Journal des débats 1998-juin-15 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): The people of Ontario should know that this week we will be debating a bill on election finances in which Mike Harris is attempting to buy the next election in Ontario. The bill will nearly double the spending limits a candidate can spend in their riding during the election campaign. It will also substantially increase the amount an individual can contribute to a candidate and party.

What is particularly shocking is the fact that in the past there has always been all-party agreement to any changes in election financing. Mike Harris once again wants to bully and bulldoze his way through the Legislature.

The massive increases in election campaign spending and the dramatic increases in the amount of money that corporations and individuals may contribute to political parties and candidates, in addition to the exemption of major campaign activities from any spending limits at all and the elimination of the financial watchdog, the Commission on Election Finances, will ensure that the deck is stacked in favour of the Reform-Tory government in Ontario in the next election.

All this is in addition to the use of taxpayers' money by this government to send out purely partisan propaganda to all Ontario households that should be paid for by the Tory party and not the government of Ontario.

We must not allow the Americanization of our system. We value fairness in our electoral system. I call upon Mike Harris to withdraw this piece of legislation and bring back a bill on election finances which has the traditional all-party support.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): This morning the Minister of Health was in Windsor to make a long-awaited announcement with respect to health care funding, and when I say long, I mean really long. It was in February 1994 that the Win-Win report was released outlining our community's vision for health care reform. The NDP government promised funding to carry out this vision but the election of the Mike Harris government three years ago brought the entire process to a screeching halt. The Health Services Restructuring Commission reviewed the whole process yet again.

Minister, why has it taken your government so long to get us almost to the point where we were three years ago? Please explain the delay to the people in my community, because it makes no common sense to me.

While you have been dithering, the crisis in our emergency rooms has grown worse, waiting times for health care have grown longer, health care workers have experienced increasing stress, and families more and more are being referred to Detroit or London for treatment.

Why, as well, was there no announcement about long-term operating dollars? New buildings and new equipment will not improve health care in our community without the people to provide it. Why, as well, has there been no announcement about the Malden Park Centre?

These are questions that our community deserves answers to. Minister, please provide them immediately.

CANCER RESEARCH

Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): I rise today to honour the McCarty Cancer Foundation which was started by Detroit Red Wings star Darren McCarty.

Darren's father, Craig, has multiple myeloma, which is a rare form of bone cancer that affects approximately 14,000 new people a year in North America. Multiple myeloma patients experience severe pain and bone deterioration. Since the average age of diagnosis is in the 60s, however, there is very little money being spent on research. Perhaps since this is Seniors' Month, it would be appropriate for all members of this Legislature to reflect on the importance of greater medical research for fighting this disease.

Darren McCarty and his family are doing just that. Through Darren's efforts, money is being raised to put towards research into a possible cure for multiple myeloma. This money will be used to benefit support groups, patients and caregivers.

In addition to starting the foundation, the McCarty family is to be commended for bringing greater public awareness to multiple myeloma, which can only be cured with determination. I would like to thank Craig and Roberta McCarty, who are in the members' gallery today, for showing such determination.

In a final comment, I'm sure the McCartys would wish me to say, "Go, Wings, go."

ELECTORAL REFORM

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Today is a dark day for democracy in Ontario. The Mike Harris Conservative government, using its new anti-democratic procedural rules, will begin the process of bulldozing through the Legislature a bill which will make money the king - the key ingredient in Ontario elections.

Bill 36 allows for massive increases in the amount of money political parties and candidates can spend during election campaigns, exempts a number of expensive campaign activities from any spending limits at all and drastically increases the amount of money corporations and individuals may donate to a party or candidate.

Mike Harris plans to abolish the watchdog over election spending and contributions - the Commission on Election Finances - at the very time when the public sees the greatest need for this policing agency.

The result of this anti-democratic strategy, hatched in the back rooms of the Premier's office - the Harris Kremlin, as one reporter termed it - will be the Americanization of Ontario elections, with money playing an enormous role in the campaign; a campaign to be shortened in length so that massive media advertising will dominate, rather than door-to-door personal contact with voters.

The Conservative Party, gearing its policies, legislation and regulations to the best interests of the very wealthy and the most powerful, will gather its rewards from this element in the form of huge campaign contributions which it will use to saturation-bomb the airwaves with expensive commercials.

It is time for all who value democracy to demand that Mike Harris withdraw the bill, which stacks the deck in favour of the very rich and his political party, which represents the rich and powerful.

LAND USE PLANNING

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I'd like to make a statement today about the Lands for Life situation. Everybody may be aware that recently there was a press conference held by a representative from the World Wildlife Fund Canada, the Federation of Ontario Naturalists and the Wildlands League. They were there on behalf of the 38 member groups of the Partnership for Public Lands. I'm going to quote from their press release:

"The Lands for Life process in Ontario is off the rails and, unless it gets back on track, it will not even come close to delivering on the government's promise to complete the provincial park system in northern Ontario."

I think it's fair to say that almost everybody was interested in this process: the opportunity to sit down and try to negotiate a sensible, indeed, very difficult determination on how to use our vast lands for their resources, but also tourism, and to preserve these lands for the future.

It is off the rails, and I want to tell people today about a big rally that's happening on Wednesday, June 24, at 7 pm at U of T Convocation Hall. People can call 1-888-971-LAND for tickets. At this concert will be a lot of performers, including a CD with many people called "Whose Forest?: Defending our Public Lands," which was produced by Sarah Peebles. It's "A musical statement, a visual work of art, a political action kit and a benefit all rolled into one."

1340

TORNADO

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): Two weeks ago, my riding was unfortunate enough to be in the path of a tornado. The hardest hit area was the village of Norwich, a small community of about 2,100 people. Although the damage was extensive, I am pleased to say that no one was seriously hurt.

Even in the face of such devastation, the spirit of the community remained undaunted as everyone pulled together to help each other.

I want to applaud those who went above and beyond the call of duty to help those in need: the United Church, which opened its doors to feed workers and residents alike by candlelight, as there was no hydro; the community centre where, with the help of a generator, a place to sleep could be found for those who no longer had a roof over their heads; the Salvation Army and those residents who escaped damage who provided food; the workers of the public utilities commissions from Ingersoll, Woodstock, Norwich and Tillsonburg, as well as Ontario Hydro, who worked around the clock to get the lights back on; the crews from the townships of Norwich, Burford, southwest Oxford, Zorra and the county of Oxford and the Long Point Region Conservation Authority, who quickly got the fallen trees and debris cleaned up so the streets could be reopened; the Woodstock police, the OPP and the RCMP who kept order to ensure that everyone was safe, even if it meant going door to door.

Most of all, I want to commend the people of Norwich for their strong sense of community, their generosity and their willingness to help others in the face of adversity.

ELECTORAL REFORM

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I want to comment as well on the bill that the Harris government is ramming through on election expenses. For the public's information, this bill was introduced on June 9 and will be law before the end of June. It fundamentally changes the way elections are financed in the province of Ontario, and without any question of a doubt is designed to help Mike Harris and to penalize the other parties.

The expenses now have almost doubled. The Conservative Party can now spend $5 million instead of $2.5 million in the election campaign. Mike Harris will have no trouble raising that. He gave people making more than $250,000 in this province a $500-million tax break, so Mike Harris will have no trouble raising that. But it fundamentally changes the way elections in this province are run. Without any question of a doubt, it is the Americanization of politics in the province of Ontario. Now money will talk instead of ideas, instead of people. I regret that he will, in typical fashion, bulldoze this bill through. It was introduced on June 9 and it will be law within two weeks.

This is trampling on democracy. We now are a province where money will talk instead of the people talking. I regret that Mike Harris has chosen this technique, doubling the amount he can now spend on campaigns and forcing this bill through in a matter of days when I think it's something the people of Ontario want withdrawn.

BEAR HUNTING

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Today is June 15, and that marks the end of the spring bear hunt for this year. We hope we will be able to say that it marks the end of the spring bear hunt forever.

On behalf of the Animal Alliance of Canada and the International Fund for Animal Welfare, I have today a gift on behalf of those organizations for every MPP. I'll ask the pages if someone could come and take this from myself and the member for Riverdale.

There is an information brochure. We want every MPP to have one.

The bear is representative of two things. The first is pretty sad. It's representative of those bear cubs who were killed during this year's bear hunt. But it's also a symbol of celebration, because if we can convince the government to move on bringing an end to the spring bear hunt, we can celebrate that there will be no more cubs killed in that manner.

It is not moral or ethical to allow the slaughter of bears at bait, as is done in the spring bear hunt. It is not moral or ethical to allow dogs to track down and kill bear cubs, as is done during the spring bear hunt. In fact, it is not moral or ethical to allow hunting of a major species like that in the spring, which is during the animals' reproductive season.

We can stop this. All it takes is us to stand up with the majority of Ontarians. Northerners, southerners, rural, city, everybody agrees in the majority to end the spring bear hunt. We call on all MPPs to call on the minister to do just that.

CONDOMINIUM LEGISLATION

Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): Last week residents of Etobicoke again received good news from the Mike Harris government. This comes as a result of new legislation being introduced to replace the outdated Condominium Act.

Local residents in Etobicoke have taken a great deal of ownership in their community and should be commended for the hard work put forth in promoting these changes. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank people such as Dave Dunn and his wife Christine for their leadership in coordinating the involvement of those in the community who wanted to see the legislation updated. Many people, including Marilyn Bird, Rosette Kertez, Fred Mahler, Philip Mayers, Geoff Pacey, Meade Wright, and a great deal of others, did not let up on their interest to see the changes that are long overdue.

I would be remiss if I didn't also express gratitude to the present minister, David Tsubouchi, the former minister, Norm Sterling, and his former parliamentary assistant, the Honourable Jim Flaherty, for driving a review which was not undertaken until our government was elected.

The right of ownership and responsibilities that come with it are factors which have not been overlooked by this government. The introduction of the Condominium Act, 1998, is a clear indication that the problems encountered by responsible owners will now be short-lived and is another promise kept by the Mike Harris government that will directly benefit many people in Etobicoke.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on administration of justice and move its adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Ms Lisa Freedman): Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill 15, An Act to cut taxes for people and for small business and to implement other measures contained in the 1998 Budget.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

Pursuant to the order of the House dated June 2, 1998, this bill is ordered for third reading.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MUNICIPALITY OF CHATHAM-KENT ACT, 1998

Mr Carroll moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr19, An Act respecting the Municipality of Chatham-Kent.

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

EASTERN PENTECOSTAL BIBLE COLLEGE ACT, 1998

Mr Stewart moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr18, An Act respecting Eastern Pentecostal Bible College.

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

TERRY FOX DAY ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA JOURNÉE TERRY FOX

Mr Ouellette moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 42, An Act to proclaim Terry Fox Day / Projet de loi 42, Loi proclamant la journée Terry Fox.

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

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): Essentially, we as a society may build monuments or name sections of road; however, unless you actually drive that section of highway, one never knows the distance that is really travelled.

This bill officially designates that the Sunday each September on which the Terry Fox Run takes place be designated as Terry Fox Day.

1350

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon David Turnbull (Minister without Portfolio): I move that pursuant to standing order 9(c), the House shall meet from 6:30 pm to 9:30 pm on June 15, 16, 17, 18, 22, 23, 24 and 25, 1998, for the purpose of considering government business, and that pursuant to standing order 9(e)(i), the House shall continue to meet from 9:30 pm to 12 midnight on June 23 and 25, 1998, for the purpose of considering government business.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. I declare the motion carried.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Under the previous democratic procedural rules that governed this House, that motion would have been a debatable motion. Under the new rules imposed by the Mike Harris government, is that allowed any more?

The Speaker: You're asking if the motion is debatable?

Mr Bradley: Yes.

The Speaker: No, it's not.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS UNIT

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): I have a question for the Attorney General. You know that we're having some problems with the SIU, the special investigations unit. The director announced last week that he was leaving. We have now had eight directors in five years.

Some of the solutions to the problems connected with the SIU are found in a report prepared by the very respected former Judge George Adams. He makes a number of recommendations, including that it be properly resourced - it's his opinion that the SIU is underfunded - and second, that we proceed to make the necessary changes that would compel police officers who are witnesses to a shooting to speak forthwith with an SIU investigator. When are you going to be moving forward on those recommendations?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I appreciate the question from the Leader of the Opposition. I just want to put into context what former Judge Adams did. He prepared a report for us based on working with the parties, working with community representatives, police representatives, representatives of police associations and police chiefs, to develop a consensus of what he believed would be a workable solution to long-outstanding problems that have existed since the Police Services Act included the special investigations unit.

After delivering the report to me, he asked me to ensure that I made efforts to evaluate and judge the level of support that he believes he was able to find, and that's what I'm in the course of doing now. I believe that so far what I'm seeing is that Judge Adams's report is a solid report and gives us the basis to clean up a mess that we inherited and that has existed since the inception of the SIU.

Mr McGuinty: As you know, in a democratic society it's absolutely essential that government take all the steps necessary to instil public confidence in their police. One of the big issues, the hot-button item, has been this issue as to whether a police officer who witnesses a shooting ought to be compelled to speak immediately or forthwith with an SIU investigator.

As you know, the face of Ontario, but especially the face of Toronto, is changing. Our visible minorities have a keen interest in the position you are going to take on this issue. Would you kindly stand up now and give us your position with respect to whether or not witness officers ought to be required to speak forthwith with an SIU investigator.

Hon Mr Harnick: Everything I've heard so far from the different groups I've been speaking with to get their reaction to the Adams report indicates that the level of consensus that Justice Adams reports on is very accurate. As a result of that, I hope very soon to be in a position to take the necessary steps, that the Liberals didn't take when they were the government, that the NDP didn't take when they were the government, to try and develop for the SIU a very workable way and a very acceptable way to all parties to deal with the issue of witness officers and subject officers.

Mr McGuinty: Mr Attorney General, I have some real concerns about the extent of your commitment to the SIU. Right now they are being funded at $2.2 million annually. The dry cleaning bill for the Metro Toronto Police Force is $2.5 million annually, an interesting point of comparison. What we need to know in this province is whether or not you're committed to the SIU. Are you going to increase the resources? Are you going to give them more money? And when are you going to move to change all the regulations necessary so we can compel witness police officers to speak forthwith with an SIU investigator? Are you going to give them more money; when are you going to do that? Second, when are you going to pass the necessary changes to the regulations so that we can require witness police officers to speak immediately with an SIU investigator?

Hon Mr Harnick: As I've indicated, former Judge Adams has provided us with a blueprint for the first time to be able to deal with exactly the issues the Leader of the Opposition identifies, and I'm very grateful for that. I'm also very grateful, when we talk about confidence in the SIU, for the work that Mr Marin did in cleaning up the SIU, cleaning up the backlog and providing us as well, on his departure, with some very good ideas about ensuring that the SIU runs properly.

We intend to implement those recommendations as fast as we possibly can after we test the level of consensus for them. I can tell the Leader of the Opposition that in so far as proper resourcing of the SIU is concerned, I agree with the comments in the report and I agree that we have to continue to build confidence in what was an organization that has never had any confidence in it before. We must take very seriously the recommendations we've been given, and I intend to do that. I appreciate the question.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): I have a question for the Chair of Management Board. We've been asking now for weeks about a potential conflict of interest which you admitted was very serious. You had an investigation conducted by the lawyers acting for the Ontario Casino Corp. We raised concerns about the conflict of interest itself found in the fact that the lawyers acting for the Ontario Casino Corp conducted the investigation. You said you were satisfied with the outcome of the report and that as far as you were concerned, the case was closed.

We learned today that there is a second investigation that has just begun. This one is going to be conducted by Stanley Beck, former dean of the Osgoode Hall Law School. He's going to take from four to six weeks to review this whole matter once again. I'm just wondering today, you said the case was closed; you were satisfied with the first investigation. Now there's a second investigation. What's going on, Minister?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): If you had followed the Hansard, I clearly stated last week that in response to serious allegations about Mr French and Coopers and Lybrand's role in the process around the Niagara casino bid we would try to ascertain the facts. I asked the Ontario Casino Corp, through their lawyers, Davies, Ward and Beck, to provide us with the facts. When I received those facts, I made them public and you got a copy in the opposition, and the NDP got a copy.

I also pointed out that Ron Barbaro was appointed as CEO. I talked to Mr Barbaro and I stated in the House that Mr Barbaro, in his new role, his new job, was free to take a look at the deal and make sure he was comfortable with it before he made a recommendation, through myself, to the government. If you check the Hansard, I've been pretty clear on that, so your preamble about trying to put words in my mouth is totally false.

What Mr Barbaro and I talked about was to make sure he was comfortable with it, and we agreed on Stanley Beck to take an independent look at it as well before we make a recommendation to sign a contract with the number-one-ranked proposal.

1400

Mr McGuinty: I'm just trying to figure out, on behalf of the people of the province, what's happening. The minister in charge of the Ontario Casino Corp says that as far as he's concerned everything is hunky-dory, that there's no conflict of interest. Now the Ontario -

Hon Mr Hodgson: I never said that. You're lying.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Minister, you must withdraw that comment.

Hon Mr Hodgson: I withdraw that.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Minister, you must withdraw that inference as well.

Hon Mr Hodgson: I didn't say anything.

The Speaker: No, the minister -

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): I withdraw.

The Speaker: Leader of the Opposition.

Mr McGuinty: We've got the minister on the one hand saying that everything is okay and he's quite satisfied with the first investigation. Then we have his appointee to the Ontario Casino Corp saying that he is, quite rightly, uncomfortable with the outcome of the first report so he has decided to conduct his own investigation. He's not happy with the result. He feels that a better and more properly independent investigation ought to be conducted, so he's hired Stanley Beck, the former dean of Osgoode Hall Law School, to come in and to prepare an extensive report for him.

I'm just trying to figure out what's going on over there. Do you believe that a second investigation is warranted or do you not? Are you satisfied with the first one or are you not?

Hon Mr Hodgson: One of the first steps to try and understand what's going on is if you would listen to the answer, if you would listen to what I've said for the last couple of weeks. You raised some serious innuendo, and what I undertook was to get the facts. I asked the Ontario Casino Corp to get those facts through their legal counsel, Davies, Ward and Beck. They prepared a report that I accepted and we've appointed a new CEO, Ron Barbaro. I asked Mr Barbaro to make sure that he was satisfied with the process and we agreed that we would ask Stanley Beck to come in and take a look at it. If you want to put any more words on that, you're clearly not listening to the answers that have been given here.

Mr McGuinty: Let's just take the time to go over this once more. There was a serious allegation of conflict of interest. At first you said that there was nothing there, and then you said that maybe it did warrant an investigation. The investigation that you had conducted was by the lawyers acting for the Ontario Casino Corp. That was a whitewash. Then you said: "That's acceptable to me. I don't think there's a conflict of interest there." Now the guy who heads up the Ontario Casino Corp quite rightly has decided that he is uncomfortable with the results of that first investigation; he's decided to bring in a highly respected former Osgoode Hall Law School dean to conduct a second investigation because he's not satisfied with the results of the first investigation.

What I want to know again, Minister, is, are you satisfied with the results of the first investigation or not? Do we need a second investigation or don't we?

Hon Mr Hodgson: As I answered in the previous two answers to the honourable member, we received a fax from Davies, Ward and Beck through the OCC; Mr Barbaro was quoted as saying he was satisfied with the facts that we received, and now I think it's prudent to make sure that we take a good look at it. It's his new job and I'm new to this file, and the government wants to make sure that we do everything according to what's open and transparent and in the public interest. I'm sure you're not opposed to having Stanley Beck have another look at this, are you?

The Speaker: New question; third party.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): To the Chair of Management Board, please, nobody is suggesting that Stanley Beck is held in anything but the highest regard. But what you have done is repeated the same error - and in this instance through your new head of the OCC - that was committed by the OCC in the last instance. The OCC has retained a lawyer to conduct some sort of investigation. Clearly, Ron Barbaro recognizes that the Davies, Ward and Beck was far from adequate, far from thorough, and that in fact it was tainted because of the intimate relationship that law firm had during the whole course of the process with the OCC.

Once again at the end of the day you've still got the OCC, through its own retained lawyer, effectively investigating itself. Why are you making the same mistake twice? Why don't you resolve the issue and call a public inquiry?

Hon Mr Hodgson: One of the things when you're in government is that you have to go with what the facts are. When you raised this innuendo a couple of weeks ago, we asked to find out what the facts were in this situation.

The facts are that we've received the report on the facts around the process from the Ontario Casino Corp through their lawyers, Davies, Ward and Beck. Mr Barbaro was quoted in the paper as saying he was satisfied with those facts, but in his new role as CEO, before he makes a recommendation to sign with the number-one-ranked proponent, he wants to make sure that everything is in order, and we've asked Stanley Beck to come in and take a look at that.

Mr Kormos: If Mr Barbaro were satisfied, he wouldn't feel compelled to retain yet another lawyer to conduct a repeat of what was done by Davies, Ward and Beck.

Let's go back to Davies, Ward and Beck, the OCC's very own lawyers, just as now Mr Beck is the OCC's retained lawyer. The OCC, in their instructions to Davies, Ward and Beck, didn't even want information about the prior relationship. That was critical to any investigation into the conflicts of interest that have been raised over the course of the past three weeks. Mr Beck is going to be receiving instructions from the OCC in terms of what the scope of his questions is to be, just as Davies, Ward and Beck were responsible to the OCC and not to the public, not to the Legislature.

Why are you permitting the OCC to engage in yet another pursuit which will end up with the same taint as did the Davies, Ward and Beck so-called investigation?

Hon Mr Hodgson: If the member wants to look at the Toronto Star article from the Saturday, June 13 edition, it says: "Casino corporation chairman Ron Barbaro said he was satisfied with the review and noted it `was prepared by Davies, Ward and Beck, not by one individual. I believe the report was thorough and that the facts show that there was no conflict of interest.'"

Beyond that, Mr Barbaro talked to me about being even more prudent in appointing Stanley Beck, whom you just admitted a few minutes ago you hold in the highest esteem. So what's your problem with that?

Mr Kormos: I hold Davies, Ward and Beck in the highest esteem; they're very good lawyers, which is why they've respected their solicitor-client privilege with the OCC and why they did exactly what they were instructed to do. You don't understand the distinction between what you did and now Mr Barbaro is doing and what a public inquiry is. Mr Barbaro can't call a public inquiry. A public inquiry is public, it's open, it's truly transparent. It permits the summonsing or subpoena of witnesses and requires them to testify under oath. That's what's imperative if we're truly going to clear the air around the conflict of interest and the corruption that's been suggested about the casino selection in Niagara Falls.

Mr Barbaro obviously wasn't satisfied with Davies, Ward and Beck. He understands he can't call a public inquiry. You know that you, and only you and your government, can. Exactly what is it that you're afraid of by virtue of a public, open process wherein people are compelled to attend and testify under oath?

Hon Mr Hodgson: The member of the third party is fully aware that there has been no contract signed. They are dealing with the number-one-ranked proponent. We have to deal with the facts, and the facts have been outlined and given to you and shared with this House, a report from the OCC about Coopers and Lybrand's involvement in this process. A further step is to have Mr Barbaro satisfy himself by retaining Stanley Beck just to make doubly sure that the public's interest has been well protected and well served before any contract is signed.

I quote again from your colleague in the NDP, Tony Silipo. He says that Beck's appointment is a step in the right direction. If he agrees with it, how come you don't?

1410

ELECTORAL REFORM

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): My question is also to the Chair of Management Board on another of his nightmare files that he's dealing with. This is on your proposed changes to the Election Finances Act. Minister, you keep trying to justify your attempt to buy the next election by saying that you're merely reflecting the all-party commission recommendations, but you know that one of the most outrageous changes, one that allows you to double the amount that the central party can spend every day, that allows you to pour an extra $1.3 million into your government advertising, was not recommended by the commission. In fact, they said that the central party spending limits should stay the same. You know that, Minister. Why are you trying to tell the people of Ontario that you're moving on this legislation because of commission recommendations when one of the most important, outrageous and dangerous recommendations was not part of the commission's recommendations?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I think all parties recognized as far back as the early 1990s that we needed to change and modernize and update the Elections Act and the Election Finances Act. That's why we've gone through a process where all parties were represented on a seven-member panel that voted. Your party had two and you also had the chair, Jack Murray, who was appointed. We had ad hoc committees, with memorandums of agreement signed by each party.

We would have preferred to see an agreement that all parties agreed with. That's why we endeavoured to have meetings with your caucus. Your representative and I met for a couple of hours. Unfortunately, we were boxed in by positions of other parties that said they'd rather play politics with this than negotiate the details.

The recommendation that was made was for the riding per-voter spending limit to be raised to $1.40. The only thing the Liberal Party had on record in response to the commission's report was that they thought that was too high; they wanted to see the federal spending limits adopted. Actually, they wanted to see the federal rules adopted. We agreed with them on the spending side, but we couldn't agree with them on the donation side, because as you know, in the federal there's no limit.

Mr Christopherson: Minister, you continue to fudge the issue. The fact is that the commission, the very commission that you stand behind when you try to justify your attempt to buy the next election, did not recommend increasing central party spending by over $1.3 million. They did not. My question to you is this: Why are you pushing ahead with the changes to the legislation that you know will benefit your government because it's your corporate pals who can now double the amount of money they give to you? And why do you say that you have the right to ram it through this place when the recommendation I've raised with you today is not part of the commission's report?

Hon Mr Hodgson: As I just explained to the member of the third party, that recommendation came from the Liberal Party in a written response to the commission, that they wanted to see the same rules as the federal had. As you know, the $1.40 an elector they thought was too high; we agreed with them and we chose the federal spending limit of 96 cents per voter, and that correspondingly raised the party spending to 60 cents per voter. As far as the exemptions and the exclusion list is concerned, that is clearly out now, under the present rules.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Who's lying now, Hodgson? Now who's lying?

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Welland-Thorold, you must withdraw that comment.

Mr Kormos: Withdrawn.

Mr Christopherson: Minister, it still doesn't wash. The fact of the matter is, we're not talking about increases in riding spending; we're talking about increases to central party spending. The last time I looked at a map, the province of Ontario will be the same size in the next election as it was in the last election. This has nothing to do with riding boundaries.

Minister, we've made the point from the beginning that you have ignored the democratic tradition of this place of having all-party agreement before you introduce any changes. We have said to you that you do not have proposals that reflect all the recommendations that are contained in the commission's report. The fact of the matter is, there is no justification for what you are doing except setting up the rules so that you can buy the next election.

I ask you again, will you withdraw the part of your recommendation that increases central party spending?

Hon Mr Hodgson: As everyone who has read the recommendations of the commission knows, they talked about total spending of $1.80 per voter. By accepting the Liberal Party recommendation they had in writing, by combining the riding and the central party, it works out to $1.56. So you're right; the commission talked about $1.80 and we're talking about $1.56. It's less than that, because we tried to get all-party agreement on this and do the right thing for the people of Ontario.

SHORTLINE RAILWAY

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Transportation. Minister, I want to raise with you an issue of very serious importance to the people of Orangeville. You will know that there is a shortline rail track that's going to shut down shortly. The problem is - and I know you're familiar with this; you had an opportunity to meet with the business representatives - that 720 local manufacturing jobs hang in the balance here. If that track is shut down, that's what's at risk.

The communities have got together with the businesses and they're prepared to put up the necessary financial resources. What they want from your government is a loan guarantee that would help to preserve 720 jobs. I get the impression from speaking with the business people and the community representatives that you're giving them the brush-off, but you have an opportunity now to say that you're going to provide the loan guarantee. It's as simple as that: you're with them; they're not going to lose the jobs; this government will provide the loan guarantee.

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Transportation): I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question. I can assure the honourable member and this House that I have not given the brush-off to anyone relating to this issue.

This is a very serious issue. It involves not only the municipal side but also the federal side, because the honourable member knows that it is under the aegis of federal opportunity to deal with this issue that the railways are divesting themselves. Indeed, it was this government that initiated a Shortline Railways Act in 1995 to facilitate keeping marginal lines open to ensure that business was available in Ontario. So I want to assure the honourable member that within the confines of the business plan of my ministry, we will do everything we can on behalf of the citizens in the areas that he's referring to.

Mr McGuinty: What I want today from you, Mr Minister, is your commitment -

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): What they want from the federal representatives, you mean.

Mr McGuinty: I see the minister is bringing in the federal representatives, as you did as well in your response. That is not relevant to the people of the city of Orangeville. It is not relevant -

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Hold on. Leader of the Opposition.

Mr McGuinty: I see that the member for Dufferin-Peel is somewhat sensitive on this issue. Perhaps in the next round of questions he might want to direct a question to you.

Minister, what I want now is simply a straightforward commitment on your part that your government will provide the loan guarantee; that those jobs are not at risk; that the people in the city of Orangeville can relax; that they don't have to worry about getting any help from their own member, who has been very reluctant to assist in this regard. You will help; you will provide. Can you provide that guarantee?

1420

Interjections.

The Speaker: Leader of the official opposition.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, once more, can you please stand up in this Legislature today and provide us with your assurance that you will come up with the necessary loan guarantee so that the representatives of the city of Orangeville and their business leaders no longer have to be concerned about the loss of 720 jobs?

Hon Mr Clement: I implore the honourable member to portray his kinder and gentler side more often than he did in the earlier part of his statements. I want to assure him that the member for Dufferin -

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): Come on, Clement. Just tell him to call Doug Young. This is a federal matter. Get a thousand miles of track up north.

The Speaker: Order. Minister.

Hon Mr Clement: I can assure this House that the member for Dufferin-Peel has been extremely active on this issue. He has been a worthy advocate for his community. He has been a pit bull on this issue. In fact, the honourable Leader of the Opposition has reminded me that the member for Dufferin-Peel made an offer to his federal counterpart and said, "Look, I think I can fight on behalf of my community in my caucus if the federal government's at the table." The federal government said no.

I want to assure this House that the Ministry of Transportation has been at the table, the Ministry of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism is at the table but a chair is empty. The federal chair is empty.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Minister, today we hear of yet another chapter in your government's huge mishandling of the property tax reform system. Your rushed market value assessments were so off the mark that the property taxes will have to rise here in Toronto will have to rise by some $250 per household just to pay for the changes in the reassessment. That's in addition to the extra taxes that you're dumping on homeowners in your attempt to save the business taxpayers from your earlier mistakes, that quite frankly would have put many small businesses out of business. What we're seeing here is the Eveready bunny of tax disasters: They just keep on going and going and going.

Minister, will you finally admit that your property tax reform is a fiasco, and that you should have taken the time, the three years timeline that we and, more importantly, many experts told you that you should have taken to do this? What are you prepared to do now to fix this ongoing problem that's going to cause havoc here in Toronto and throughout the province?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): There's one thing we will agree on, and that is that the tax situation in the province is an ungodly mess. It has been that way for decades. The people of Ontario finally have a government with the courage to address a very, very serious problem, something you wouldn't even touch, to get assessments straightened out in the province -

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Minister.

Hon Mr Leach: Again, the purpose of this reassessment and the purpose of a new tax method is to bring fairness and equity back into the tax system in the province of Ontario, something that hasn't existed for many years. The last time Toronto was assessed was 40 years ago. That's laughably out of date.

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): How many years was a Tory government in power? Over 40 years.

Hon Mr Leach: Neither one of these parties - they're always very quick to criticize, but they weren't there to take any action. They finally got a government in the province of Ontario that is prepared to make the very difficult, tough decisions to make sure we have a tax system that is fair and equitable to all citizens.

Mr Silipo: Minister, you're being tough, all right. You were being tough on small businesses; you almost drove thousands of them out of business. Now you're being tough on homeowners, who are going to have to bear not only the $250 on average increase because of the reassessment, but when the appeals are in - and as you know, people have until August 31 to file their formal appeals - we expect thousands and thousands of more changes. So the fiasco is going to continue.

Minister, you've been the government now for three years. You've brought in legislation four times in this House to try to fix the property tax problem and you've made it more of a mess than it was before.

Will you finally acknowledge that it's a mess that you've created, and will you finally take the time necessary at least to contemplate giving municipalities a year's breathing space before they go down this dangerous road and before we all discover what everybody out there knows and what taxpayers are seeing, which is that this system can't work?

Hon Mr Leach: To the member from the third party, they always have the same solution: Do nothing. Delay. Don't improve it. Just let the terrible, unfair, biased tax system stay in place forever. You kept it in place for the five years you were in power. You wouldn't deal with it.

What the new assessment system will do, as I said previously, is finally bring some fairness, finally bring some equity back into a very broken property tax system in Ontario. Rather than criticizing, you would think the opposition parties would support getting rid of a broken, unfair system where some people pay far more than they should and others are not paying their fair share.

When this new system is in place - and it is complex, there isn't any doubt about that - everyone will be paying their fair share, fair and equitable, and that's the whole purpose of this bill.

1430

TEXTBOOKS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): My question is for the Minister of Education. Last week the tentative list of textbooks approved for your new elementary school curriculum came out. This is the list of books, as you well know, that your government plans to spend at least $70 million on within the next week. These new books are supposed to support your new curriculum in language, math, science and kindergarten. But, Minister, your new science curriculum was only unveiled a couple of months ago, so not surprisingly, no one has had time yet to write any books to fit with your new science curriculum and, not surprisingly, there are no science textbooks for grades 1 to 5 anywhere on the approved list. Minister, can you explain how you expect teachers to teach your new science curriculum next year when they have no science textbooks?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): I'm really delighted to be given the opportunity to talk about this program, which will invest some $100 million in Ontario in our elementary school system through science equipment and through textbooks for elementary students.

When we took office three years ago, we found two problems at least. One was that there was a huge shortage of textbooks, a legacy of the previous 10 years of the previous two governments. We have identified that problem and addressed it by investing some $100 million. Second, the science and technology curriculum, all of the curriculum at the elementary and secondary levels, needed to be improved, needed more rigour in it, and we have addressed this.

We have introduced the new science and technology curriculum, a curriculum written by many teachers across Ontario and supported by those teachers. It will be introduced this fall. The textbooks are being developed and will come along in the very near future to support that curriculum.

Mrs McLeod: The textbooks may come along, but there won't be any money left to buy the textbooks. That's the problem. The reality is that this minister and his government love to talk about their new textbook dollars, but even more than that they love the idea of having their MPPs get their photo taken presenting the new textbooks for back-to-school time in September.

That, Minister, is why you're insisting that all the orders be in for those textbooks by June 23, next week. That's why you're forcing this through even though there are no science textbooks on the list to support your new curriculum. That's why the majority of purchases are about to go to American publishers. That's why the grade 5 language arts text that follows the grade 4 text, produced by a Canadian publisher, that's now in the classrooms, can't even make the list, because it can't be bound in time to make your deadline.

Minister, if you have any interest at all in good textbooks, if you're more interested in textbooks than a photo op for your members in September, will you delay the deadline for the purchase of textbooks and allow those books to be purchased next fall when there are good, Canadian-produced textbooks on the list for purchase?

Hon David Johnson: The amount of money indicated by the Minister of Finance in the budget doubles the amount of money available for textbooks. There is another amount of money in the basic formula for textbooks for all schools. There was an insufficient quantity of books in our classrooms in Ontario, a legacy of the previous two governments. This government has taken the action of proceeding with the purchase of textbooks to supply our children with textbooks this fall. Will I back off, as the critic for education has asked? Will I back off and deny our children those textbooks? Absolutely not. We want our children to have those textbooks in time for the complete curriculum this fall.

WATER HEATER RENTAL RATES

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Today Pollution Probe announced that they would be appealing to cabinet the Ontario Energy Board decision that lets Union Gas shaft consumers. The decision will mean that residential customers will face a 44% hike in their gas water heater rental rates and a further 90,000 consumers in northern and eastern Ontario will have their service cut off entirely. Their only option will be either to buy gas water heaters or rent electric ones. In either case, both will be more expensive.

In response to questions from my leader and the member for Riverdale you said, "Clearly, if there is a point in time at which there is some sort of danger of immense rate hikes, we will certainly be there to support the consumer."

Minister, you said you'd be there to support consumers. We expect you to live up to that commitment. Are you going to keep your word to the consumers of Ontario?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Yes, I did say earlier on that if there were immense or huge increases, we would certainly take a look at it. The background information indicates to me that Union Gas recently increased its water heater rental rates by less than $1 a month, effective April 1998. I hazard a guess that's not a huge or immense rate hike. We do have a commitment to make sure that consumers are protected in this province.

I would remind the member as well that the water heater rental rates are not regulated by the board; they never were. Even under your government they were not, so clearly there's been no change in any type of legislation or regulation of the area. But I don't believe that less than $1 is a huge or immense hike.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary.

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): Union Gas's own witnesses who came before the Ontario Energy Board said something quite different. In fact, the witnesses from CIBC Wood Gundy Securities said that if the Union Gas rental business was sold to Union Energy, the most defensible, safest assumption is that Union Energy will raise residential rates by 44%. If that isn't gouging of consumers, I don't know what is. It's something you should be worried about.

This is bad news for communities in northern Ontario and eastern Ontario. Some 112 communities like Capreol, Nickel Centre and Valley East, which I represent, will not be able to rent hot water heaters. Other communities, like Sudbury, Sault Ste Marie, North Bay and Kingston, will see their rental rates increase by 44%.

Minister, you said you would protect the consumers if they were going to be gouged. A 44% rate increase is gouging. People who can't get affordable rates for rental units will have a serious problem because they have no other alternatives. What are you going to do to protect the consumer in this case?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I'll refer the second part to the Minister of Energy.

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): I'll remind the honourable member that it was the Ontario Energy Board, under the leadership of Floyd Laughren, the former finance minister and NDP member of this Legislature, that approved this. Secondly, the Ontario Energy Board did its job on behalf of consumers.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): The decision was made before he was appointed and the minister knows that.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Wilson: The Ontario Energy Board did its job in protecting consumers. What the honourable members have forgotten to mention here is that the distribution system, which is a regulated monopoly of the Ontario Energy Board, was subsidizing the cost of hot water rental heaters. This is a good move for consumers in that it divides the services part or the competitive part -

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): You're not going to do it, eh?

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Correct the record.

The Speaker: Order. Minister.

1440

Hon Mr Wilson: The new cost of the hot water rental heaters, which by the way, as my honourable colleague said, have never been regulated by the province - by the NDP government, the Liberal government or any former Conservative government - will be mostly offset by the other side of the equation. The distribution costs by Union Gas will go down by some $12 million. People will see that portion of their bill go down while they see their hot water rental heater go up about $1 a month.

Secondly, 9,000 customers will not be left out. That's because of the monopoly situation. By dividing up the monopolistic part and the services part, new competition will come in. For the first time, the people of the north will have an opportunity to purchase or rent hot water heaters from a variety of sources and not be stuck with just one source. The Ontario Energy Board took great pains to make sure no customers -

The Speaker: Thank you. New question.

HYDRO RATES

Mr W. Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): My question is for the Minister of Energy. Minister, I would like to congratulate you and the chairman of Hydro for introducing the Energy Competition Act and other related acts. A modernized power industry will give customers choice and lower prices and will create even more jobs in Ontario. However, there is concern in rural communities that their electricity rates will not be protected. They want to know if the new utilities will continue to practise equitable pricing.

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): I thank my colleague the member for Lanark-Renfrew for the question. It's a very important question, particularly for those of us who represent rural Ontario and remote areas of the province. About 600,000 remote or rural residential customers and about 100,000 farms do rely on rural rate assistance. I can assure the honourable member and all members of this House from all parties that the rural rate assistance provisions in the Energy Competition Act will fully maintain the status quo and will grandparent all current customers. The same amount of dollars will be spent. All of us will continue to ensure that the electricity prices of those in rural and remote parts of Ontario are as fair and as level and as close across the province to all customer classes. The status quo will be maintained, and we've specifically written that into the legislation.

Mr Jordan: Thank you, Minister, for that information. How do you plan to proceed with your plan to communicate to rural and remote areas?

Hon Mr Wilson: Again, I thank the honourable member for Lanark-Renfrew for the question. It's an important way for us today to assure the people at home and in the galleries who are watching what is in the Energy Competition Act, and that is that rural rate assistance will be fully protected.

In addition, a public awareness campaign is needed. I'll be working with our colleague the Honourable Noble Villeneuve, the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, this summer. We're inviting all stakeholders, like the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and others, to sit down with us and share their thoughts. However, I should tell you that the stakeholders that have expressed an interest about rural rate assistance to this point are very pleased with seeing it in the new legislation. They can see for themselves that rural rate assistance is fully protected.

YEAR 2000 PROBLEM

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): My question is for the Chair of Management Board and it's about the computer chip problem facing Ontario for the year 2000, the possibility of massive system failures in both public and private services.

As you are aware, computer chips are everywhere. They regulate our water, our power, our heating systems. They are also crucial to the health care system, our hospitals, our schools, public safety and the very working of government.

Minister, your government has identified 63 critical areas that must be made ready for the year 2000. Can you confirm to this House that you've allocated sufficient resources to ensure that all the areas the government is responsible for will be ready by the year 2000?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): It's a good question, and the answer is yes, I can confirm that this government has set aside the resources to make sure we meet this major challenge. This is probably the most major challenge a government has faced. It's a huge technological challenge. We think we've got a plan that will meet that challenge and make sure we have all our systems ready to go.

We started over a year ago to identify systems that will need to be upgraded, and right now we're in the process of converting those systems. We have identified 63 mission-critical systems that are under way right now. We want to have that complete a full year ahead of the year 2000 so that we can test it and make sure there are no mistakes.

Mr Cullen: Thank you for that answer, Minister. I guess it comes down to a very simple thing for the ordinary taxpayer in Ontario who holds a health card or a drug card, who lives in a nursing home or hospital, or has a child in a child care centre. Can you guarantee this House that none of these 63 critical areas you have identified will fail in the year 2000? Can you make that guarantee to this House?

Hon Mr Hodgson: I appreciate the question. To the best of our ability, we're on track to meeting that objective. I think that's the objective all members of this House and all the public want to see accomplished.

CHILD CARE

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. There is a crisis brewing with respect to access to subsidized child care spaces in Ontario. Of course, you will know that the latest example of that is in your own backyard. As you have moved to make it mandatory for single parents on family benefits to participate in workfare in your Ontario Works program, their need for quality subsidized child care is quite evident and the money you have put in is clearly, evidently not enough. In Durham region, they're about to put a freeze on day care subsidies and the year is not even half over. Officials from Durham region are coming to the ministry to meet with your officials to ask for more money. When they come calling, what are you going to say?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): The honourable member is quite right that child care support is extremely important for sole-support families, especially for those on welfare who are trying to finish their education or get into paid employment. That is one of the reasons that under Ontario Works we have increased the funding available for child care. We also introduced, in the recent budget, the LEAP program - Learning, Earning and Parenting - which is specifically targeted at young teens who are trying to get off welfare. In addition, this year's budget enriches the child care supplement for low-income families. There is a fair bit that has been done, and we are prepared to work with the municipalities to do more to expand child care support for those individuals. I look forward to the report back from my officials when they talk to the Durham region officials.

Ms Lankin: It isn't a question of a report back from your officials. You owe an explanation to the people in Durham and across the province. You have not put enough resources in to resource your Ontario Works workfare plan. Beyond that, the child care income supplement that you have put in place will not create a subsidized child care space. It does not help a low-income person who cannot afford the total cost of child care with the pittance you have put into that income supplement.

Let me quote from Annette Miriguay, one of the people you said you wanted to give a hand up to. Here's what she said:

"It's just another slap in the face.

"Every time you try to get ahead in this world, someone leaves footprints on your back."

Minister, you can do something about this. We need an expansion of licensed subsidized child care spaces in this province in order for Ontario Works to work and in order for low-income parents to have the adequate support for child care they need. Will you stop with all the rhetoric around the income supplement, which is not going to do a thing, and will you put the money where it's really needed, in expanding subsidized child care spaces in Ontario?

Hon Mrs Ecker: With all due respect to the honourable member, an investment of what will work out to about $185 million in child care supplements for low-income parents is certainly not in my mind something that could be characterized as rhetoric by any stretch of the imagination.

I would also like to remind the honourable member that according to the Durham region officials, who are also quoted in that same newspaper story, they don't know why this woman is saying that, because no decisions have been made. They are not aware that this woman has been told she can't access child care.

We are meeting with Durham region - it's something we do on a regular basis - to talk to them about how we can continue to have very important child care supports for those individuals who are trying to get off social assistance.

1450

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL JURISDICTION

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): My question is directed to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and it deals with the ongoing discrimination and unfairness with which the federal government has approached Ontario, whether it be the eight cents per dollar on health care, the second-lowest in the county, or the huge reductions in health care expenditures and transfers to Ontario, or the even more vital area, that the federal government should be responsible for evening out the $850 per newcomer to Canada compared to the $2,500 Quebec gets.

Why is it that the federal government persistently, consistently discriminates against Ontario with respect to newcomers to this province, particularly to the Metropolitan Toronto area?

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): The problems cited by my colleague speak loudly to the need that all Canadians want their governments to work together so we can have efficient and effective social programs, including health. That means all of us.

The federal unilateral decisions don't help, however, especially in areas of provincial jurisdiction. I say that to all of my colleagues in the House, who in fact have had the same position as this government over the years. The problem with the federal unilateral decision-making is that we don't get those effective and efficient programs for the people we represent.

I must say that the status quo is not working. That's why all governments, including the province of Ontario, are working on an agreement to modernize the Canadian federation. There are certain principles that were established by the premiers and the Prime Minister and there were some objectives.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Answer.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: We're looking at principles, such as mobility and monitoring social programs, dispute settlement mechanisms, collaborative approaches -

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr Hastings: My supplementary deals with the whole treatment regarding diverse communities in this province, particularly in the greater Toronto region. We know there are discussions going on with the federal government regarding a new social union, contrary to the provincial Grits over there, who really take this question totally with alacrity. I find that quite amazing, Minister.

Why is it that we're still getting $850 per new immigrant to this country, yet Quebec gets $2,500? How can this state of affairs continue to persist?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: The member is absolutely correct. If we did have this framework agreement supporting the principles that the premiers and the Prime Minister have all agreed with, the people of Ontario would be better served. We wouldn't see ourselves not being able to serve our own people in Ontario with regard to the same level of funding in most other provinces, on labour market training, immigration, employment insurance, where it is lower than most other provinces; and where the federal funding for health care - eight cents on the dollar, as my colleague mentioned - and social assistance and higher education under the Canada health and social transfer is lower per capita than any province except Alberta.

We need these rules to guide our governments. There would be no more unilateral announcements if we could have these rules. It's not about ganging up on the federal government or a power grab. It's about ensuring that we have our social programs for all Canadians and that each person is treated equally.

CONSUMER PROTECTION

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Consumers are being bombarded with deceitful ads from big companies on a daily basis. Two of the worst examples are the big phone companies and the big car companies whose ads we see daily on television and in newspapers.

Of specific concern are the gigantic ads in the newspapers where enticing claims are printed in big, bold letters, while the real information is buried in the superfine print at the bottom. You know the type I'm talking about: the ones like this, which has a big zero, but then when you read the fine print you find out that you have to pay about 10 or 20 times the so-called loss leader.

With these superfine-print ads happening all across the newspapers, consumers are being ripped off. Even the telephone companies - again, you can't see the fine print. Are you going to put a stop to these fine-print ads and bring about a transparent standard leasing form or contract form for telephones and for cars so consumers won't get ripped off by the likes of these phoney ads?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I thank the member for the question because it's quite timely. The Ontario motor vehicle part of the self-managed industry is currently looking at some of the questions which the member is actually asking. In fact, it is a concern of theirs that the public somehow would receive misleading advertising. So this is currently under review. They expect to have some response back from them shortly. Certainly it is a good initiative. I believe we should be doing something to make sure that consumers are not deceived.

Also, I might add that there is access as well to the Business Practices Act in terms of any misleading types of acts by any companies.

I do applaud the members of OMVIC right now, because this is an issue that they have come up with, that they're pursuing right now, and they'll be making suggestions very shortly.

PETITIONS

MULTICULTURALISM

Mr David Caplan (Oriole): I have a petition titled, "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the impact of the Conservative government's funding cuts on education is adversely affecting our educational system;

"Whereas over 60 languages are spoken by more than 70 ethnic cultural groups across the country;

"Whereas for more than 20 years the school boards of Ontario have sponsored and supported the international (heritage) language program, helping hundreds of thousands of elementary school aged children to learn their heritage language and culture;

"Whereas in July 1988 the government of Canada legislated the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, which states that every citizen, regardless of origin, has an equal chance to participate in all aspects of the country's collective life;

"Whereas Ontario's diversity is increasingly recognized as an asset in both the domestic and international markets and a major contributing factor in Canada's economic prosperity;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to recognize and promote multiculturalism as a fundamental characteristic of Ontario's identity and heritage; and

"Further, we request that the Legislative Assembly support, promote and ensure the continuation of the international (heritage) language program."

This is signed by 160 residents of Oriole and I affix my signature.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Stop the clock for a minute. I just want to talk about the petitions again. I know we were reminded last week.

Yes, you may read them, but if you do have a long one, it would be helpful if you could just summarize it. That was long. That was a minute and 45 seconds. If we did it that way, we'd get maybe 10 on a day. It would be helpful to those members so they can get them on. You can summarize them; you don't have to read them verbatim. Especially if you've read it once, maybe you could summarize it. I'd appreciate it.

BEAR HUNTING

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): My petition is with respect to ending the spring bear hunt.

"Whereas bears are hunted in the spring after they have come out of hibernation; and

"Whereas about 30% of the bears killed in the spring are female, some with cubs; and

"Whereas over 70% of the orphaned cubs do not survive the first year; and

"Whereas 95.3% of bears killed by non-resident hunters and 54% killed by resident hunters are killed over bait; and

"Whereas Ontario still allows the limited use of dogs in bear hunting; and

"Whereas bears are the only large mammals hunted in the spring;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario to amend the Game and Fish Act to prohibit the hunting of bears in the spring and to prohibit the use of baiting and dogs in all bear hunting activities."

I have in front of me today 23,000-plus signatures to add to 40,000 others that have already been submitted. Over 63,000 people in Ontario have signed this. I'm in agreement and will affix my signature.

SCHOOL CUSTODIAN

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): I continue to receive petitions concerning a local janitor who will now not lose his job over language, I'm very pleased to report.

"Whereas the local French community and staff at École Sainte-Marie in Simcoe have signed a separate petition in support of Mr Santiago Reyes indicating that they want him to continue to work as a custodian at their school;

"Whereas Mr Reyes has an excellent performance record and should not be discriminated against on the basis of language or in any other way;

"Whereas the undersigned join the local French community's request that any further attempts to involuntarily displace Mr Reyes from his custodial position at École Sainte-Marie in Simcoe be stopped immediately and want him to continue to work as a custodian in that location;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to guarantee to Mr Reyes his right to not be discriminated against on the basis of language."

I sign this petition.

1500

ROAD SAFETY

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): "To the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas there are over 55,000 motor vehicle collisions at intersections throughout Ontario every year; and

"Whereas red light cameras can dramatically assist in reducing the number of injuries and deaths resulting from red light runners; and

"Whereas the installation of red light cameras at dangerous intersections has proven to be successful in Australia and other jurisdictions; and

"Whereas there is a shortage of police officers; and

"Whereas the collisions at these intersections are resulting in serious injury to pedestrians, cyclists and motorists; and

"Whereas the provincial government has endorsed the use of similar cameras to collect tolls on Highway 407; and

"Whereas mayors and concerned citizens across Ontario have been asking permission to utilize red light cameras;

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

"That the government of Ontario support the installation of red light cameras at high-collision intersections to monitor and prosecute motorists who run red lights."

I affix my name to this.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I continue to receive petitions regarding workplace health and safety. These are from Canadian Auto Workers members and United Steelworkers members. The petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas approximately 300 workers are killed on the job each year and 400,000 suffer work-related injuries and illnesses; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario continues to allow a massive erosion of WCB prevention funding; and

"Whereas Ontario workers are fearful that the government of Ontario, through its recent initiatives, is threatening to dismantle workers' clinics and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre; and

"Whereas the workers' clinics and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre have consistently provided a meaningful role for labour within the health and safety prevention system; and

"Whereas the workers' clinics and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre have proven to be the most cost-effective prevention organizations funded by the WCB;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately cease the assault on the workers' clinics and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre; and

"Further, we, the undersigned, call upon the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to ensure that the workers' clinics and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre remain labour-driven organizations with full and equitable WCB funding and that the WCB provide adequate prevention funding to eliminate workplace illness, injury and death."

On behalf of my NDP colleagues, I add my name to the petitioners.

GRAVEL PIT

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition with 68 signatures from Caledon.

"We, the undersigned, understand that there is presently an application pending that would allow the commencement of an operation of a gravel pit at Winston Churchill and Old Baseline Road in Caledon.

"As either a daytripper or a weekender to the area, we believe that we are an affected party and as such would like to register our objection to this application and would ask that all applicable government agencies turn this application down and will not allow such an offensive use to ruin such a close and accessible nature area."

I have signed this petition.

ROAD SAFETY

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): My petition deals with red light cameras making high-collision intersections safer.

"To the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas red light cameras can dramatically assist in reducing the number of injuries and deaths resulting from red light runners; and

"Whereas red light cameras only take pictures of licence plates, thus reducing privacy concerns; and

"Whereas there is a growing disregard for traffic laws resulting in serious injury to pedestrians, cyclists, motorists and especially children and seniors; and

"Whereas the provincial government has endorsed the use of a similar camera system to collect tolls on the new Highway 407 tollway; and

"Whereas mayors and concerned citizens across Ontario have been seeking permission to deploy these cameras due to limited police resources;

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

"That the province of Ontario support the installation of red light cameras at high-collision intersections to monitor and prosecute motorists who run red lights."

I'm pleased to affix my signature to it.

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia): I have a petition from about 30 people in my riding.

"Whereas nurses in Ontario often experience coercion to participate in practices which directly contravene their deeply held ethical standards; and

"Whereas pharmacists in Ontario are often pressured to dispense and/or sell chemicals and/or devices contrary to their moral or religious beliefs; and

"Whereas public health workers in Ontario are expected to assist in providing controversial services and promoting controversial materials against their consciences; and

"Whereas physicians in Ontario often experience pressure to give referrals for medications, treatments and/or procedures which they believe to be gravely immoral; and

"Whereas competent health care workers and students in various health care disciplines in Ontario have been denied training, employment, continued employment and advancement in their intended fields and suffered other forms of unjust discrimination because of the dictates of their consciences; and

"Whereas the health care workers experiencing such unjust discrimination have at present no practical and accessible legal means to protect themselves;

"We, the undersigned, urge the government of Ontario to enact legislation explicitly recognizing the freedom of conscience of health care workers; prohibiting coercion of and unjust discrimination against health care workers because of their refusal to participate in matters contrary to the dictates of their consciences; and establishing penalties for such coercion and unjust discrimination."

I add my signature.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): Last week at a very important meeting hosted by the coalition of community mental health, we dealt with the mental health care crisis in Thunder Bay. Petitions were signed by a number of people, and I would like to read them into the record.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas proper mental health care is essential to all Ontarians; and

"Whereas mental health care is severely underfunded in northwestern Ontario; and

"Whereas the Health Services Restructuring Commission has called for the closure of the Lakehead Psychiatric Hospital with no replacement services in its place; and

"Whereas appropriate community mental health treatment is so lacking in northwestern Ontario that those who need treatment, support and rehabilitation are incarcerated in district jails; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Health has not delivered on its commitment to set up the Northwestern Ontario Mental Health Agency over one year after it promised to do so; and

"Whereas there is a dramatic shortage of psychiatrists in northwestern Ontario, to the point where the doctors are severely overworked; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Health promised a 12-bed adolescent treatment centre and has failed to deliver on that promise;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to commit those funds necessary to provide full and proper mental health care to those in need in northwestern Ontario and call on the Minister of Health to cancel the closure of the Lakehead Psychiatric Hospital."

I'm pleased to sign my name to that petition.

ABORTION

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): I have a petition sent to the Honourable Al Palladini, member for York Centre. It was submitted by the Knights of Columbus, St Joseph the Worker Council 10531.

"Whereas Ontario taxpayers funded over 45,000 abortions in 1993 at an estimated cost of $25 million; and

"Whereas pregnancy is not a disease, injury or illness, and abortions are not therapeutic procedures; and

"Whereas the vast majority of abortions are done for reasons of convenience or finance; and

"Whereas the province has the exclusive authority to determine what services will be insured; and

"Whereas the Canada Health Act does not require funding for elective procedures; and

"Whereas there is mounting evidence that abortion is in fact hazardous to women's health;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to cease from providing any taxpayers' dollars for the performance of abortions."

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): This petition is submitted to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario on behalf of the following councils: Manitoulin Secondary School, Espanola High School, A.B. Ellis Public School, Charles C. McLean Public School, Assiginack Public School, Central Manitoulin Public School, Massey Public School, S. Geiger Public School, Little Current Public School.

"Whereas the school councils representing two public secondary schools and seven public elementary schools in the Manitoulin-Espanola areas of northern Ontario have recently been apprised of the directive regarding funding formulae based on the square footage per pupil; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario is committed to equality of funding and delivery of programs to all schools in the province of Ontario: and

"Whereas there is a common mill rate for educational purposes across the province; and

"Whereas all northern and rural school boards in this province became part of larger boards in 1969 and then again in 1998, with the understanding that students would receive an ever-higher quality and diversity of education; and

"Whereas for single-school communities and schools whose catchment areas are vast, such as rural and northern schools represented by the school councils listed below, there is clearly a contradiction between the expectations of quality education and the expectation of closing substantial areas of each of our schools; and

"Whereas the school councils listed below have discussed these conflicting goals and believe strongly that there will be no appreciable cost savings, while at the same time, should our schools lose the square footage of educational space that is demanded of them, that this will result in a catastrophic reduction to the quality and equity of educational opportunities for our rural and northern children.

"Therefore, we petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to halt implementation of this arbitrary directive for one year in order that a full assessment can be conducted on the ramifications and implications to the quality and equity of educational programs and services in northern and rural schools and their students."

I am proud to affix my signature.

1510

HOSPITAL ADMINISTRATOR

Mr W. Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): This petition concerns the appointment of David Levine as administrator of the Ottawa Hospital, and it reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, are responsible taxpayers. We believe that the Ottawa Hospital board, and in particular Nick Mulder, acted irresponsibly in appointing David Levine as chief administrator. As our parliamentary representative, please let it be known in Queen's Park that we think both these officials should either resign or be fired."

The petition is signed by a number of constituents of mine, and I affix my signature.

ELECTORAL REFORM

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This petition is to the government of Ontario and the Legislature.

"Whereas the Conservative government of Mike Harris is trying to increase the limit on the amount of money that corporations and individuals are allowed to contribute to political parties and individual candidates in Ontario; and

"Whereas the Harris government plans to introduce legislation to permit political parties and candidates to spend far more money during election campaigns; and

"Whereas the Conservative government of Mike Harris would like to remove certain campaign expenditures such as polling and campaign headquarters equipment from the spending limits placed on political parties and candidates; and

"Whereas the Conservative government is proposing to abolish the Ontario election finances commission, the watchdog agency policing political contributions and expenditures; and

"Whereas the Harris government wishes to shorten the length of provincial election campaigns and to permit expensive media advertising throughout the entire campaign period, thereby favouring the political parties and candidates with the most money; and

"Whereas the changes to the Election Finances Act proposed by Mike Harris will give undue and unacceptable influence to the wealthiest and most powerful interests in our province and will result in the problems that have plagued the American political system, where money plays a central role;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, call upon Mike Harris to abandon his planned legislation which will permit substantial increases in the amount of money that can be contributed by corporations and individuals to political parties and candidates and the amount of money that political parties and candidates can spend in provincial elections."

I affix my signature, as I am in full agreement with this petition.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND WORKPLACE DEMOCRACY ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LE DÉVELOPPEMENT ÉCONOMIQUE ET SUR LA DÉMOCRATIE EN MILIEU DE TRAVAIL

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 31, An Act to promote economic development and create jobs in the construction industry, to further workplace democracy and to make other amendments to labour and employment statutes / Projet de loi 31, Loi visant à promouvoir le développement économique et à créer des emplois dans l'industrie de la construction, favorisant la démocratie en milieu de travail et apportant d'autres modifications aux lois ayant trait au travail et à l'emploi.

Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia): I appreciate this opportunity to speak on the second reading of Bill 31, the Economic Development and Workplace Democracy Act, a bill that will have a tremendously positive impact on the community I represent once passed.

I have previously spoken on this subject and made my argument for the provisions of this bill related to the construction industry during the Throne Speech debate, when I urged swift introduction of this legislation, so today I will not repeat myself.

I believe everyone in this House is quite familiar with what this bill would accomplish. As a government and as government members committed to continuing our successful jobs agenda, I know all of us know how much better our economy's stability and growth will be as a result of this bill.

While opposition members will naturally try to put a negative spin on this bill, like they have on our job-promoting tax cuts and just about everything we say and do, I would respectfully ask the members of the Liberal Party and the NDP to really think about what this legislation means to communities like Sarnia before you automatically cast a vote against this initiative.

I want to tell you that major investments and expansions in our petrochemical sector will not only create construction jobs, but permanent good-paying employment in the industries will result, and further jobs will follow in a spinoff effect.

Once new plants and expansions are commissioned, permanent benefits to our community and others in the province will be created through the need for ongoing purchases of material and equipment. This is good news for constructions workers, skilled workers seeking decent jobs and the youth of today who need to know they will have a place in our economy when they graduate.

If the opposition does not believe in the positive effects of Bill 31, I would suggest they should go back to their communities and listen to the quiet majority and to what's being said.

In my own community, I have been overwhelmed with the reaction. Construction workers are more confident that they'll be working in the future, business and community leaders who are encouraging new developments and investments feel their jobs are about to become easier with this bill's initiatives, and small businesses are looking forward to the increased economic activity that will reflect on their own continued success.

If opposition members don't wish to believe our government about the impact of this bill, I wonder what they think about the extremely positive reaction that continues to be voiced.

An editorial from the Observer, Sarnia's daily paper, is headlined, "Labour Bill Good for This Area," a blunt headline from a paper that's respected in my community for taking a critical look at the issues. Anyone familiar with my daily newspaper knows that the paper does not lightly applaud any government initiative until the editorial team has spent the time to do the proper community research.

I would like to read to you part of the editorial, "Labour Bill Good for This Area."

"A new provincial bill introduced...is good news for Sarnia-Lambton. The Economic Development and Workplace Democracy Act addresses the issues of competitiveness in the construction industry. Specifically, the bill creates a framework for companies and unions to negotiate specific agreements on major industrial projects in Ontario.

"The changes, once they become law, will allow for what's known as project agreements, which help local firms compete for high-tech and petrochemical projects.

"The bill also makes the union certification process more democratic. For example, it ensures certification can only occur when a majority of employees support a union in a secret ballot. As it stands, a union can be certified to represent employees without a vote, or regardless of its results....

"What project agreements do is allow lower wage costs to be negotiated on a onetime basis. Business and labour can work together, and with give and take create an attractive package to benefit both sides."

It ends by saying, "Be ready to invest, indeed."

This editorial touches on one of the most important aspects of project agreements. It enables local business and labour to negotiate and bargain for a mutually beneficial goal. As just about anyone in every community will tell you, local considerations and needs are much better represented through local decisions.

Providing a framework for local parties to negotiate specific project agreements outside the terms and conditions of province-wide agreements will transfer more decision-making power to local labour and industrial communities.

This measure was not taken lightly, nor was it taken without extensive research and consultation.

Alex Lolua, the director of government relations for the Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario, has noted in both the Windsor Star and the Globe and Mail that trade unions have been speaking with our government about project agreements and agreed with changes to encourage large construction projects that may not proceed without ways to shave some costs.

With the introduction of Bill 31, I'm happy to report that the tools for attracting major new investment to my community that are contained in this legislation have already boosted the hopes and expectations of Sarnia-Lambton residents. Our community is eager to take advantage of the opportunities to provide more prosperity in our area.

1520

Let me give you an example. Here's a full-page ad in the Sarnia Observer, presented to the people of Sarnia and to our government on behalf of the citizens of our community - one full page. I would like to read it.

"Dear Premier Harris: We'd like to thank you and the government of Ontario for listening to the people of Sarnia.

"Your commitment in the throne speech to `amend labour legislation, particularly as it affects the construction industry,' will help Sarnia-Lambton to compete for billions of dollars in new investment, and jobs from a growth industry in the new economy - the petrochemical industry.

"As Minister of Labour Jim Flaherty stated in an April 24, 1998, Globe and Mail article, the proposed changes would make it easier for employers and workers to reach project agreements that would be competitive with other jurisdictions in North America.

"The Sarnia area holds an enormous potential for new investment and job growth in the petrochemical industry; but we have not been able to realize that potential because construction costs of province-wide bargaining in the building trades have been steering that investment to Alberta and the US gulf coast."

This full-page ad is on behalf of the people in my area, and I want to continue quoting from it.

"Project agreements would allow us to compete for a number of proposed multimillion-dollar projects that would not only bring thousands of construction jobs to Sarnia, but also hundreds of long-term, highly skilled, good-paying jobs in the industry, and thousands of spinoff jobs in the community.

"Your commitment is good news for Sarnia-Lambton and we look forward to working jointly with our local building trades council to win that investment to our region.

"On behalf of Sarnia Construction Association," and it's signed by two officers.

Let me add that I am very happy to see that there have been some announcements when this bill was introduced, a lot of investment that Sarnia and Ontario can grab.

Canadian Chemical Producers' Association chairman Dennis Lauzon has noted that:

"These amendments are good for Ontario as they will create a competitive and attractive environment for investment in the province. This in effect opens the door to a pool of potential investment of some $2.5 to $5 billion."

The CCPA estimates that every $1 billion in new investment in the province produced 8,500 new direct and indirect jobs.

CCPA president Richard Paton went on to say that:

"By our calculation, we're looking at the potential of creating 42,500 new jobs for Ontarians. We see this as good news for our industry and good news for Ontario workers. It's a situation in which everybody comes out ahead."

These are the people who know better than anyone, especially, I might add, in this House. They are in the business and they know what's coming and what could come to Ontario.

Before I finish, here's one more editorial from the Sarnia Observer. I think the first sentence says it all:

"Call it a happy coincidence, but only a day after labour reform legislation was introduced, plans for a $400-million cogeneration power plant were unveiled" in our community.

There's no doubt in my mind that this bill has instilled confidence in investors by providing the flexibility to negotiate specific agreements for major industrial projects, the guarantee of stability to see the work through, and an economic climate that boosts our competitiveness.

As Dr Gunter Hilken of Bayer noted about Bill 31, "This removes the final impediment that will help us attract more international investments to this area."

When they talk about the Sarnia area, they also talk about Ontario. Bill 31 would create more investment and jobs in Ontario. It deserves support from all sides of this House. Before the opposition votes, I urge you to ask yourselves, do you want to oppose this bill just because you feel that's what is always expected of the opposition, or do you want to add your support to stimulating and strengthening Ontario's economy: jobs, jobs and jobs? You have the choice.

Just think of the confidence we could instil in potential investors by sending out an all-party united message: "The future is in Ontario - the best place in the world to invest and live in."

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gary L. Leadston): Questions and comments?

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I would like to congratulate the member for Sarnia for his fine presentation this afternoon. I thought it was an excellent speech. I know that he along with his colleague and seatmate, the member for Lambton, both my friends, are both too modest to talk about the extraordinary contribution that they made to the development of this bill. They've both been working on it for many months and they deserve a great deal of credit for their hard work representing their constituents.

Their work demonstrates a kind of case study as to the effect, the impact backbench government members can have working through the channels. Obviously the government has listened to their concerns and is prepared to bring forward legislation. When we think about what legislation came forward in this House in the last Parliament, most of that legislation seemed to be designed to take away jobs; or at least that was the effect, whether or not it was their direct intent.

This bill will contribute to economic growth in the Sarnia and Lambton area in a great way. As we have seen, authoritative comment from the area indicates that this bill will open up potential investment of some $2.5 billion to $5 billion and be responsible for the creation of over 42,500 jobs, so it's extremely good news for the Sarnia and Lambton area. I would just like to congratulate my colleague the member for Sarnia, first of all, for his speech this afternoon, and also, along with the member for Lambton, for the extraordinary work they've done on behalf of their constituents, contributing to this kind of economic stimulus to their community.

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I would like to respond to the member for Sarnia. I see that he is full of enthusiasm and optimism and talks about the great potential that is in his area. I believe that to be true, but I also believe that by the manner in which you go about it you may also be creating other problems in other parts of Ontario, indeed maybe even in your own area, by virtue of how you go about it.

I have talked to a lot of representatives. I noticed that you quoted many company representatives and many company presidents. I expect they would see anything that loosens up the procedures and the ways in which you go about doing things as welcome because they are always pushing for the greatest degree of individual freedom for them to operate their particular business in order to maximize their profits and to promote their own businesses. I take that as fair ball.

That's why we have legislation, to provide some balance, so that at the same time we know that there is also fairness for workers, and there's fairness for small contractors as well as big contractors, and there's an opportunity that everybody who is going to play a role in creating this future wealth in your particular area, for example, will also share in the benefits and you will have a win-win situation.

My understanding is that you were not all that far apart, at least in terms of the major project agreements. I'll address that in my presentation shortly.

Your optimism, I hope, is well placed. I hope it is not undercut by the worries that are out there. Again, I will address that in here. In spirit, I am with you in terms of your hope for the future, but there are many concerns that have to be addressed.

1530

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): With respect to the comments made by the member for Sarnia, I'm happy for him that he has some folks who have written in support, and he read those support letters into the record this afternoon. But I guess it's incumbent upon me to put a different perspective on the record, because we have also received, from other people who are very concerned about this legislation, comments that are quite different from the perspective that the honourable member has raised.

For example, this letter that was written to Jim Flaherty dated June 12, 1998, from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Construction Council of Ontario, says the following in the final paragraph: "It is the opinion of the IBEW Construction Council of Ontario that the proposed legislation would also have a dramatic impact on existing labour management relations for the whole construction industry in the province of Ontario. It will jeopardize present relationships between labour and management and could lead to a series of general disruptions in the construction industry. We are very aware that the construction industry in the province of Ontario is just beginning to break out of the recession. You sir, and the legislation that is being proposed through your office, could put an end to the construction upswing."

Finally he says, "It is absolutely incredulous that your government proposes to enact such legislation that has the potential for severe economic consequences without thorough dialogue with all parties."

It is clear that there is a difference of opinion on this important piece of legislation. While the member and people in his community believe this will result in many jobs and great economic benefits, there are other people also involved in construction in this province who have a far different view and who believe very strongly that some dialogue and public consultation is required before this thing goes any further.

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): I appreciate the opportunity to give some brief comments in response to the member for Sarnia and, first off, to thank him for his diligence in working on behalf of the people of Sarnia who have been asking for this piece of legislation for quite some time. They have been very frustrated by the fact that a very small, very vocal minority have been holding up these very important projects, projects that by the estimation of the Canadian Chemical Producers' Association would result in thousands and thousands of not just construction jobs but permanent jobs in the petrochemical industry; jobs that we are losing to the United States and elsewhere because of the intransigence of certain people in Sarnia, certain labour leaders who couldn't get together.

I find it ironic that the other side in this chamber is taking the position that the majority doesn't rule now, that one union shouldn't have one vote when we're coming together to talk about these projects. Well, of course they should. We should not have allowed the sort of ostrich-like approach to the future of construction, the future of the petrochemical industry, that has pervaded some segments of the union membership in Sarnia to hold up these important initiatives.

The member is to be applauded for his comments today and for the hard work he has done on behalf of his constituents. I believe that anyone taking the time to go on the Internet and read this bill will see very clearly that it is the fairest possible approach to breaking the logjam, to ensuring that we have these thousands of quality jobs - not minimum-wage jobs; these are extraordinarily well-paying jobs - today and for decades into the future, promoting Ontario's inherent competitiveness, building on the strengths of the petrochemical industry that we can already boast of and getting our foot in the door with many more projects, ensuring even more prosperity in the Sarnia area in years to come.

Mr Boushy: I want to thank all those who spoke in regard to this matter. I just want to say very briefly that at one time Sarnia was, and still is, the chemical valley of Canada. At one time it was one of the few cities which contributed the most to the economy of Ontario, but for 20 years we haven't had a major project in our area. For 20 years we haven't had any major project, until lately.

I just want to say to the opposition NDP that about a year or two years ago there was project agreement proposed. There were 14 unions involved; 12 unions voted for project agreement and two were against, and the one you quoted from was among the two that voted against it. We are not going to have 100% agreement on this, but I can tell you that the majority of unions in our area may not support the labour publicly, but they are in favour of it, because 12 of them already voted for project agreement some years ago.

Another thing I would like to remind you is that this bill did not just come about in the last two months. There has been tremendous consultation, first by the former labour minister, who spent something like at least a year discussing the issue with the labour unions and with everybody concerned, and then the present labour minister also took at least six or seven months' consulting. This came about by consultation, by listening to them, and this is the least harmful of any proposal that could come out of it. It's good for Sarnia and it's good for Ontario.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate.

Mr Patten: I'm pleased to speak on this important bill, the Economic Development and Workplace Democracy Act, introduced by the minister on June 4.

Upon introduction, the minister said the act is part of a plan to continue building a strong economy and to create more and better jobs. Who would not agree with that kind of goal?

But I want to say at the outset that I look at this bill in two parts. The part that the members for Lambton and Sarnia are most concerned about, project agreement, is the one that I can probably support in principle, and I repeat, in principle. I support the direction in which it is moving, but there are some concerns, and I will attempt to address those.

Project agreement is section 163, and it goes on for probably four pages. That, in and of itself, is the portion about which some members and some parties have the least amount of worry. It's the introduction of all the other sections that impinge upon that, relate to it and then relate to the general agreements we have province-wide where there is major concern and major worry.

I'm well aware that the construction contractors and the construction trade unions have been unable to reach a new framework agreement for Ontario's construction industry for some time now. We're of the opinion that the bodies were not all that far apart, so part of my plea today is that with a little more effort this may have come about. The minister himself has acknowledged in the House that the best possible solution overall is when the various parties who are looking at agreements resolve the situation between or among themselves. I think that's an important principle and I agree with that principle.

The minister told me that he has had meetings with the affected parties on a regular basis, but the involved parties, the Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario in particular, the construction unions' umbrella organization which represents over 100,000 construction workers in this province, has indicated that Bill 31 has changes in it that were never discussed with the minister or with his officials. They were not on the table. It was not as if there was a disagreement on them. It was a surprise to them when the bill came out. Some of the features in the bill were never discussed, and they did not have a chance to react, to respond or perhaps agree with them.

1540

There has been a long-standing tradition in significant labour legislation in this province, as the minister and members know. Patrick Dillon, who is the business manager and secretary-treasurer of the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario, wrote to you, Minister, on June 8 and made his views known. He said to you, "I am writing to express my disappointment with the introduction of" this particular bill - I won't read it word for word, but I'll paraphrase as I go along to give you the spirit of what's communicated - "and your failure to consult with the industry on a number of crucial aspects contained in the bill.

"The construction industry has consistently conveyed to all ministries its uniqueness and the fragility of our labour relations climate. It is for these reasons that all ministers of labour have traditionally consulted with the industry before enacting legislation which would impact on construction. The bill in question contains several provisions which should have been the focus of industry consultation.

"One such example is the section dealing with the non-construction employers. During our industry discussions over the past year and a half, this was never raised as a concern by employers or government. In fact, the government had several opportunities to address these concerns in Bill 7 and again in Bill 136. The prescription contained in the bill fails to recognize the relationships that have developed in our industry as a result of the rules as they have existed. Another such example is the section relating to the collective agreements covering maintenance work."

He says, "I am appalled with you and your staff, that in the number of meetings we had discussing `certain perceived problems in the construction industry'" - I guess he's quoting you - "you chose not to discuss this very important issue with us."

This particular bill "may well result in some destabilization of our industry. Your actions put in jeopardy the many cooperative industry efforts that are currently in existence by forcing the labour market partners to take violently opposing positions on these matters.

"Minister, I can say in all honestly to you that I have tried to work in good faith with both you and your predecessor in the best interests of the construction industry. I have accepted your acknowledgement that the building trades unions have done a great deal to effect a solution to perceived problems. Despite our willingness to discuss matters and propose solutions," this particular bill "is not indicative of what constitutes meaningful dialogue with our council or with the people we represent.

"This letter by no means expresses all of our concerns with the bill and the process by which it came about. At the very least, you should make every effort to hold public hearings on the bill and allow the industry to comment on its content. I am very disappointed that our message of how fragile our industry is was not understood by you and your staff. I regret that these unilateral actions may result in many unnecessary and unintended consequences, which will not serve our industry nor our economy well.

"We are requesting a meeting with you as soon as possible to discuss the bill and its impacts on construction.

"Patrick Dillon

"Business Manager

"Secretary-Treasurer

"Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario."

My concern is that an imposed solution will not result in long-term, stable labour relations in Ontario's construction industry, as I hear about it, and I will quote from some other sources shortly.

This bill will have a major impact on construction projects all over Ontario. Since the affected parties have genuine concerns about the lack of consultation on all aspects of this bill prior to its introduction, I would urge the minister to have meaningful public hearings so that the construction trades association, construction workers, contractors, employers and any other parties have the opportunity to present their views and their concerns and so the opposition has a chance to present amendments.

Meaningful public hearings: I'm not talking about, if you're talking about the whole bill, a two-day experience. That perhaps can be satisfied with another recommendation that I have for you later on, Minister. I'm talking about adequate time to hear from those groups that want to be heard in different regions of the province. I'm talking about giving reasonable time for the opposition to prepare amendments to the bill, after having listened to testimony. I'm talking about giving time for the preparation and distribution of the research report summarizing the submissions and addressing points asked by the committee before amendments are heard. I'm talking about hearing all the amendments, not time-allocating the process, as has been your government's practice in the past.

As you would well know, although you weren't minister at the time, on Bill 99, the Workers' Compensation Reform Act, we had prepared 57 amendments, of which only two were heard before time allocation kicked in. On Bill 136 we were given in effect one hour of statutory time in this Legislature to prepare responses from - I forget how many - maybe 60 to 80 witnesses. We finished on a Friday afternoon. I refer to democracy. The minister says he's concerned about democracy; so am I and so are a lot of people. But in terms of having one hour to respond, it was quite obvious the government knew what it wanted to do. It wasn't going to listen to the witnesses. If I had been a witness at that time, I would have been insulted and I would have thought, "What's the point of all this?"

When the hearings finished on Friday afternoon at 5 o'clock, we were then expected to listen, respond and consider the good suggestions from the good people who came forward, and 99% of the presentations were extremely thoughtful, very thoughtful. People came forward making sure that their thoughts were to be considered and they did some analysis. In order to take that information and absorb it and put forward amendments for good legislation, we had one hour. I don't call that democratic and I don't think anybody in their right mind would.

There are several stakeholder organizations representing building trades organizations. I know that they have written to you, Minister, since you introduced your bill and that they are formally requesting that this bill be the subject of public hearings across the province, so both labour and management and owners of companies, whoever has a stake in the industry, can have input into such an important piece of legislation.

Some of these groups include the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario and I just read a letter there. Another letter is from Mr Cartwright of the Toronto-Central Ontario Building and Construction Trades Council. What's he asking? The same kind of thing: "I am formally requesting that this bill be the subject of public hearings across the province. I am sure that not only labour but management from our industry will want the opportunity to have input to such an important piece of legislation."

Who else have we got? We've got the Marble, Tile and Terrazzo Union.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: There is no quorum in this place. Would you please check for a quorum?

The Acting Speaker: Is a quorum present?

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

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Ottawa Centre.

1550

Mr Patten: Another stakeholder is the Marble, Tile and Terrazzo Union, Local 31. What are they asking for? The same kind of thing. They're asking for hearings. They're asking to be heard. They feel that not considering their views "would be a serious breach of trust with our union and its members which will be long remembered.

"I urge you to recognize the inappropriateness of both the process and much of the content of Bill 31 and listen to input from those of us who must live with its consequences."

The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 353, same kind of thing, asking for public hearings across the province: "I'm sure that not only labour but management from our industry will want the opportunity to speak."

The Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, Local 30, same kind of request to the minister, asking for an opportunity to respond, not just for themselves, but for others to speak.

The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners also has sent a letter to you, Minister, asking for what? To please provide an opportunity to have public hearings across this province, not only for them but for anyone else who has a stake in their business, from Donald Guilbeault, Local 2041, in the Gloucester area.

"Jerry Boyle, business manager of the Ontario Pipe Trades Council, announced that his membership will mobilize against the government's latest attack on workers' rights in Ontario. `This legislation is not only about the construction industry, it has implications for the entire labour movement,' said Mr Boyle."

The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Construction Council of Ontario, to the minister, June 12: "It is the opinion of the IBEW Construction Council of Ontario that the proposed legislation would also have a dramatic impact on existing labour-management relations for the whole construction industry in the province of Ontario. It will jeopardize present relationships between labour and management and could lead to a series of general disruptions in the construction industry." They're asking for a chance to respond.

The International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers, Local 95, asks for the same thing. Mr Joe de Wit, business manager, asks for an opportunity to comment, to provide advice, to provide their experience on what this legislation will do that will affect them.

The Independent Contractors' Group. This is not just a trades group. This is the Independent Contractors' Group, which has both unionized and open-shop members. It is asking likewise for public hearings.

The Ontario Provincial Council of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners likewise adds their particular voice to this:

"As a representative of over 15,000 construction workers in the province of Ontario and having participated in the consultation process with your ministry trying to arrive at an industry solution, I am totally shocked at the introduction of issues which were never identified in our discussions. For you to state that this legislation if passed will keep Ontario's labour relations system flexible, fair and efficient is totally an inaccurate and biased opinion.

"I am formally requesting that this bill be the subject of public hearings across the province. I am confident that" all parties "as well from our industry will invite the opportunity to have input to such an important piece of legislation. Without giving the industry affected by Bill 31 a chance to respond to the serious implications it will have on both labour and management would be an injustice.

"Sources of information indicate that the government intends to force this legislation through during the current session. This action would destroy any faith or trust our organization currently would have in your government."

Signed, "Byron Black, secretary-treasurer, Ontario Provincial Council, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America."

There are a number of sources; there are others. I'm sure you're getting faxes as well as me, into my office on a daily basis.

Bill 31 sets out a new process for negotiating specific agreements for "major" industrial construction projects. A proponent industrial company or major contractor acting on behalf of a property owner can negotiate a contract for a specific economically significant - and I underline "economically significant" - project directly with local construction unions. This contract can contain terms and conditions that differ from province-wide industrial-commercial-institutional, or ICI, construction union agreements.

I support the intent of this particular section of the bill in principle, but I have a number of concerns as I have heard and listened to some of the representations.

First of all, there is no definition in the legislation of what constitutes a major industrial construction project. The minister stated that these projects may include those contemplated by the multibillion-dollar petrochemical sector as well as other innovative, high-technology-based industries. Fair enough. The parliamentary assistant, Mr Bart Maves, suggested that they might help local firms compete for high-tech and petrochemical projects. But concerns have been expressed that they might also include all construction projects if Toronto were to win, for example, an Olympic bid.

Second, there is no definition in the legislation for "economically significant." For example, would construction on the Lakeshore or the Gardiner or the Don Valley Parkway or, in my riding, the Queensway-417 qualify as a major and significant project? Who defines this? Is it the labour board that defines this? Is it the minister's office? Is it the ministry? We haven't yet seen a definition.

Finally, the one-union, one-vote system, which will give every union in the negotiations one vote no matter how big or small they are, is not a fair way to proceed. Wouldn't it be fairer to consider how many members represent each trade? The 60% who vote in favour with the one-vote, one-trade formula could represent a minor part of the people working on the project, let alone a minor part of the construction job itself. It could represent only 20% or 30% of the construction workers affected, whereas the two or three larger ones could represent 60% or 70%. The 60% rule should be 60% of those workers affiliated with the construction industry for that particular project.

You can see, Minister, and this was raised last Thursday afternoon, that sticking to one union, one vote really can go counter to your wish to have a democratic situation. You may have 15 different trades but you may have three trades that represent 50% or 60% of the work. If those three trades are out of step with what others may have going for them by virtue of their ongoing agreements provincially, they can be overruled. Would that be democratic? I leave that issue to you.

1600

I know there was a recommendation to your ministry on another way of going about that. As a matter of fact, I will mention it now. A final proposal, of July 18, 1997, to the Minister of Labour representing the position of the labour members of the industry committee offered an alternative to the one union, one vote in this legislation. Their proposal was as follows. I have the whole proposal here and I don't plan to read it all, but I want to point out that this is a result of many long hours of discussion:

"A vote of those affected will be taken, with each local union representative entitled to cast one vote for each provincial agreement binding upon the members of his or her respective international building trades union, with an additional vote to be cast" - this is the important part - "by any such representative if 40% or more of the estimated hours of work on the project will be performed by such members under a particular provincial agreement."

Minister, that was not responded to in your bill; it was ignored. You just went back to the simple one-union, one vote. That will cause some difficulty, and the people in the industry would like a chance to illustrate to you the ways in which that may cause some difficulty and how it would have some adverse effects.

I'm talking, in this particular section, about the project agreement section of the bill. It would seem to me that there appear to be a number of legal flaws in the bill, which demonstrate that the legislation heretofore has been rushed, that the government is anxious to get this bill through in a matter of 10 days or so and that what has happened with other pieces of legislation before the House - we already have the fifth bill looking at property tax to resolve and provide a more equitable property tax arrangement throughout Ontario, and what do we find? We've got the fifth bill to try and address this. Why? Because the government doesn't want to listen; it wants to move quickly. If it moves quickly, then it gets taken to court. Then it has to move back and take a look at legislation. They weren't serving some people they thought they were serving, who were their friends, because they didn't listen and moved too quickly. I suggest to you, Minister, that this is one such bill, and I would like to give you a couple of examples.

Here is one: Bill 31 amends the definition of "collective agreement" to exclude a project agreement. The grievance arbitration provisions of the act require that there be a collective agreement before binding arbitration is available. Therefore, it is no longer clear how a violation of the project agreement would be or can be dealt with. This would represent a serious problem for stable labour relations.

The second one was that, although unionized labour from the building trades is supposed to be used on the sites of a project agreement, there is no explanation as to what this will mean with respect to payments to training funds or to workers' pension plans since these workers are working outside their provincial bargaining agreement.

These are but two serious gaps in the legislation which have been brought to the minister's attention, but there has been no action to remedy the problem. Why hasn't there been some, Minister? If they are not addressed, I have been told, as I'm certain the minister has, there will be serious problems for labour relations in Ontario which will further tie up the limited resources of the labour board. That is why there is a need for public hearings, so that there can be a proper review of the impact this bill will have on the labour relations situation throughout all of Ontario.

Prior to the introduction of this bill, the member for Lambton, Mr Beaubien, asked the Minister of Labour a question in the House about project management as a way of dealing with the situation in the Sarnia-Lambton area. He said, "In the past 10 years, the Sarnia-Lambton area has experienced a very sluggish economy, mainly due to the fact that there has been a slowdown in the construction industry and in the petrochemical industry. The Sarnia area is not competitive with the gulf coast states."

The minister acknowledged in his reply, "Yes, indeed, we are losing work, we are losing skilled workers from Sarnia and Lambton to Alberta and we're losing projects to Texas."

The minister stated at first reading of the bill that: "Many have said that they are considering major job-creating capital investments. But actually making those investments - getting shovels in the ground and people on the job - depends on the competitiveness of our construction industry." Who can disagree with that?

The minister elaborated on this particular point at second reading of the bill by stating that: "Plant construction costs in Ontario are still largely uncompetitive for major capital projects. For example, the folks in Sarnia tell me" - this is the minister talking - "that Ontario's construction costs are approximately 22% higher than those in Alberta. The impact of such an uncompetitive construction sector is clear: jobs go elsewhere, infrastructure ages, skills migrate, opportunities are lost."

I'd like to quote from the former Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism, Mr Bill Saunderson, when he was referring to - and I have a summary of the study here - the KPMG study, The Competitive Alternative: A Comparison of Business Costs in Canada, Europe and the United States. "We're leading the industrial world in competitiveness," said the former minister.

When the impacts of land purchase, construction, labour, transportation, electricity, communications, debt service and taxation are combined, Canada is the clear winner, according to Stuart MacKay, KPMG's partner in charge of the study.

I want to develop this point, because sometimes these cases can be overblown. We know that the Premier very often talks in extreme terms. Sometimes some of the ministers do. We know Mr Klein in Alberta talks about things in extreme terms.

Let's look at the facts. We have an independent study here. I have a summary for anyone who may be interested in this. Some additional findings of the study were:

Although the United States has the lowest land purchase costs, Canada has the lowest construction costs.

Low construction costs helped Canada achieve the lowest overall business costs, which was followed by Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States.

Electricity costs were lowest in Sweden, followed by Canada.

Ontario's electricity costs are totally in line with the Canadian average and more than 25% less than the average in the United States of America.

Telecommunications costs are less in North America in general and Canada in particular.

Financing costs are less in Canada as well, in part because of low interest rates.

Canada and Sweden offer the lowest overall corporate tax burden.

Exchange rates also play a role in Canada's success.

The study also indicated that the Canadian cost advantage over the US holds as long as the value of the Canadian dollar is less than 83 cents. At current Canadian dollar values of 66 or 67 cents, this gives us a considerable competitive advantage; far more than was given in the study at the particular time, because that edge is now an additional 20% gap in terms of foreign exchange.

Finally, looking at industrial cities, 14 of the 17 cities examined finished ahead of those in the United States or Europe. These were in Canada. The lowest-cost Canadian cities tend to be in the Atlantic region, but Hamilton, Sarnia, London, Toronto, Sudbury and Ottawa all compared extremely well against the rest of the world.

Minister, I too have met with the Sarnia petrochemical representatives who told me also that Ontario construction costs are 22% higher than in Alberta, that the US gulf coast is a strong contender for their growth plans and that our uncompetitive electricity costs are another key weakness for Ontario. This KPMG study appears to refute that, as a matter of fact for both of these arguments.

1610

Further, in addition to costs, other factors need to be considered in selecting a business location, including, as you well know and in particular as my colleagues who live in the Lambton-Sarnia area know, as Nova Chemicals mentioned in their representations to me and I'm sure to you, location and proximity to shipping to markets - Toronto, Detroit, Chicago, the Midwest - are a major consideration and one of the reasons that area of Ontario is so attractive to them.

How countries compare on the United Nations Human Development Index, which ranks countries annually on a wide variety of social, economic, developmental and environmental factors, is also a consideration for companies thinking of investing in Canada. Canada currently ranks first in the world, the United States placing second. When people look to invest in areas, it's not just pure economics; people also have to live there. They consider things such as the crime rate in certain area, the environment, the cost of housing, the cost of health, the kinds of health programs that are offered - our public health program under the Canada Health Act is an extremely attractive venture for many companies; they know it will cost them less to have that kind of coverage here in Canada - the educational standards, where we rank very high in the world. There is access to markets. This has been pointed out in a number of articles that point to the strength of that particular sector: Canada's construction costs are one of the lowest and we have one of the most competitive here in Ontario. I will leave that for further debate.

At this point, I would like to turn to the section that deals with non-construction employers, which is causing major difficulties in some quarters. While exempting non-construction employers from the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act, they appear at first glance, and I say "appear," to represent a rational approach. At first glance when I looked at this, I thought maybe this was a good way to go. However, as I dug deeper and as I listened to people who phoned or sent faxes and from the research we had done, my concern was that these workers most likely will lose rights and protections and benefits they have worked long and hard to obtain, since employers will now be free to use unionized or non-unionized contractors.

The bill doesn't deal with the issue of an employer firing their construction workers, excluding them from the construction provisions and then rehiring non-union construction workers, but at a closer glance, when you take a close look at it, if Bill 31 comes into effect as it is now, and I hope it will be modified and amended as a result of hearings, when unions apply for certification, they will now have to determine if the employer is a non-construction employer. If the employer is, then the union could only be certified under the general certification provisions of the act. I know this is sounding very technical, but we have to get into this degree of detail because the devil is in the details.

In addition, once certified, the statute will no longer automatically bind the non-construction employer to the provincial agreement or to an agreement with an accredited employers' organization in the non-industrial, institutional and commercial sectors, because those provisions will not apply to the non-construction employer. For those who are watching, let's see if we can't say it another way. If you want to be fair, why would you provide companies with the opportunity to deal unfairly with their workers? Why would you not put a provision in the bill that even if you made some changes, bargaining rights would still be maintained? You could provide support there, but no, it's taken out.

The Toronto-Central Ontario Building and Construction Trades Council has had this to say about this provision:

"Hundreds of companies will be able to get rid of their collective agreements and go non-union for all their construction work. Why? Because wealthy corporations like the TD Bank, Sears and others won't want to pay union rates and their friend Mike Harris is going to fix it so that they won't have to. He's going to create a class of business called `non-construction employers' which will be exempt from all of our standard agreements. If their primary activity is something else, like manufacturing, retail, hydroelectricity or land development, then they can apply to decertify from any construction union agreement they have."

Continuing, he says: "It doesn't matter if they have always been in our industry. Bill 31 says that if their main business is something else, they can just throw away their agreements, even if they had union members working for them for years. They can get rid of them for up to five minutes ago, and then they can continue to work in construction but with no union obligations.

"How's that for fairness? It's kind of unique, in fact. No other province in this country has this kind of a loophole."

If we look at a realistic example of how this non-construction employer might play itself out, I'd like to take an example of, let's say, a sheet metal company. The sheet metal workers in that sheet metal company work in a heating and air conditioning business, let's say, a fabrication shop that also does installation. Are they primarily in the fabrication business or are they in the construction business? They employ sheet metal workers and they will do fabrication. Some of them will be involved in installation and some of them may be involved in agreements for ongoing monitoring, inspection or what have you. So who will decide if they are a construction employer or a non-construction employer? Do they have to be one or the other? Is it black or is it white? Can they be 50-50? Can they be 60-40? Can they be 70-30? Who decides?

You begin to see how Bill 31 will totally provide some confusion in the construction industry in Ontario.

In light of the concerns raised, our party cannot support this new concept of non-construction employees. It's too wide-open. We can't support it as it now stands. There are too many unanswered questions and there's too much licence for not taking into consideration the fragility and the uniqueness of the construction industry itself.

Our bottom line is fairness. This bill has to be fair to both employers and workers. I know a great deal of discussion has been going on with various groups, but let's give those groups a chance to talk to this bill at public hearings. They are all asking this, and it's not just the trade unions asking for this. If the government is so confident that this bill is sound as the result of what they perceive to be these extensive consultations, then what do you have to fear? You don't have to fear very much if you know the job has been done well. There may be some minor variations here and there, but essentially it would be a fairly straightforward thing. I suggest that you don't want to do this because you know you have tipped the balance and have potentially disturbed labour relations in this province.

1620

At the same time this labour legislation says it's addressing workplace democracy - that's a laudable goal, but then again, this government has never been shy about playing with words to disguise its true intent. I find it somewhat amusing that the government has put the word "democracy" into the title of this bill, when no other government in the history of this province has eroded democratic principles to the extent that this government has.

It was a Progressive Conservative government, headed by Bill Davis, whom you may remember, that in 1975 - that's a long time ago, 23 years - brought in provisions recognizing that there were circumstances in a workplace where democracy was compromised. It was important to provide stability throughout Ontario, so that's why Bill Davis brought in this legislation, to provide some degree of unanimity and fairness across the board.

Now here we have the Harris government moving in the other direction: the heavy-handed and undemocratic nature of many of the moves of your government, Bill 26, for example; unduly biased government advertising, which we all know. Many of us received in our mailboxes "Are We on the Right Track?" As has been pointed out in the House by various members, you'd be hard pressed to find even a campaign brochure more biased than you would these pieces of literature that are sent courtesy of the taxpayers, at the cost of millions of dollars, to promote the political wishes and views of this government. I know many of the backbenchers are somewhat embarrassed by it, but I guess the boys in the back room and the corporate decisions prevail and that's the way it works, which is unfortunate.

When you look at Bill 160, when you look at the rule changes to the House, when you look at the rule changes to election finances, how many members on an individual basis, deep down in their heart, will say, "I'm proud of what my government has done"? I don't feel proud. I feel discouraged. I feel disillusioned. I stand here with disbelief at the boldness of this government in moving on some of those things, in its own favour, in such a partisan manner. I've spoken to many backbenchers on the government side, and some of them are truly embarrassed as well.

With respect to the union certification process, we support efforts to make it a more democratic process. We believe that union certification should only occur where a majority of employees vote in favour of the union in a secret ballot vote. However, it's with this proviso: that the climate is not poisoned with threats and intimidation.

We understand that this section of the bill is a prime example of a very significant issue that did not receive consultation with affected parties prior to introduction of the legislation. We also note from Mr Tascona's address, when he shared the minister's time in the opening speech on second reading of the bill last week, that between 1992 and 1997 there were only 22 automatic certifications. During the same period, there were 4,547 applications for certification of bargaining agents. Fully 4,547, and out of that, 22 were deemed to be automatic certifications. This represents less than half of one per cent. How many people can boast of a record of something less than half of one per cent? In almost everything you do, if you're off by 2%, 3% or 5% - unless of course you're talking about brain surgery. But if you're talking about most businesses that do general work or what have you, if you're off a little bit each year, there's a degree of variance that's allowable and that is unpredictable and that is acceptable. Then what is the reason this government wants to move in this direction? Our position has been that we need to have this deterrent, or how many more cases of intimidation will the board have to deal with?

These proposed changes to the union certification process will make it harder to certify new locals and easier for employers to intimidate against new unions. For example, if an employer questions whether the union in fact has 40% support, the employer can then ask the board to verify. Because the bill proposes no time limits for which the employer must make the determinations, the concern is that this could lead to lengthy and expensive hearings that will significantly delay certification proceedings. Bill 31 also allows the labour relations board to charge unions and employers fees for some of its services. Who can most afford to pay and who has the most to gain by waiting? I ask you that question.

My colleague Mr Bud Wildman requested from our party the other day in his address the Wal-Mart section of the bill in further detail, and I want him to know that our party supports the labour relations board rulings in this case. That was supported by the Supreme Court and it was upheld by the Supreme Court because it found evidence of tampering and interference on the part of the employer. All the circumstances in section 11 of the act were met, and I had originally thought, by the way, of the principle, wouldn't it be great if at all times the workers have a vote and they can unquestionably provide those results? It doesn't happen all the time. It doesn't happen very often, less than half of 1%, and for that reason I changed my view as I got deeper into the subject and became more knowledgeable about the examples and the regulations themselves.

So we acknowledge that employers' interference in unions organizing happens, and we urge the minister to remove this section from the bill as it is unnecessary, undemocratic and was not discussed with stakeholders prior to its introduction.

I'd like to quote from the labour relations board in the Trilite Industries Ltd case where it says:

"Certification without a vote under section 8 was designated as a deterrent" - this is part of the argument that was used, and it was very convincing - "to illegal employer interference in union organizing campaigns and a device to provide a meaningful remedy in those cases where the employer's interference undermines his employees' statutory rights, and in addition precludes the board from undertaking its usual determination of employee wishes through a representation vote or an assessment of the union's membership evidence.

"In other words, section 8 is a kind of second-best solution to be applied where the employer's misconduct not only frustrates the union-organizing drive but also impairs the board's ability to ascertain whether the majority of the employees do or do not wish to be represented by a union."

Bill 31 amends that particular provision for the construction industry and alters aspects of the certification process for all workers. We are concerned about the number of powers assigned to the Ontario Labour Relations Board when the board's funding and staffing have been severely cut. As I brought up in my statement upon the introduction of the bill, will they have the resources to assume these new responsibilities? I see no indication of such other than the cuts and the loss of staff they have had.

The chair of the labour relations board thinks not, and I'd like to quote him in the annual report where he says:

"The report covers a period of adaptation, a period in which the board has had to digest an unprecedented volume of new legislation and cope with an equally unprecedented demand in downsizing and to do more with less. It has not been an easy time either institutionally or in our relationship with our community, who have come to expect a level of service that is ever more difficult to attain within our available budgets. No doubt the strain shows sometimes and no doubt some community expectations have not been fulfilled.

"I would like to promise a period of stability and consolidation, but that is not the current reality." This is from the chairman of the board. He does not have the resources to do the job, and now we're asking him to take on more. That is a big concern.

1630

Section 5 of the July 18th proposal from the labour members of the industry committee recommended to the minister a whole series of things.

"No new amendments to the Labour Relations Act: In consideration of labour's major contribution to an industry solution to the labour-management problems which have arisen in the construction industry, we request assurance from the government and from contractors and owner-clients that:

"Any industry solutions will be implemented, if legally possible, on a consensual rather than a legislated basis.

"The `three and out' termination proposal or any similar such proposal will be rejected and not be reconsidered or raised again at a later date." Of course there's something in similar to that.

"The proposal for the repeal (or modification) of the related employer provisions of the act...will be rejected and not be reconsidered or raised again at some later date."

That tells you where the labour board is at: caught short with resources.

I want to talk about the act in terms of the impact it's going to have on the people who work in the industry throughout Ontario. When we talk about democracy, we have to provide a spirit of participation from both sides, inside and outside the institution. I believe that with this bill this will be tremendously weakened.

"One union, one vote," I've heard the minister say. It sounds good, but when we look at the actual situation in practice, if we dig deep into the construction industry, which is unique and at times fragile, it is not a democratic move, and I submit that to you.

The minister stated in his release that the proposed legislation would create more and better jobs. How can it create better jobs when project agreements most probably will reduce the wages and benefits of construction workers; set the precedent to deunionize the industry; and give the minister the power, by regulation, not only to set up project agreements for major industrial construction projects but also to designate for residential and commercial projects? We're not just talking about the industrial sector now.

The minister claims that spinoff from construction jobs will create jobs in other high-technology sectors. My colleague Mario Sergio urged the minister to concentrate on creating jobs for the young, for the poor, for the unemployed, for those looking seriously to find that first job.

Finally, I'd like to thank my colleagues Mario Sergio, the member for Yorkview, David Caplan, the member for Oriole, and Jean-Marc Lalonde, the member for Prescott-Russell, for speaking on the bill last Thursday evening when our lead time was deferred by unanimous consent. My colleagues made some important points, and I'd like to refer to a few of them.

David Caplan, a young member in the House, talked about what the incentives are for young people to go into a trade in this province when their wages are going to be reduced, which may happen as a result of this bill, and most likely will.

I also emphasize an important point that it is not the government's policies which have created the present environment. Mario Sergio said that we have to consider that this government hasn't created the conditions for growth, that without a stable Canadian interest rate, without a lower dollar, without strong neighbours to the south and a booming economy in the United States, we would not be blessed with some of the growth that we have, even though it's not affecting a lot of people at the lower end.

My colleague Jean-Marc Lalonde, who is working so diligently, along with my good friend Ben Grandmaître, on the Ontario-Quebec labour mobility agreement and who organized public hearings on this issue on June 1, spoke about the very real problems we face in the Ottawa-Hull community with Quebec construction workers coming into Ontario to work without Ontario construction workers being able to get reciprocal privileges in Quebec. There's no mention of any of that in this particular bill.

This legislation is flawed. We've told you that, and all the stakeholder groups in the construction and building trades are telling you that. The bill needs amendments. We support the intent of the project agreements, and this part of the bill, in my opinion, should be split. Then you could reinforce it after consultation and hearings. We would be happy to come back and look at it, provided that you had a minimum of a couple of days, if you split the bill into the project agreements section.

Meet as quickly as you can. If you want to achieve this before June 25, have a couple of afternoons of hearings so that you receive some input from the stakeholders in the industry, all of them, and then take the other major issues and have that, if you like, part of summer consultations. We'd be happy to participate in those throughout Ontario. We can divide the bill into two sections. I think you would achieve the one you want to achieve most at this particular time, because it's probably more time-sensitive, and that is the one on major agreements.

I offer you this suggestion: Split the bill. I believe you would have almost unanimous agreement, if not unanimous agreement. Spend a matter of days trying to pull this thing together. I don't think the outstanding issues are that great. I believe you could arrive at an understanding. You'd have some amendments, you could bring it back, and I believe you would have all-party support for that dimension.

The other issues you're talking about, which will have grave implications for the balance in the construction industry throughout Ontario, will be very, very difficult, and I caution the government to proceed very gently and very cautiously on this front. Let's take our time on that now rather than after the fact, when legalities, court cases, blowups, walkouts and lockups will happen as a result of some of this legislation, and this will not be a good time for labour relations throughout Ontario.

My time is rapidly coming to an end. I say in closing that it would truly be in the government's interests and everybody's interests if you were to divide this bill into two parts and deal with the first part expeditiously. I believe it's possible. I believe it can be done. I believe all of the partners and stakeholders are prepared to do such, and therefore I think we may have a win-win situation; at least I hope so. If not, the alternative is not bright.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Questions and comments?

Ms Martel: I would like to commend the member for Ottawa Centre for the comments he made here today and to highlight in particular the comments he made with respect to the need for public hearings on this bill. He reinforced that notion, because he and I were both sitting in the House earlier today when a member from the Conservative Party spoke on this issue.

If you had listened to the member for Sarnia, who went on at great length to outline that there had been at least a year of full and open consultation with those involved in the construction trades under the former minister, Witmer, and then another six months of consultation under the new minister, you would have been left with the impression that somehow there had been some consensus and that all the issues had been aired and we were left with a bill that, although some people weren't happy about it, they were prepared to accept to pass through this Legislature.

The member for Ottawa Centre in his remarks and other members from the opposition have made clear in earlier debate on this legislation that in fact there were a number of provisions that had been negotiated and agreed upon; there were also a number of very critical and crucial issues which were dropped on the people in the construction trades when this bill was dropped on this Legislature. There are a number of very important issues, particularly the new provisions on non-construction employers, which those who were at the negotiating table from the construction trades never saw, never heard about, were never warned about, were never advised about but now appear in this bill.

They are very angry about those provisions. They do not agree with those provisions. There was no agreement about them. That is why we need public hearings during the summer, so that those people can have their say, because they certainly didn't have their say when they were sitting talking to the government. It's also clear that the minister has not made any commitment to public hearings, and he should do so today so that all of those concerned can finally have a say.

1640

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): I thank the member opposite for his comments. I enjoyed sitting with him in Ottawa recently while we had a conference with some Quebec legislators about the Ontario-Quebec labour mobility agreement. We've got some problems in that field and I think we've unanimously agreed on action to address that, and I look forward to continuing work with him on that.

I have to disagree with his position with regard to this bill. Fundamentally, the non-construction employer aspect of the bill - if I'm a small businessman in the Ottawa area, if I have doughnut shop and I bring in a carpenter to fix my counter, if he happens to have a union card in his pocket, I'm going to be bound forevermore to use only people who are members of the province-wide construction agreement. That's not really fair to that doughnut shop owner because he doesn't have anything to do with the negotiation of that agreement. He has hired someone and now all of a sudden every time he wants to use anybody he's totally restricted in terms of who he can use - electrical, carpenter, plumbing and so on and so forth.

All we're saying is that that someone who doesn't have construction as their principal business shouldn't, just by default, be bound by the province-wide agreement that they would otherwise have absolutely nothing to do with. They should have the option to deal with either union or non-union if they want. We think that's fair. I think even in the labour movement, they're not interested in organizing people by default or sneakily through a back door. They want to do an open certification process and allow people who want to join unions to be union members. I think that's the best scenario for everyone and that's what this bill allows.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I was glad that the member made reference to the fact that legislation of this kind is forthcoming when you start changing the election finances rules of this province. You know that. You can see that that's exactly what happens. Do you know how that happens? That happens because when you are very powerful people or if it's an extremely wealthy company and they come to a Conservative fund-raiser, they can now give twice as much money, and when they give twice as much money, they have twice as much influence on this government.

That's why when the member said he was concerned about all aspects of this bill, he would be concerned about the changes to the Election Finances Act that the Mike Harris government is forcing through the Legislature this week that make the sky the limit. The sky is the limit on how much money people in favour of this legislation are going to -

Mr Gilchrist: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: It is not permissible to simply couch it under the heading of "the member might have thought in the bill." I would ask you to direct his comments to the -

The Deputy Speaker: Members, I'm very lenient in the two minutes with members of all parties. Continue.

Mr Bradley: I can understand why the Conservative member, the former president of the Conservative Party who used to be a whiz kid - I can understand why Mr Gilchrist is concerned when I raise the issue of election finances, because now the sky is the limit. Now the Conservative Party will be able to spend as much as it wants to buy an election campaign, and all the corporate donors will be able to fill the coffers of the Conservative Party. I understand why he is concerned about what I am saying.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I'm happy to have the chance to comment on the presentation made by the member for Ottawa Centre, who went through the bill in its various parts. As he well understands, one of the things this particular government of Mike Harris is very good at doing is putting into one piece of legislation two or three very important concepts and trying to confuse people one over the other.

As the member for Ottawa Centre said, there may be some form of agreement possible on the project agreements piece. I'm not sure there is, but at least that's an area where I think there would be some willingness for people to look at some of those provisions. But the other two basic pieces in this bill, the provision that allows non-construction employers to get out of their agreements with construction unions - it's not, I say to my colleague opposite, about the small shopkeeper who has to get a repair job done and whether he or she should or should not get a unionized employer.

This is about stripping the rights of hundreds of thousands of workers who work for school boards, who work for companies like the TD Bank and others who have said - particularly in the case of the banks and some of the others who have been lobbying for these kinds of changes, those are people whose employees ought to be covered by exactly this kind of legislation because what we're talking about here is work that is done under the construction trades area. Under that area, there is no justification for those employers to be able to get out, to simply tear up the agreements they have.

I guess what I find most offensive are the other sections in the bill that take out the so-called section 11 protections; that is, the right the Ontario Labour Relations Board has now to certify, on an application by a union, a union where it believes that the actions of the employer have so poisoned the situation the only way in which you can determine it is to in fact grant certification. That's a right that's exercised carefully and should continue to be there.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr Patten: I appreciate the comments of my colleague from Sudbury East when she suggested that indeed the job had not been completed, that there was some consultation that went on. Everybody acknowledges that. Indeed, I think the parties were very close. But perhaps the impatience of the government to just move ahead and not fulfil that responsibility - I think they (1) can and, (2) if they don't, will cause some difficulty.

I enjoy working with my colleague from Niagara Falls. He's a person who tries to deal with the issues. I suggest to him that the parameters and the definitions and the loopholes that have now been introduced for possible abuse are unfortunate. That worries a lot of people in the workplace.

I just marvel at the ability of my friend from St Catharines to provide insights into the deepest parts of legislation related to the election finances bill as well and how it relates to democracy, because it's all part of one big ball of wax.

My friend from Dovercourt, as you were speaking I thought that your reference related too often - there was one thing put forward, but there are a variety of other issues that are introduced in a bill sort of in a secondary manner, as if somehow they were almost housekeeping. I would suggest to you that if you split this bill and took what I think could have support with all parties concerned and looked at those separately, you would probably lay bare a variety of issues that had something to do with favouring and tilting the balance in favour of big business versus the labour movement. I think that would be unfortunate, especially in the construction field, which is totally unique.

Let's have hearings on this. Let's make sure we give the full opportunity to all people who are affected.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Marchese: It's never a pleasure, really, to talk to an anti-union bill but it is good to have the time to be able to speak to a bill. They haven't been able to muzzle us completely yet, although they are trying, and they do try often, to muzzle the opposition as best they can. We have 20 minutes - the Lord is merciful still - and we take this opportunity.

This is an anti-union bill. That's what it's about. There's no point getting to the detail of every aspect of this bill. This bill is an anti-union bill. How do we know this, Speaker? You would know it as well as I do, by reading the title. The title says, "An Act to promote economic development and create jobs in the construction industry, to further workplace democracy" - imagine that - "and to make other amendments to labour and employment statutes."

Doesn't the title itself give away that it has nothing to do with economic development and job creation in the construction industry, that it has nothing to do with workplace democracy? It is exactly the reverse that we should be looking at, as indeed with every other bill. They put a fig leaf on this title. They did.

Unlike the other bill, which is "An Act to Prevent Unionization" for those poor folks involved in the workfare program - that was wrong, as I pointed out in my remarks in the previous speech, but this one they put a fig leaf on. They thought it might be nice to just cover it up so as not to make it as imprudent as they can be. Look to its title to discover its real content and you will notice, those of you who are regular watchers - and I know today is a difficult one because the World Cup is on. Germany is playing the US and they're winning 2-0. Those brave souls who are putting aside the World Cup to watch this live program, we thank you, but you will know from the regular watchings of this program that when these people here, these fine Reformers on the other side, introduce a bill of this sort, by its title you already know: You've got to take cover, you'd better hide, they're after you.

1650

They are anti-union Tories, these people. They don't mask it. They're not ashamed of saying, "We don't like unions." In fact, they're quite daring and bold about that, as if 34% of the population that was unionized was simply too much. Only 34% of the entire workforce is unionized, if not less. It's not a lot of people who are unionized. You would think by their hatred of unions that the whole world in Canada was unionized, but it's only 34%, a small number of people.

There are thousands of unions in Canada. I often decry that problem because when you go to Italy or France - Italy has one or two major, big unions. I frankly like that because there's a great deal of solidarity there. If they've got a problem as workers, in solidarity they stand behind each other to support their democratic rights as workers - men and women. But here in this country, sadly, we have thousands of little unions easily exploited by big employers. Of course when you've got money, you've got your say, right?

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): Like in the social contract.

Mr Gilchrist: We're giving you as many days of hearings as you gave -

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Members for Scarborough East and Nepean.

Mr Marchese: I wish in this country we had what we have in Europe, where unions indeed have power. Here, apart from a few major, big unions, little unions don't have that much power. But to listen to these fine people on the other side, these cold-blooded people, you would think that these poor, little unions are destroying the country. These cold-blooded folks to the left of me - right, Speaker? - connected to those amphibians on the other side, you would think, talking to them, that all these unionized workplaces are just bringing this poor little province down and tearing it asunder: "God, if we didn't have these unions, we would have development and job creation. We would indeed have workplace democracy. It's because of the unions that we don't have either job creation or workplace democracy." That's the kind of story these people tell. Poor children, having to listen to these kinds of stories.

You would think that next they would do what the Liberals did federally. They're setting up a little commission. I don't know whether it cost $25 million. It's a truth commission. So as those poor Péquistes in Quebec tell lies, you have a $25-million commission telling the truth on the other side. I love it. You guys should learn from M. Chrétien. It's a brilliant strategy. What you need is a truth commission, because the poor media is after you guys in a big way. You need to set up a truth commission so that you can counter those poor little opposition parties that belie much of what you're doing. Spend a bit of money to do that.

This is an anti-union bill. This bill is designed to line the pockets of their rich friends.

Speaker, you will recall that when we were in government, these people over here, including my Liberal friends to my right, would attack us for everything under the sun; for catering to the special-interest groups. Now this particular group says that they do not serve any special-interest groups; they serve all Ontarians.

I've got to tell you, I was reading this little article here, just to give a sense of the special-interest groups that this Tory party is connected to. Judith Andrew of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business said her members welcome the change. What a surprise. She says, "They really feel their employees should have a fair opportunity to vote in secret and have that count, as opposed to any kind of penalty certification." I will get to that in a brief moment. Then you have -

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): Are you opposed to secret ballots?

Mr Marchese: I'll get to that in a minute.

Then you have M. Ed Gould, who is a spokesman for Wal-Mart. He says, "We're very supportive of this initiative, because we believe that it protects workplace democracy and it will encourage investment and job creation." Does this sound to you like they're using the same language, Speaker? It sounds like it to me.

This is the most powerful interest group in the country we're talking about and they are allied with these people. These are the pockets that are being lined and this is the government that is the instrument for people like Wal-Mart, for the person I just quoted, Ed Gould. Of course, they would never tell you that. They can't do that. They've got to mask it under a different title to make it appear they're doing something else. But Ed Gould is quite clear. He's saying, "Yes, we like it; this is good for me," especially when a decision was taken against them a while ago, and I'll refer to that in a moment. But people like that, the banks, so many of the other sectors that have a lot to gain, are quite happy with this. These are the people who are going to make a big contribution to the Tories when the time comes.

You will recall Mike Harris saying at one meeting he had with his buddies, the rich buddies, the golf type of buddies, "You've stuck with us through the hard times and we're going to be there for you." That's what he means: "We are going to be there for you." That's the most powerful interest group in the country. We're not talking about an interest group of poor little welfare persons, people who are in shelters, an interest group of poor little homeless groups that some of us thought we should be helping, because these are the real victims of the marketplace.

But here you have people who are doing well in this economy and these are the ones these Tories want to protect, not the other interest groups, the impoverished groups that have no voice. They want to give more power, more money back to those who don't need a voice because they are beyond government. They transcend governments. We are but a tool. I say "we"; they, this government, is but a tool of those who manipulate the system through the money they control. The people watching know that.

This decision to remove section 11 of the Ontario Labour Relations Act: That section gave the labour board the authority it used to certify the Steelworkers at Wal-Mart in Windsor on the grounds that employer misconduct made it impossible to hold a fair vote to determine the wishes of the employees. I would point out, because I don't think it's been pointed out today, that this section also allowed for overturning a positive vote where there was union misconduct, and that also is repealed. So there is a check and balance on both sides. Should the employer be found to be doing something underhanded or engaging in some skulduggery - the union too, if it engaged in practices that were found to be unfair, was subject to the same treatment by the OLRA. These Tories don't mention that part of that particular section, but it's there.

Mr Maves: It's right there.

Mr Marchese: It's right there, yes, Mr Maves. The point is that there was a balance there and it gave this board, largely dominated by Conservatives - yes, labour has one person there but it's hard to imagine that the OLRA is there to protect the interests of labour, by and large. I think you would know that, member for Kitchener. This was a balanced section.

You would know, Speaker, that the employer and employees do not have the same equal relationship. They are not equal. They will never be equal, not in this country especially. The ones who are the strongest in that relationship are the ones who control the work, and if the employer says, "You're not working tomorrow, by the way, if you vote on that certification issue," you may not have a job. That's what we're talking about under that section. That section is there to protect workers from skulduggery when it is done by the employer, and it is now removed. That was a remedy provided in the bill to protect workers when employers are underhanded in their ways.

1700

It doesn't take a great deal of intelligence or imagination to know that employers engage in this sort of activity all the time, to protect their financial interests, of course. We know that workers who work in a lot of these places, coming from so many different parts of the world, are very easily intimidated when an employer says, "If you sign that, we've got a problem." They may or may not be explicit in the way they tell their worker, but the worker understands clearly what the employer is saying. In many situations you have the vote that you had in the example we gave, the Steelworkers organizing at Wal-Mart not too long ago, where indeed many of the workers decided not to vote for certification. Why? Because they had been intimidated by the employer. The judgement made by the OLRA proved that the methods of the employer were not entirely clean.

Section 11 provides that "the board may certify the trade union as the bargaining agent for the employees in a bargaining unit" if satisfied that the following circumstances are present:

"1. An employer...or person acting on behalf of an employer...has contravened the act.

"2. The result of the contravention is that a representation vote does not or would not likely reflect the true wishes of the employees...about being represented by the trade union.

"3. No other remedy, including the taking of another representation vote, is sufficient to counter the effects of the contravention."

Speaking to (3), these guys on the other side say that having removed section 11 is not so bad. They say they could still hold another vote. But what was built into section 11, which I just read, said, "No other remedy, including the taking of another representation vote, is sufficient to counter the effects of the contravention," meaning that even if you have another vote, if the intimidation exists by the employer, it doesn't automatically disappear because you have another vote. It doesn't remedy the problem; it doesn't go away. If people are frightened because you made them so as an employer, they will continue to be frightened and they will again vote not to certify.

This measure that these fine Tories have left us with is no solution. They know that. This isn't something that might be misunderstood by Tories. They know exactly what they're doing. It reminds me of M. Harris, when asked whether he regrets having done anything. The guy says no. "Are there some issues you might have undone or done differently because you feel bad about them?" He says: "Oh, no, we're on track. In fact, give us another four years, because we want to do some more wonderful things." This guy knows exactly what he's doing, and this is an anti-union bill, as are so many other bills that he has introduced, assaulting workers.

Some 34% of the entire population is unionized, hardly a whole lot of people, getting the protection they need from a union. These fine Tories would love to go back to the good old days when employers could do what they wanted without restrictions from collective agreements that bind them to this and to that, collective agreements that they have to fight over to increase wages perhaps, or to have a better pension perhaps, or to have safety boots or safety glasses or to have a dental plan or to have a certain number of hours because we think it might be decent and human not to have hours that are inhuman as in the good old days. That's what these people want us to get back to. They would love that.

We've discovered that these boys want hearings on the Condominium Act, which all three parties agree on, but they don't want hearings on this bill where clearly there is a disagreement between the opposition and the government. Why in heaven's name would they have hearings on the Condominium Act where we all agree, and no hearings on something as fundamental as this where we disagree completely?

The answer is quite obvious for the people watching and they will not be beguiled, I don't think, once they get the information. So it's important for people watching the program that you do several things. You could ask for more information for the rest of us. You've heard several speeches today and the one from our member for Hamilton Centre last week which covered similar issues.

If you want more information about any of these bills, please call us. If you want to get involved, I suggest to you that once you have this information you sit down face to face with these fine Tories. Don't write them a letter. It won't go anywhere. If you're writing a letter to a minister, if you don't write "Private and Confidential," it will never get to them. They'll be out of office by the time they open the envelope. Don't send a minister a letter that is not written "Private and Confidential." If you want the minister to read it, make sure you have "Private and Confidential" so his staff is obligated to open that envelope and make it at least known to the minister that they might have a problem.

But I recommend that you meet face to face with them and look them in the eye and then ask them to tell you specifically how this helps anybody in particular. But you need that kind of debate and a lot of these members will tell you they're too busy, they're working really hard, they don't have time to meet with you. But it is their duty, as it is our duty in opposition, to make time to meet with people so we can go over these issues.

There are other issues that were mentioned by the other member. Hundreds of companies will be able to get rid of their collective agreement and go non-union for all their construction work. Why? Because, as was mentioned by the previous speaker, wealthy corporations like the TD Bank, Sears and others don't want to pay the union rates and their friend Mike Harris is going to fix it so they won't have to.

Bill 31 creates a class of business called a non-construction employer, which will be exempt from all of our standard agreements. This is another section touched upon by the members for Ottawa and Hamilton Centre. There are many issues, but you don't need all the detail to know that these people are after unions, the few that are left, those few unions that are there protecting the interests of people who, without a union, are left on their own to fight an employer who often, as is the case in this issue, will engage in skulduggery to keep the unions out.

We urge those of you who are watching today, in place of watching that fine World Cup, to connect with us if you want more information, but more importantly, to meet with them to tell them how you really feel.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mr Wettlaufer: The member for Fort York devoted a lot of time to workplace democracy and his interpretation of what that workplace democracy means. In the late 1960s and early 1970s when I was in university taking some labour law, one of my instructors was a lawyer for the firefighters' association. I remember him telling me at the time that any action taken by an employer that could intimidate the members applying for certification could be construed as action which would cause the Ontario Labour Relations Board to automatically certify the union.

The member for Fort York referred to the Wal-Mart case and I think that points out a very good example. The applicants for certification in the Wal-Mart case - as you will probably recall, the Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the automatic certification because it felt that they were intimidated because Wal-Mart would not give them a guarantee that the business would continue to do business after the vote and also that it would not tell them it would go out of business if the union was certified.

Mr Marchese: What does that tell you?

Mr Wettlaufer: That is not intimidation.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Wettlaufer: We're talking about what is democratic here. We're talking about the result of a secret ballot - that's democracy - in which at least 50% vote in favour of certification. That has nothing to do with being anti-union. That is simply democracy.

1710

Mr Patten: It's a pleasure to respond to the enthusiastic member for Fort York, who, in a nutshell, really spoke about values, friends, power and influence. He dealt with the section related to certification, which is a major worry throughout the labour movement. I must say, in relation to that, that I can't believe the member for Kitchener can suggest that job security and the company declaring bankruptcy or going out of business or moving away would not somehow be related to the possibility of intimidating employees.

Mr Wettlaufer: Wouldn't give guarantees.

Mr Patten: My gosh. "Wouldn't give guarantees," he said. Well, there's a way in which that can be expressed. "If we have a union here, maybe we won't sell so much, maybe we won't be able to keep as many staff, and who knows? We have many stores all over the place. Some are more profitable than others." Listen, the history of Wal-Mart is not a proud one. If any of you saw the report on 60 Minutes and the particular history of this company throughout America - actually, the United States of America, because I think we are in America too, by the way - the United States of America and the devastation they have done to Main Street in so many small towns and collected rural areas - they have literally destroyed their infrastructure in retail. Then two years later it's not so big because the market wasn't as active as they thought, and they move out. What do they leave behind them? Economic destruction.

I don't have too much faith in a company of that nature. I don't shop there either. But I'll tell that you have to watch out for companies of that nature. The 22 situations out of 4,547 is less than half of 1%. I say keep that issue.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I enjoyed immensely the comments of the member for Fort York. It's quite obvious that this is another anti-union piece of legislation. It's an attack on the ordinary working men and women in this province. Even the title is very misleading, when they're saying it's going to promote economic development and create jobs.

Mr Maves: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: The member accused the government of misleading the public.

The Deputy Speaker: I'm sorry, I didn't hear that. If the member did, please withdraw it.

Mr Len Wood: Withdrawn. This is a bill that is directly aimed at attacking men and women right across this province. We see editorials and articles being written. It's just another little gift for Mike's friends. Now that they're changing the Election Finances Act, they can go out and say, "Look at what we've done for all the large, wealthy corporations in this province." You're going to be able to attack all the working men and women right across this province with the legalizing of scabs and blisters in the workplace under Bill 7. We have three or four pieces of legislation that have been brought forward to make sure that unions cannot organize the people who are forced into workfare. It's one attack after another against the ordinary working men and women across this province.

As the member for Fort York explained during his 20 minutes, there is nothing about good democracy in this particular bill or any other bill. They put a fancy title on it that looks good, but even the large daily newspapers right across Canada are starting to see through it, that all it is is a matter of Mike Harris trying to attack everybody in this province that he doesn't see eye to eye with. It's quite obvious that he doesn't see eye to eye with some of the union leadership when he brings in legislation that attacks them on a regular basis.

Mr Maves: I commend the members for their comments. It's always interesting to listen to the member for Fort York speak.

With regard to his comments about automatic certification, the removal of the OLRB's remedy of automatically certifying a workplace - that remedy is a removal of my right to decide my own fate. If an employer does something untoward during a union drive, the OLRB has all kinds of different remedies it can order to correct that situation so that the people in that workplace will understand their rights, and then they can order another vote and the people can decide their own fate in terms of whether they want to be a member of an organized workplace.

It does cut both ways. The member was right to say that. If a union right now has a successful vote, let's say an 85% vote in favour of a union, but the employer says, "No, I think the union intimidated them on how to vote," the OLRB right now could say, "You 85% didn't know what you were doing, and even though you want a union there, I'm saying no, you can't have a union."

We're saying in this bill that the OLRB will give those people the right to vote on whether they want a union. It won't be up to the OLRB to decide yes or no, "You're going to have a union." The OLRB can only say there'll be certain remedies in this circumstance, after which point they can say, "Now you people have a right to choose whether you want to be in a union."

In terms of the non-construction, I'll use another example: Some little lady with a sewing business who brings in a plumber to do some work, if that plumber has a union card, from now on, any time she wants any work done, she has to go to a hiring hall to hire an electrician, a carpenter and so on. She can't hire her cousin to come and help her out.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Fort York has two minutes to respond.

Mr Marchese: I thank my friends and foes for their remarks. The member for Niagara Falls -

Ms Martel: Is out to lunch.

Mr Marchese: Well, they're all out to lunch, by and large, almost all the time. But that's the point of being here. We have a disagreement and that's what we're talking about.

The member for Niagara Falls says they should have a right to determine their own fate. Would that that were the case. Wouldn't workers want that kind of fair play in the workplace?

He makes it appear that that is the dream world these workers are living in, that this law we had in place before was completely unfair and we need to put in place workplace democracy now so every individual has the right to choose their own fate. He makes it appear as if it's a reasonable thing. Would that that were the case.

The member for Niagara Falls is frustrated, quite clearly. I know, I see it by the puffing of his mouth. I see it. But that's the point. The point is, that's not the way it works.

The decision made against Wal-Mart on the grounds that the employer, when asked if voting for the union would mean the store would close, refused to answer - isn't it obvious to the member for Kitchener that that is intimidation? What more does he need to convince him? If the worker says, "Look, are you going to close?" and the guy doesn't answer, doesn't that mean your job may not be there? To those of us who have degrees, it's quite clear. I'm not sure about the others. If you have a degree and that's not clear to you, you've got a problem.

We're talking about values. This bill is about values. These people are on the side of the employer - the Wal-Marts, the banks - and we're on the other side. These are the values we represent and those are the values they represent. They want that divide, and they're saying to the public, "Are you on this side or are you on the other?" I am on the side of working people and the unions that support them.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Wettlaufer: This legislation could be aptly called "The Light Went On." Do you know that in a school, for instance, if a caretaker spots a light that is flickering or, through normal maintenance schedules, decides lights need to be changed, he can do so. However, if at night we have a darkened stairway as a result of a bulb burning out, in that same school the caretaker cannot change the lightbulb.

Ridiculous? Unbelievable? Yes, but true. That caretaker cannot change that lightbulb in that school in spite of there being a darkened stairway, in spite of there being the possibility of injury to someone falling down the stairs - a student, a teacher - because of province-wide bargaining, because that caretaker must be unionized to change that lightbulb. Isn't that ridiculous? That's where it is. However, that will change.

Interjections.

1720

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Just a moment. Take your seat, please.

Member for Kitchener.

Mr Wettlaufer: Obviously I've touched a nerve among the NDP, but that's okay. They keep talking. It won't bother me too much.

Interjections.

Mr Len Wood: Debate the bill.

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Cochrane North.

Mr Wettlaufer: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It was getting to the point that even I couldn't hear myself.

The current act, as you're aware, allows as well those unions seeking certification to demonstrate that they represent at least 40% of the employees in the bargaining unit. Under this bill that will change. The union is going to have to demonstrate that it represents at least a majority of the workers. That shouldn't be a problem.

I would also like to talk again about what I was referring to in my comments earlier on the member for Fort York, that a guarantee by an employer that he would close would be considered intimidation, that it would be anti-democratic. However, the failure by that employer to guarantee that he would close shouldn't be considered anti-democratic; it should be considered what it is: the knowledge of the employer that if he makes any statements at all, those statements could be considered intimidation, so he just decides not to say anything at all. In the case of the Wal-Mart incident, the Ontario Labour Relations Board ruled that the failure to say anything at all was intimidation. Nonsense, absolute nonsense.

I want to point out that I don't believe that any union would do anything to the detriment of its members. My wife is a union member and so was my father, and I think generally speaking that the union leadership speaks on behalf of its members. So why would a union oppose project negotiating? If that project is to the betterment of the union members, it will bring jobs into a community, it will bring jobs into the province, it will bring investment into the province, not just construction jobs but permanent jobs, why would any union oppose it? I don't believe the unions would oppose it.

I'll tell you something else: Under the legislation as proposed a non-union employer will be able to bid on these jobs, but the non-union employer will employ union help. That's spelled out. How can this legislation be considered anti-union? How could a piece of legislation that guarantees that the employees will be union be called anti-union?

There was an article in the Toronto Star this morning that points out a couple of items in the proposed legislation that are perhaps anti-union. But it also pointed out another one -

Ms Martel: Read the title.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Wettlaufer: Madam Speaker, the member for Sudbury East is talking about reading the title. I'm not an NDP; I can't read only the title. I read the whole article. I want to point out one other thing.

Ms Martel: Read the first paragraph. Read the first sentence.

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Sudbury East, come to order.

Mr Wettlaufer: That is that there are two provisions in the workplace democracy bill that would hit unions, but there is also one, while it's unintended perhaps, that would put the unions in the driver's seat. They cite in the article an example from British Columbia as evidence that this could happen. Have we taken action in the bill to ensure that this doesn't happen? No. Anti-union? Balderdash.

What this bill is all about is encouraging investment in the province and encouraging jobs in the province. We must be competitive not only with our neighbouring states and provinces, but also with jurisdictions such as North Carolina, Florida, California, Tennessee and Kentucky. We must be if we are going to provide jobs. Nobody can convince me, especially these mouthpieces here to my right, and figuratively to my left, that the union leaders of this province do not want to provide jobs for their members. They cannot convince me.

Construction-industry grievance arbitration will be recoverable from all parties. Is that anti-union? It exists in every other area in this province today. Should the taxpayer pick up the tab for construction-industry grievance procedures? Hardly. Non-construction employers, whether they be retail stores, schools, municipalities, hospitals, are presently bound by the Labour Relations Act.

A number of years ago, a large employer in my riding of Kitchener, Monteith-McGrath Construction, used to do a lot of construction in hospitals, schools and other institutional buildings. The Labour Relations Act said that if the contractor did non-union jobs in one area but union jobs in another area of the province, the contractor must be considered to be a union shop in all areas of the province. Well, in one area of the province, he was non-union. But in Kitchener, the region of Waterloo, he was union. What that meant to him was that he could no longer compete and he closed up. He closed up everywhere. That meant a loss of jobs -

Mr Len Wood: He was probably 85 years old.

Mr Wettlaufer: No, he was my age. It meant a loss of jobs to clients of mine, people who could no longer afford to pay for their insurance, people who could no longer afford to buy clothing and shoes for their own kids, people who lost their houses. That isn't good for the economy of this province. It certainly wasn't good for the economy of my riding. It was one of the area's largest contractors.

Why should retail stores or schools or municipalities, or any other business, be bound by the Labour Relations Act over which it has no control? Province-wide agreements, over which a small business in my area has no control - why should that small business be bound by it? I reject that as being unfair. I reject that as being almost unconstitutional.

This bill is all about jobs. It's all about remaining competitive throughout the province. Bigger is not better. It's a matter of being competitive. Every employer, every contractor, everyone who wants a job is interested in having jobs come to this province, and this bill boosts the competitiveness of Ontario's construction industry.

1730

The Deputy Speaker: Questions or comments?

Mr Patten: I always appreciate the comments of the member for Kitchener because he provides an opportunity to respond to some of his values and his life experience. As to some of the examples he uses, I think everyone would agree that some of the silly things that happen in certain contexts of course should be done away with, but I remind him that the board under this bill has the authority to assign costs to employers and employees in a situation if there need to be certain investigations or additional costs on having a particular vote. So that's not really the issue; it's really the parameters of it, how far you go. There is no definition of what is economically significant or of what is considered to be a major project agreement. There are no parameters around that other than to say, "If they're of significance, it's up to the proponent and there will be a judgement that will happen somewhere, some time, to what degree, where and what."

It's seen as a threat to some situations where people have a situation where there is some accountability on behalf of the employer. We talk about the employers in the non-construction field primarily, but many of them have construction employees.

You said bigger is not best. I suggest to you, if that is the case, then why is it, member for Kitchener, that your government has moved towards bigger municipalities, bigger hospitals, bigger school boards, and you now say bigger is not best? If that's not the pattern of this government in terms of its legacy that we shall see from here on over the next decade or so, I'm not sure what is.

Ms Martel: I would like to respond to two points that were made by the member for Kitchener. The first has to do with a reference to the Toronto Star article where he said, "There might be some comments in it that might show it's anti-union." If you take a look at the article today, from the title on down most of the article points out that this bill is exactly anti-union legislation.

The title reads, "Anti-union Legislation May Backfire."

"The Mike Harris government has introduced another anti-union bill.

"It has the kind of reverse-reality name the government likes - The Economic Development and Workplace Democracy Act.

"This bill follows the more honestly named Prevention of Unionization Act, introduced last month....

"Although the new bill's title is more circumspect, its intent is the same - to tilt the field against unions.

"This is not a surprise. The government promised it would be like this."

It goes on to point out two areas of particular concern that clearly show the government's bias against unions, and makes a comment as well about a situation in BC. As to whether it would be anywhere near relevant in this province, God only knows. But certainly the whole article made it clear, which is the point the opposition was making here today, that the bill is anti-union. It's very intentional. The government knows exactly what it's doing. The mere fact that the government dropped on the table, when the bill was introduced, some amendments that the unions involved had never seen throughout the whole period of negotiation makes that clear. That is also why we have continued to call on the government for public hearings, especially so that those sections that were dropped on the unions involved without notification, without any negotiation, that are certainly contrary to where they thought the government was heading, could at least be discussed. Otherwise we will all continue to reiterate that it is anti-union and it's going to have a detrimental effect on the workers in that industry in this province.

Hon Jim Flaherty (Minister of Labour, Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I listened with interest to the most recent comment with respect to the bill being anti-union. It is truly lamentable that a large daily newspaper would not bother studying the bill or understanding the issues in the bill before commenting on it.

You say it's anti-union. Here's what the union said: Alex Lolua, director of government relations for the Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario, said the trade unions have had talks with the government on the project agreement part of the bill. Here is the quote.

This was in another daily newspaper -

Mr Len Wood: The Star said it's anti-union.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Hon Mr Flaherty: - a week ago Friday. Here is the quote, and this is from the building trades union: "In principle, we've agreed with helping to attract investment to Ontario through project agreements."

Mr Silipo: What about the rest of it?

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Members for Dovercourt and Cochrane North.

Hon Mr Flaherty: I'd suggest to the editorial writer of the Toronto Star that they read the bill, that they listen to the building trades unions, that they try to understand the importance of project agreements. If it's anti-union to create the potential for 42,000 union jobs in this province, then I guess I'd plead guilty to being anti-union.

The chemical producers say, "By our calculations we're looking at the potential of creating 42,500 new jobs for Ontarians." If the NDP thinks that's against workers, then let it be the NDP's view that that is against workers. But if you care about workers, if you care about families in Ontario, if you care about good union jobs in Ontario, if you really care - or if you're just like the Toronto Star editorial writer, you don't understand the issue, you don't read the bill and you don't read what is said by union leaders, then I can't help you.

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I think maybe we should play Jeopardy for a minute, and the answer is, "Who is Bill Saunderson?"

I have an article here that appeared on October 14, 1997. It's kind of an interesting article. It says, "Low construction costs help Canada achieve the lowest overall business costs among seven North American and European countries in a survey conducted by professional services firm KPMG Canada."

It has a quote down here. The economic development, trade and tourism minister at the time, Bill Saunderson, said, "We're leading the industrial world in competitiveness." That's what he said. The low-cost Canadian cities tended to be in the Atlantic region. Then it said, "Hamilton, Sarnia, London, Toronto, Sudbury and Ottawa all compared well against the rest of the world."

We have a bill here, Bill 31, which is creatively, as usual, entitled An Act to promote economic development and create jobs in the construction industry, to further workplace democracy and to make other amendments to labour and employment statutes. I would say to the government as you look at this, I understand that much of the project management part of it is agreeable to the parties, but the problematic parts of the bill, and the minister doesn't seem to want to talk about that, are later on where we're discussing issues of how unions are certified etc. I would say, why would you mess with the best, most competitive jurisdiction in the world?

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Kitchener.

Mr Wettlaufer: There weren't a lot of comments on what I had said. There was a lot of rhetoric, as usual. I'd like to point out that since June 1995, since we were elected, there have been 370,000 net new jobs added to this province's rolls, and 90% of those new jobs have been created in the small business sector, small businesses which are not unionized, generally speaking; small businesses which are expanding; small businesses which don't have any control over the present Labour Relations Act or any province-wide bargaining or anything like that.

1740

The CFIB, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, with 100,000 members across the country, represents the views of this sector. On June 5, Judith Andrew, representing the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, said that their members really feel "the employees should have a fair opportunity to vote in secret and have that count, as opposed to any kind of penalty certification, that is, in those cases in which unions do ask for certification in those small businesses."

Is there something wrong with a secret ballot? The members of the opposition parties seem to think so. I don't understand. We have secret ballots for electing our governments but we're not supposed to have secret ballots to elect or to pick a union in the workplace? We're not supposed to have a secret ballot? Thank heaven for this bill.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate.

Mr David Caplan (Oriole): I'm very pleased to join the debate on Bill 31, the Economic Development and Workplace Democracy Act. My first comment is, who comes up with these titles? It's amazing. If you look at previous government initiatives, for example, Bill 160, the Education Quality Improvement Act, you saw contained in the bill the exact opposite. This one, the Economic Development and Workplace Democracy Act, follows that pattern. The title says one thing, so you know - I think it's really a form of Orwellian Newspeak or doublespeak, if you will, to put one thing in the title and another thing in the content of this bill. The provincial government and the minister do a real disservice to the people of this province. They should be much more unequivocal about what is contained in this bill.

Bill 31 makes a number of changes. The construction workers and their representatives and employers have been working with the Ministry of Labour and contractors towards a common goal of fairness and competitiveness in the industry. A fair deal was reached, but the minister had to include provisions in this bill that went beyond that deal.

Let me expand upon that, Minister. I have a letter from Pat Dillon, the business manager of the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council. He says:

"One such example is the section dealing with non-construction employers. During our industry discussions over the past year and a half, this was never raised as a concern by employers or government. In fact, the government had several opportunities to address these concerns in Bill 7 and again in Bill 136. The prescription contained in the bill fails to recognize the relationships that had developed in our industry.... I am appalled with you and your staff, that in the number of meetings we had discussing `certain perceived problems in the construction industry' that you chose not to discuss this very important issue."

In fact, the letter goes on to detail a number of discrepancies between what's contained in this bill and conversations that the minister, his staff and this government have had with their partners. Again, it shows that the con is in the consulting that this government says they're doing. They don't listen. They haven't listened on health care, they haven't listened on education, and Bill 31 contains the same kind of pattern. They're not listening to their partners throughout Ontario, and it's not surprising given the history of this government.

The minister has poisoned the spirit of goodwill and compromise that existed and would have led to a win-win situation.

This bill will have major impacts on construction projects across the province. For that reason alone, I know I insist and our party insists, our critic insists and our leader, Dalton McGuinty, insists that we have public hearings after second reading of this bill so that all stakeholders will have a chance to be on the record about Bill 31 and what's contained in it. We can talk a bit about the title and we can talk a bit about what's contained in the number of pages in this bill.

The bill assigns a number of new powers to the Ontario Labour Relations Board, yet the actions of this government have severely cut the funding and staff of the board. You have to ask yourself, how is the Labour Relations Board going to be able to do the number of things it needs to do to meet the requirements of Bill 31? Well, obviously it isn't. Obviously this government is setting up the Labour Relations Board as a bit of a fall guy. They're not going to be able to complete their mandate because this government doesn't put its money where its mouth is. We've seen that in health care, we've seen that in education and we're seeing it again. It's a consistent and repeated pattern of this government.

This bill sets up a new process for negotiating specific agreements for "major industrial projects." It gives no definition and allows very wide latitude about what could be designated as a major industrial project. The minister can certainly say the Olympics or any other project that he or she or this government deems to fall within that framework. It gives arbitrary power to the minister, and I think quite unreasonably.

A proponent industrial company or a major contractor acting on behalf of a property owner can negotiate specific "economically significant" - again no definitions. These new terms are thrown out there, with absolutely no definition and no specifics attached to them - "an economically significant project directly with local construction unions." The contract can contain terms and conditions that differ from the province-wide agreements, these so-called project agreements.

I should tell you that this was a point of agreement among all the stakeholders. I will quote to you the comments of a fellow by the name of Mr Alex Lolua. Mr Lolua said:

"Construction unions have made a decision that we don't want to be the limiting factor, or seem to be the limiting factor, in helping attract industrial investment to Ontario. If it takes a project agreement to help bring that project to fruition, we're prepared to do our part."

Applause.

Mr Caplan: I see the minister applaud. That's one section of this bill on which there is agreement. Isn't it interesting that there are many other sections contained in this bill which have to do with quite a bit more than project agreements? Really, what the minister and this government are doing is trying to find a sneaky, back-door way of slipping in changes to our labour laws, to our standards. It really is an anti-union bill. I think that's very clear.

The Toronto Star commented in an editorial today, and I think they were quite right: "In fact, union locals are not invited to the negotiations by the proposal...but will be bound by province-wide agreements, not local agreements," which is okay, "and residential or commercial constructions projects are not included in this new project agreement provision." That's something that's been left out. "Labour rules for those sectors remain unchanged unless" - and this is very interesting - "the minister uses his power to unilaterally assign a project under their new system." There certainly are rumours - the Olympics are one. We have the Technodome which is scheduled to begin construction up in Downsview in North York.

In fact, we've seen how Mike Harris and his ministers, the cabinet, have attempted to grab unilateral powers, put them into the cabinet, put them into regulation-making abilities so that there is no public scrutiny, so that there is no debate, so that they can make changes at will. I'm really very suspicious, and I think the people of Ontario have not been fooled by the agenda of this government to hide from public scrutiny, to not be accountable.

1750

I remember seeing the Premier and members of the government bench stand up and say, "The buck stops here and it stops with us." That is totally without foundation. By making arrangements to have unilateral powers, when they're exercised, how they're exercised, what the criteria are going to be, without having any kind of indication what that means, this government is trying to hide. In fact it's anti-democratic. As I said, the title says one thing - it says "democracy" in the title - but contained in this bill are anti-democratic measures giving the minister unlimited and arbitrary powers. I think that all members of the House should be concerned about the kind of pattern that we're seeing.

The major reason for this bill has come from many corporations, particularly, as the member for Sarnia spoke about, in the petrochemical industry. It was interesting. I did a little bit of research and found this article dated October 14, 1997. It says, "Low construction costs helped Canada achieve the lowest overall business costs among seven North American and European countries in a survey conducted by professional services firm KPMG Canada," a very well respected consulting and accounting firm, and very clear what their conclusions were. It's funny that we have the minister stand up in his place and talk about all these jobs going to Texas, all these jobs going to Europe, all these jobs going all over the place, all over the world, and not here in Ontario and not here in Canada.

It continues and says, "Hamilton, Sarnia, London, Toronto, Sudbury and Ottawa all compared well against the rest of the world." I know that the minister would want to listen to this and would want to correct the record in his statement when it comes to Ontario's competitiveness across the world. In fact according to his colleague the member for Eglinton, "`We're leading the industrial world in competitiveness,' said Economic Development, Trade and Tourism Minister Bill Saunderson following the release of the report." "We're leading the...world."

I think the member was quite right to point that out, and I don't know why this minister and this government want to give a different kind of message, except that they have an agenda. That agenda is to foist something which doesn't have a basis in fact on to Ontarians, on to the construction sector, on to the labour sector. I really do wish that the minister and the Premier would be much more circumspect in their comments.

Contractors and unions have been trying to solve a number of these problems. There was really a spirit of goodwill and cooperation among all the different parties to work some of these things out. But introducing this bill with the provisions it has in it has totally ruined that spirit of goodwill and cooperation.

Bill 31 removes employers who are not primarily engaged in construction work - again, there's no definition of what that means, "primarily engaged in construction work" - from the construction provisions of the Labour Relations Act. These employers include such organizations as retailers, institutions, school boards, municipalities, hospitals, fast-food restaurants, a number of these. Banks, by the way, are included, so if Toronto-Dominion Bank decided they wanted to raise up another tower, they're not included in the provisions of this legislation.

A major ramification of this section is that under the Labour Relations Act all employers that employ even one unionized construction worker are only allowed to contract out their construction projects to unionized contracting companies. Those employers who will be able to remove themselves from the construction provisions will now be free to use unionized or non-unionized contractors - definitely an anti-union measure, definitely an anti-union move. In fact the certification process as well is under fire.

I've heard a number of government members talk about certification and how this is democracy and secret ballots and majority rules. Well, it's very interesting. It alters the process of certification in two ways. One is that you can have certification despite a negative employee vote under the current rules now. That's called section 11 and, by the way, that was introduced by Bill Davis and his government. This is not something that was done under other governments. This is a long-standing tradition, really a democratic practice, where intimidation has been used within a workplace to thwart the right to, to thwart the efforts of, a democratic and free vote. The Ontario Labour Relations Board has the power to certify, even if the majority vote against, because of a flagrant violation of the employer. This provision has been used 15 times in the last four years; 15 times in a little over 600 certifications, so 2% of the time this happens, and we have to write a whole piece of legislation.

Many of the government members have talked about Wal-Mart being the recent case and precedent. This is the Wal-Mart decision. I'll read you a passage from this decision. It says:

"The act recognizes that an employer is in the more immediate position to affect an individual's employment relationship, if only by virtue of its freedom to advance, preserve, impede or terminate an individual's employment. Therefore, by the terms of the act, that very freedom is restricted. In order to protect and promote the collective bargaining process, the Legislature has provided that no employer is free to affect a person's job security or conditions of employment when the employer's action is prompted by an anti-union motive.... For the same reason, by virtue of the act, an employer's freedom of expression regarding possible union representation of his employees is not absolute. While he is of course free to express his view of representation by a trade union, he may not use that freedom of expression to make overt or subtle threats or promises motivated by anti-union sentiment which go to the sensitive area of changes in conditions of employment or job security."

So overt or subtle threats can thwart the move towards certification of the union.

I know members of the government will be very interested to learn that they're the ones who appoint the people on the Ontario Labour Relations Board. They're their appointees. When your appointees tell you that these kinds of practices have taken place and that there is such a flagrant violation and such a need as to take the ultimate step, which is to impose the sanction of certification in the event that there is not a majority, that tells you that your own advisers, the people you have appointed to this board, have said that's an appropriate sanction and an appropriate solution.

I heard some of the members say, "We could just fine them or we could force them to hire back employees." Sure, those sanctions already exist under the provisions of the Ontario Labour Relations Act. If a company is big enough, they can afford a one-time fine or fee of $100,000. It's just a tax on the ability to keep unions out, to prevent workers from expressing their democratic right of freedom of association.

That's really interesting, too. Freedom of association is another right, is another democratic part and another tradition in this country which is under attack in this bill. Workplace democracy does not exist in this bill. In fact it is an attack on democracy, it is an attack on the rights people have and it is an attack, I believe, on charter rights contained under freedom of association.

The other way it could be affected - as I said, there are two ways. Evidence whether a certification vote met the threshold: Currently the Labour Relations Act requires a vote of 40%. Employers will now be able to object to the appropriateness of a union's definition of the specific bargaining unit.

There are other provisions and other recommendations in here. It's just fascinating how the title says one thing and, as I've outlined in a number of instances, the bill says something entirely different. I call it Orwellian doublespeak. I call it equivocation. I call it absolutely wrong. The government chooses to couch their terms and their words in other kinds of language, and I think the people of Ontario are not being well served.

We've seen this government begin to move ahead in the apprenticeship end and we look forward to the minister introducing some apprenticeship legislation. I can tell you, with the provisions contained in this piece of legislation and with the provisions the minister has announced regarding apprenticeship as far as charging of tuition, regarding deregulation of the apprentice wage, the construction industry and the trades are becoming less attractive for our young people.

Do we want to create a culture where we put another roadblock to the aspirations of our young people, that we have found another way to create more youth unemployment? It's running double the rate for those over 25. That's in excess of 15%. This government should be ashamed of its record when it comes to our young people and it should be ashamed of Bill 31.

The Deputy Speaker: It being past 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 6:30 this evening.

The House adjourned at 1802.

Evening meeting reported in volume B.

15 juin 1998