt to restore the delicate balance in labour relations in this province, corrects the changes made by the previous government's Bill 40 with respect to regulations governing the combination of full-time and part-time bargaining units.

Prior to Bill 40, in certifying bargaining units, the board usually would place full- and part-time employees in separate units at the request of either party, although in some cases the board would find a single unit to be appropriate for bargaining.

Under the previous government, Bill 40 facilitated the certification of bargaining units containing both full- and part-time employees and the combination of two or more separate bargaining units representing the same union into a single bargaining unit. This was against the interests of some workers because the needs and goals of part-time workers may differ substantially from those full-time employees. The new Labour Relations Act removes these powers and restores balance by returning to pre-Bill 40 provisions, which I will remind the opposition date back to December 31, 1992.

There are those combination units which, through employers and unions, have requested that the government leave those units untouched that exist effectively under these arrangements. To recognize these situations, the government has developed a number of transitional provisions that will come into effect with royal assent on this bill.

Bargaining units in which both full-time and part-time employees were included under the Bill 40 provisions will remain unchanged unless either party applies to the board within 90 days of enactment. Upon receipt and review of these applications, the board will order separate bargaining units, unless it is satisfied, on a community-of-interest test, that the combination unit is appropriate.

These transitional provisions will ensure that changes are made with due process and consultation of all parties and the least amount of disruption to those interests involved.

This transition also helps restore balance where units are controlled by part-time employees with full-time employees in a minority. It allows workers to consider their options relative to their own situation and decide whether or not the benefits of a combination unit versus a smaller unit focused on their concerns is better able to serve their needs, again restoring individual democracy to the workplace.

In summary, this legislation will benefit all working people in this province. It will restore the principle of democracy in the workplace by requiring a secret ballot vote for certification applications, strike votes and contract ratifications. It will recognize the importance of flexibility, productivity and the need to create an environment which benefits both workers and employees.

It will restore the delicate balance of labour relations in Ontario, and most importantly, it will, for the employers, working people and all citizens of Ontario, help restore hope and economic prosperity to Ontario by encouraging and attracting new business and new jobs and creating new jobs: real jobs, the kind that pay taxes, not depend on them, jobs that were lost under the previous government's legislation that we now have the opportunity to find once again. Ontario is indeed open for business.

2110

Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): It is with a true sense of honour and privilege that I rise today to participate in my first debate on the government's labour relations bill. Some of what I say may be a repeat of what other members have said, but they are very important points to repeat.

The purpose of Bill 7 is to introduce workplace democracy, including mandatory secret ballots for union certification, contract ratification and strike votes. In introducing democracy to the workplace, it will also restore balance and stability between management and labour. First, let me say I agree with the minister when she says that we need to restore balance to labour relations in Ontario if we want to attract new business investment and generate new job opportunities for Ontario workers.

Our proposal for a mandatory secret ballot at times of union certification, ratification and strike votes will strengthen the collective bargaining system. The secret ballot will become the most accurate and democratic way to determine each worker's wishes.

Moreover, in keeping with our desire to strengthen the role of the individual in the decision-making process and enhance democracy in the workplace, we also introduced a labour relations information service to help the workplace parties become informed of their rights and responsibilities under the act.

I support the minister's view that the repeal of the job-killing Bills 40 and 91 will restore the delicate balance between labour and management by making Ontario a more attractive place to invest. Our government is sending a clear message that it is open for business and it's going to deal with business in a fair and equitable manner. Ultimately, workers are going to benefit from increased job opportunities and a new spirit of workplace democracy.

If it turns out not to be the case and workers withhold their labour or rise in anger in the workplace, as the labour groups and activists have been prophesying, it will only prove that workplace policies were in favour of labour and that the delicate balance between labour and management was lacking.

In fact it is the unions' officials who are condoning violence, not the individual working men and women of this province.

CAW president Buzz Hargrove recently said on the subject of union violence post-Bill 40: "I'm not advocating violence. I'm condoning it." He also said, and I quote: "I'm not advocating violence, but I will participate in it. That's my job. I've been doing it for decades." That is not a positive attitude towards bringing back jobs to Ontario. There is no democracy when there is violence. This is not a good climate for negotiation or compromise. We need to create a positive climate for investors that says loud and clear, "Ontario's open for business."

We need to remember that it's the investors who provide the capital. It is investors and management who take the risks. It is investors and managers who provide the jobs. We simply can't lose track of that fact. No investor, no job. And investors need to feel there is peace among their employees.

That is not to say that the balance should go unfairly in the direction of management. All workers who were eligible to organize prior to Bill 40 will have the same rights to organize and collectively bargain. Individual workers will have an enhanced right to make their choices known through the use of secret ballots. In fact, the government has added protection from any employer reprisal due to these workers having exercised their previous rights in collective bargaining. But both the balance and the stability are accommodated in the legislation.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): It is disgraceful what Mike Harris and the Minister of Labour are doing to this province. It is a disgrace. Shame on them. Mike Harris should resign.

Mr Froese: The change from voluntary to mandatory votes will enhance workplace democracy by ensuring the individual workers can make choices --

Mr Len Wood: Bill 7 will be the destruction of good Conservatives in Ontario, same as the Premier of Quebec is paying the price.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The member for Cochrane North is out of order.

Mr Froese: -- on important issues that affect their workplace and livelihood, such as an opportunity for every employee in the bargaining unit, irrespective of their membership, to vote on issues related to certification and collective bargaining.

A vote that is secret: That's the type of opportunity that's crucial. Without it, democracy is not in the workplace. Moreover, it does not make sense.

There has been criticism that the passing of this bill is somewhat undemocratic. That simply is not the case. It's the actions of the NDP that are undemocratic. In fact, they are downright contradictory. On the one hand, they're asking for debate and consultation on Bill 7, and on the other hand, their actions in the House are preventing the very debate and consultation they want.

In effect, the NDP has demonstrated a complete disregard for the democratic will of the people of Ontario by delaying and obstructing the business of the House. The people of Ontario elected this government to bring jobs, investment and economic growth back to the province. There's a strong need to have Bill 7 passed into law without delay in order to get Ontario's economy back on track by attracting investment and creating jobs.

In closing, I would like to say that I'm committed to the principles that were set out in the Common Sense Revolution: to cut spending, to cut the deficit, to cut the size of government, to reduce red tape for business and to reduce the tax burden for working Ontarians.

The reason I'm committed to these principles is that we will provide a positive climate for investment in this province, a climate necessary to bring back prosperity and jobs. I support the Minister of Labour and agree that Bill 7 is the important step towards bringing that climate.

Mr Baird: At the outset, I'd have to mention the appropriateness of this debate concluding on Halloween, a time to get rid of ghosts and Bill 40, the NDP's job-killing labour legislation.

A lot of debate in this House has centred on the motivations of those of us on the government side for proceeding with Bill 7, so I think it's very important that we be clear on our objectives. We're repealing Bill 40 to restore balance to labour relations in Ontario. We're repealing Bill 40 to encourage investment in Ontario. We're repealing Bill 40 to create jobs in this province.

In Ontario, we know only too well that the provincial government can't create jobs. If our experience over the last 10 years has taught us anything, it's that increased government spending, more government borrowing and more government regulation kills jobs and discourages investment in this province.

While we know that government can't create jobs, we know only too well in this province that government can kill jobs, and Bill 40 was a proven job killer.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Cochrane North is out of order.

Mr Baird: This government wants to do everything, absolutely everything, we can do to foster a positive climate for job creation in Ontario. Labour law reform is a key to the establishment of such a positive climate in Ontario. For 45 years in Ontario, the provincial government worked to create a very delicate balance in labour relations --

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Cochrane South is out of order.

Mr Baird: -- and it was no coincidence that the creation of that balance saw 45 years of unprecedented economic growth in this province, saw the creation of jobs and hope and opportunity.

Repealing Bill 40, our labour legislation includes measures to encourage workplace democracy. These democratic reforms aren't about helping business or trade unions; they're about empowering individual workers.

The measures contained in Bill 7 include allowing workers the opportunity for a secret ballot on union certifications, decertifications, strike votes and contract ratifications. All of us in this House were elected on secret ballot votes. If we use secret ballots in this House to ensure that every citizen can exercise their individual right to make a free decision, independent from coercion or outside influence, if secret ballot votes are good enough for politicians, they're good enough for workers.

In the last Parliament, it was the Leader of the Opposition who on November 5 argued very strenuously in this House, why didn't the previous government include secret ballot votes in Bill 40? We on this side of the House agree that that should have been included. The Liberals' red book encouraged an information service, a 1-800 number to give workers the information they needed to make a proper decision in labour relations, and we agreed with them in that respect.

But tonight in Ontario we're sending a very important message. Tonight in Ontario we're sending a clear message that the province of Ontario is open for jobs, it's open for investment and it's a balanced labour relations --

The Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Mrs Witmer has moved third reading of Bill 7. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 2121 to 2126.

The Speaker: Mrs Witmer has moved third reading of Bill 7. Those in favour will please rise one at a time until their name is called.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted	Hardeman, Ernie	Ross, Lillian
Baird, John R.	Harnick, Charles	Runciman, Bob
Barrett, Toby	Harris, Michael D.	Sampson, Rob
Bassett, Isabel	Hastings, John	Saunderson, William
Beaubien, Marcel	Hodgson, Chris	Shea, Derwyn
Boushy, Dave	Hudak, Tim	Sheehan, Frank
Brown, Jim	Johnson, Bert	Skarica, Toni
Carroll, Jack	Johnson, David	Smith, Bruce
Chudleigh, Ted	Jordan, Leo	Snobelen, John
Clement, Tony	Kells, Morley	Spina, Joseph
Cunningham, Dianne	Klees, Frank	Sterling, Norman W.
Danford, Harry	Leach, Al	Stewart, R. Gary
Doyle, Ed	Leadston, Gary L.	Stockwell, Chris
Ecker, Janet	Marland, Margaret	Tascona, Joseph N.
Elliott, Brenda	Martiniuk, Gerry	Tilson, David
Eves, Ernie L.	Maves, Bart	Tsubouchi, David H.
Fisher, Barbara	Munro, Julia	Turnbull, David
Flaherty, Jim	Murdoch, Bill	Vankoughnet, Bill
Ford, Douglas B.	Mushinski, Marilyn	Villeneuve, Noble
Fox, Gary	Newman, Dan	Wettlaufer, Wayne
Froese, Tom	O'Toole, John	Wilson, Jim
Galt, Doug	Ouellette, Jerry J.	Witmer, Elizabeth
Gilchrist, Steve	Palladini, Al	Wood, Bob
Grimmett, Bill	Parker, John L.	Young, Terence H.

Guzzo, Garry J. Rollins, E.J. Douglas

The Speaker: All those opposed will please rise.

Nays

Agostino, Dominic	Crozier, Bruce	McGuinty, Dalton
Bartolucci, Rick	Duncan, Dwight	McLeod, Lyn
Bisson, Gilles	Gerretsen, John	Miclash, Frank
Boyd, Marion	Grandmaître, Bernard	Morin, Gilles E.
Bradley, James J.	Gravelle, Michael	Patten, Richard
Brown, Michael A.	Hampton, Howard	Pouliot, Gilles
Castrilli, Annamarie	Hoy, Pat	Pupatello, Sandra
Christopherson, David	Kormos, Peter	Sergio, Mario
Churley, Marilyn	Lalonde, Jean-Marc	Silipo, Tony
Cleary, John C.	Lankin, Frances	Wildman, Bud
Colle, Mike	Laughren, Floyd	Wood, Len
Conway, Sean G.	Marchese, Rosario
Cooke, David S.	Martel, Shelley

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 74; the nays, 37.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. I declare the motion moved as declared in the motion.

The House stands adjourned until tomorrow afternoon at 1:30 of the clock.

The House adjourned at 2132.

31 octobre 1995