Journal des débats 1998-juin-16 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): My statement is directed to the Minister of Natural Resources, better known in northern Ontario as the Dan Quayle of the Harris government.

Minister, as you are aware, your government's so-called Lands for Life consultation process has failed. As one gentleman told you at a recent Tory fund-raiser in Fort Frances, "The whole idea should be scrapped."

Not only have you and your government refused to listen to northerners' concerns, it is now our understanding that the mess you have created with the Lands for Life process is about to get worse. As is your custom as the minister, you have managed to pit industry against industry and community against community with your process. You and your government have now gone even further by pitting northern Ontario against southern Ontario.

Your government promised northerners that their issues and concerns would receive recognition in your Lands for Life process. However, like most of your government's promises regarding the north, they are long on political gimmick and short on specifics and action.

Minister, you claim the process is fair and reasonable, yet the majority of those who live and work closest to the resources disagree. As I stated, even those who attended your fund-raiser in Fort Frances disagree with the process. Another contributor who attended went so far as to say: "You couldn't run the education system. Now you're going to ruin the woodlands."

Your government's Lands for Life process has failed. Now that the public has spoken, will you do the right thing and scrap the Lands for Life process?

RENT REGULATION

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Last night I was at a meeting at North Toronto Memorial Arena. There were about 200 people there. The subject of the discussion was the Tenant Protection Act, which in my view and the view of the 200 people who were there at the meeting is an assault against tenants.

Vacancy decontrol is one of the worst fears they have. That means that when a tenant moves into an apartment, even another unit in the same building, controls won't apply and the landlord can offer the unit at any price they wish. There are no regulatory limits on how high the rent may be.

I want to remind you that in New York in 1971, when the Rockefeller administration ended the rent control they had and instituted vacancy decontrol, rents went as high as 52% on average. We can expect rents to go as high as that. It may vary from place to place, but there is no doubt in their mind that it will go up. No beneficial side-effects have resulted from vacancy decontrol. Major capital investment had slowed in that period when vacancy decontrol had been moved and new construction was unaffected, meaning there was no new construction.

The people at that meeting were quite adamant that when the next election comes up, the Tories are not the people they're going to be supporting. I say amen to that.

PHILIPPINES INDEPENDENCE DAY

Mr Jim Brown (Scarborough West): June 12 marked a significant milestone in the life of the Filipino Canadian community and in that of the Republic of the Philippines. June 12, 1998, was the 100th anniversary of the proclamation of the independence of the Philippines from Spain.

It was General Emilio Aguinaldo who led his famous uprising against Spanish colonial rule over the Philippines in the late 19th century. That struggle resulted in victory and freedom. That general declared June 12 Philippines Independence Day, Unfortunately, with the ascendancy of the Americans over the Philippines, the date of July 4 was substituted. However, on May 12, 1962, then-Philippines president Diosdado Macapagal declared that June 12 would become the official Independence Day once again.

In the words of President Macapagal, "A nation is born into freedom on the day when such a people, moulded into a nation by a process of cultural evolution and a sense of oneness born of common struggle and suffering, announces to the world that it asserts its natural right to liberty and is ready to defend it with blood, life and honour."

On behalf of the government of Ontario, I congratulate all members of the Filipino Ontario community on this important day. All Canadians join with you in celebrating your centennial of freedom and national self-determination. May your rich cultural heritage and deep religious faith serve to guide you during the next 100 years and always.

Mabuhay ang Filipinas.

RENT REGULATION

Mr David Caplan (Oriole): I rise in the House today to mourn the impending death of tenant rights in Ontario. When this government's tenant rejection act is proclaimed tomorrow, another obstacle will be placed in the path of Ontarians seeking affordable housing.

After gutting this province's public and non-profit housing system, the Minister of Municipal Affairs will now be allowing landlords to raise rents to whatever level they can get away with. All of Ontario remembers that the minister didn't show up to listen to a single tenants' group during public consultations in 1996, not one.

In my riding of Oriole, 50% of my constituents will be forced to remain prisoners in their own homes in fear of rising rents. This government has ignored my constituents and it has ignored the half-million tenants across Ontario who will be in a similar situation. This government doesn't listen, but tomorrow Mike Harris will hear a message he cannot ignore when the Federation of Metropolitan Tenants' Associations marches on Queen's Park to mark the death of tenant rights in Ontario tomorrow afternoon. My party will be supporting them 100%. I am proud to stand with Dalton McGuinty and his commitment to repeal Bill 96 and restore meaningful tenant protection and rent control in Ontario.

It's a dark day for the province tomorrow, and I hope this government will see the error of its ways and restore meaningful rent controls like Dalton McGuinty and the Liberal Party have promised.

1340

MY OCEAN CHARTER

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): In support of UNESCO's 1998 International Year of the Ocean, the Cousteau Society is requesting that we all agree to the following ocean charter:

"I agree:

"The oceans and the creatures therein are a necessary part of life on this planet.

"Maintaining the health of the oceans and the abundance of its fisheries, together with the wise and safe use of all its resources, must be accepted and honoured by governments so that future generations can enjoy the continuing benefit for all peoples.

"Understanding the marine environment and its living community is necessary for the stewardship of the oceans and the seas and for the making of decisions to protect and husband its resources.

"We must work together to succeed; within countries people can influence ocean policies if they act together; internationally, countries should help their neighbours and accept regional policies and actions; countries having the knowledge and resources should assist less fortunate nations; data and information on the oceans should be readily exchanged; international and intergovernmental organizations should be used to generate global programs and agreements.

"I promise to remember my ocean charter, in my treatment of the oceans and the waters that flow into the ocean, in my work and in my play and in the decisions that I make."

I urge all members to agree to that ocean charter.

CATHERINE DAVIS

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): Tonight TVOntario will be holding its seventh annual Teachers' Awards ceremony at the Enoch Turner Schoolhouse in Toronto. These awards are given to teachers in Ontario who develop creative and innovative programs that can be used in teaching their students. The Honourable Dave Johnson, Minister of Education and Training, will also be on hand to recognize these outstanding teachers.

I'm extremely pleased that Ms Catherine Davis from Alderville Student Services has been selected as one of three teachers in the province who will be receiving an award. Catherine is being honoured for her efforts in setting up an education program to meet the special needs of the children of the native community of the Alderville First Nation.

With the help of government agencies and the local community, Catherine has set up a resource library, a study centre, a hands-on visual centre, a day care preparation program for preschoolers and an early intervention child care program for children at risk.

In her community, Catherine is described as someone who "teaches from the heart."

I sincerely congratulate Catherine on winning this teacher's award and for her making a significant contribution to her school environment and to her community.

MEMBER'S CONDUCT

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I rise to object to the latest bully tactic by the Harris government. On June 3 a secondary school principal in Scarborough sent a communication to his community. It was, in my opinion, a balanced and reasonable communication outlining his concerns about what would happen to his school with the Harris cuts.

On June 8 the principal received what I regard as an intimidating and threatening letter from the member for Scarborough East, Mr Gilchrist. I will quote a few things that Mr Gilchrist threatened the teacher with:

"With this latest piece of political propaganda, full of half-truths and misinformation, you are continuing to mislead the parents and students of your school. This cannot be allowed to go on.

"I cannot support a school which is run by a principal who uses school property and letterhead in order to frighten students and parents with lies. Therefore...I am considering the termination of the Gilchrist Scholarships....

"I cannot sit idly by while you go out of your way to undermine all of the improvements to the education system."

I regard this as another typical bully tactic by the Harris government. It cannot be allowed to go unchallenged. I call on the Premier to censure Mr Gilchrist, to demand that Mr Gilchrist apologize to this school and this school community for threatening and intimidating unnecessarily, in a typical bully fashion, this community.

PHYSICIAN SHORTAGE

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I have here literally thousands of letters that were sent to both my colleague the member for Cochrane North and myself that reads as follows:

"If you lived in Kapuskasing" - and you can slash that out and put in any other municipality in northern Ontario - "what would you do if you were a parent of a child needing an emergency operation when no anaesthetist is available and air ambulance is already responding to another call? What happens to the patients who require the attention of a doctor regularly and have no family physician? How can five physicians survive when they must accomplish the workload of 14? Who will replace them when they are exhausted? Why must physicians work three times as hard in the north for the same remuneration as their colleagues in the south?"

More and more we're starting to receive letters like this from people who are really fed up with the situation of not being able to find doctors in their own communities. The government finally, after two years of saying they were going to do something and announcing money two years ago to put in place an alternative payment system, has finally negotiated an agreement with the Ontario Medical Association.

This government can't throw the problem off on the Ontario Medical Association. Where is the leadership of the government? Where is the involvement of the government that we need in order to solve what is a real problem all across northern Ontario, and that is the lack of family doctors and specialists? I call on the Minister of Health to pick up the ball, not just throw it over to the Ontario Medical Association, and be part of the solution, not part of the problem.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Scarborough East, I don't know if you have a point of order. I heard you yelling something.

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): With the extent of the heckling coming form the other side, I have trouble hearing the speaker.

The Speaker: That was it?

Mr Gilchrist: That was it.

The Speaker: Statements, member for Hamilton West.

JOB CREATION

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): I'm delighted to rise today and announce that another 400 new jobs in Hamilton-Wentworth have just been created due to the booming economy in Ontario. Media Express Inc, a customer service support company, is opening a major call centre right in downtown Hamilton. Media Express is a Montreal-based firm that supplies professional services to major companies such as AT&T, Cantel, GM, Canadian Tire and others. The company is scheduled to begin operations in Hamilton on July 5.

Attracting Media Express to Hamilton was a team effort. Special recognition should go to Mr Nick Catalano, director of economic development for the region of Hamilton-Wentworth. Nick worked hard with Human Resources Development Canada and our own Ministry of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism, who are always working hard to get Ontarians to work.

The hiring process has already started. I'm especially proud to report that members of Hamilton's youth and disabled communities are being given premier consideration for employment.

I would like to thank Media Express and all those involved with bringing these jobs to Hamilton. Again my best wishes for success in their venture. This is good news for Ontario, good news for Hamilton and great news for our downtown core.

ANNUAL REPORT, INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER
ANNUAL REPORT, COMMISSION ON ELECTION FINANCES
SPECIAL REPORT, PROVINCIAL AUDITOR

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I beg to inform the House that today laid upon the table is the annual report of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for the year 1997, the 23rd annual report of the Commission on Election Finances for the year 1997 and a special report of the Provincial Auditor on the year 2000.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I would like to inform the members of the Legislative Assembly that we have in the Speaker's gallery today the Provincial Auditor of Ontario, Mr Erik Peters. Would you please join me in welcoming him here today.

I would like to inform the members of the Legislative Assembly that we have in the Speaker's gallery today Theunis Botha, of the Gauteng Legislature in South Africa. Welcome, sir.

SPEAKER'S RULING

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): On Monday, June 8, the member for Windsor-Walkerville, Mr Duncan, raised a point of privilege with respect to the advertisement for a request for proposal that appeared in the Globe and Mail newspaper on that same day. The Ontario Lottery Corp, seeking a supplier for mechanical spinning reel slot machines, placed the ad. The member argued that the ad presumed the passage of Bill 16, which amends the definition of "video lottery" and "video lottery terminal" in the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act.

I have reviewed the advertisement in question, as well as the relevant sections of Bill 16 and the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act.

I am not prepared to go into what legal authority the Ontario Lottery Corp needs in order to purchase the slot machines in question, except to say that it is not at all clear to me that the passage of Bill 16 is necessary to allow such a purchase. Nevertheless, even if we agree that the passage of Bill 16 is required to allow the Ontario Lottery Corp to purchase the slot machines, in my view, there is nothing to prevent the corporation from preparing itself for the possibility that the bill will pass. As Speaker Edighoffer stated in a ruling on a similar matter, on December 20, 1989:

"It is perfectly valid for the public service to proceed with plans based on a bill that is already in the system in order to be able to act swiftly once that bill becomes law."

In my opinion, the Ontario Lottery Corp is doing nothing more than that. There is nothing to suggest that it has purchased slot machines; it is simply seeking proposals from potential suppliers. I find, therefore, that the member does not have a prima facie point of privilege.

1350

ORAL QUESTIONS

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): My question is for the Minister of Education. You were forced yesterday to retreat temporarily from one of your most irresponsible, thoughtless and impossible policy directions. Yesterday you told school boards they didn't have to close schools by September 1 of this year. Boards knew they couldn't do it anyway, and it took you three months to understand that.

I want to understand exactly what you are telling boards today about school closures. I think you are sticking with your plan to have hundreds of school spaces declared vacant across this province and to cut the funding to heat, light and clean those spaces. I think what you're telling boards is that you're prepared to provide that money for one year only, and that then those vacant spaces have to be closed, that you are still going to force boards to close schools by September 1999. Minister, is that a correct interpretation of what you're telling boards today?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): School boards will make their own decisions on what is most appropriate for them and for their pupils. School boards have been opening new schools for many years; school boards have been closing schools for many years. For example, in 1986 - that's a year the member may remember well, when she was in the cabinet, or at least it was the Liberal government, the Peterson government - 33 schools were closed in Ontario. In 1987, 31 schools were closed in Ontario. In 1989, another 25 schools were closed in Ontario. In total, when the Liberals were in power, there were almost 150 schools closed in Ontario. Where was the indignation, where was the concern for the schools when the Liberals were in power? Schools will make the proper decisions for -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary.

Mrs McLeod: If we want to have a little history lesson this afternoon, let me take you back to the very recent history of January when you took over 100% of the funding of school boards across this province, which makes you, and you alone, responsible for deciding how many dollars will be given to school boards to heat, light and clean spaces. You, and you alone, have forced a widespread closure of schools across this province by limiting the amount of school space you are prepared to fund for the students of this province. That has never happened in the history of this province.

Your memo of yesterday says very clearly that by December 31, 1998, next December, school boards have to decide which schools must close. That is your directive; it is not a board's choice. What boards now have to do in Halton, for example, is decide how they are going to close 10 schools. In Ottawa, they're going to have to figure out how to close 20 schools. In Niagara region, they're going to have to identify 35 schools for closure. In Toronto, it will be as many as 120 schools for the public board alone. Hamilton-Wentworth is going to have to decide whether to close a downtown Hamilton school so that they can build a new school in Waterdown.

Minister, that hasn't changed. By December 31, boards have to tell parents which schools -

The Speaker: Thank you. Minister.

Hon David Johnson: Again, boards will make the decision when they feel it's the most appropriate time, as they did when the Liberals were in power, as they did when Peterson was in power, and they chose to close 146 schools during that period of time.

In some cases enrolment is declining in certain areas and boards find that they don't need the same number of schools. Here in the city of Toronto there are some 80 schools that the school board has that are not being used for public school purposes at the present time, and some of those are vacant. The boards may choose to dispose of them.

But I'm also heartened to bring to the attention of the member opposite that many boards are starting to use this as an opportunity to open new schools, to get rid of the portables and get proper permanent space, like the school board in Durham: 12 new schools to get rid of a number of portables to assist their students. That's what we want to see under our new funding formula.

Mrs McLeod: They can of course only open new schools if they close the vacant spaces you've declared to be magically vacant.

Minister, two weeks ago the leader of our party, Dalton McGuinty, asked you about the school closures that you were forcing on boards. You said to him that day that he should get his facts rights. His facts were absolutely right. Now I tell you, it's time for you to get your facts right.

You told our leader that day, for example, when he was concerned about American publishers getting in on your textbook money, that there were no American publishers. The fact is, almost all of that money is about to go to American publishers of textbooks.

You told our leader that day that the Ottawa-Carleton board wasn't going to close schools. The Ottawa-Carleton board decided it couldn't close schools by September 1, and now you've understood why they can't, but they still have to close the schools. That hasn't changed.

You've had three months to understand what your cuts are forcing boards to do. You have arbitrarily cut the amount of school space you're prepared to fund for students to have a classroom. I know you can't tell us what schools will close, how many kids will be on buses or where they'll go, but will you at least tell us how many schools in this province will close because of your funding restrictions?

Hon David Johnson: I don't have a crystal ball to look into the future to see what decisions school boards will make across the province. I can tell the member opposite that during 1985-90 there were 146 schools closed in Ontario. I can tell her that as a fact.

The member references the Ottawa board. I did meet with the Ottawa board just a week or a week and a half ago and had a very good meeting with them. The Ottawa board has a set of decisions to make. Within the inner part of the city of Ottawa they have more capacity than they need, but in the outskirts they have many portables. That board is determined to come to grips with this, to provide proper housing. Our funding formula will support that, and they recognize that, but they've asked for a little more time to come to those conclusions.

That's what we have done. Through the announcement yesterday we have allowed boards such as Ottawa increased flexibility and time to deal with their parents and come to the proper conclusions.

1400

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I have a question for the Minister of Health. I want to ask you about a new development in mental health. Four years ago the province of Ontario gave an Amethyst Award to the Whitby Mental Health Centre because it ran a terrific program for innovation, diagnosis, treatment and education around psychotic disorders like schizophrenia. Yet despite that level of excellence, today we understand that a 25-patient inpatient program at the hospital is now slated to close.

Maybe you don't realize it, but for young people this is an essential program. One in 100 of the young people in this province is afflicted by schizophrenia and needs access to treatment like this. Without this, people are prone to end up on the street, to end up in jail. This is a fundamental program.

We want to know today, where is your commitment to mental health services if you're letting one of the best-recognized programs for young people - and, I should say, the second one within a month - shut down for lack of funding? Minister, will you tell us?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): As a government, we are, as you know, very strongly committed to mental health programs. In fact, several weeks ago our government made an announcement indicating that we were going to be spending an additional $60 million to ensure that we could provide the support to people in this province who had mental health problems.

I will also say today that we have not received the operating plans for the Whitby Mental Health Centre and we have not been made aware of any reductions in service. In fact, no reductions in service can ever take place without the approval of the ministry. So this is news to us that something is going to be closing.

Mr Kennedy: You provided the preliminary budget allocation. Your officials have been involved in terms of the response of the Whitby centre. They have a $1.5-million shortfall.

Let me just emphasize, Minister, this is not something for you to wait around and read in the papers. Janice Wiggins from the Schizophrenia Society says this is a unique program that people are using right now to a 95% capacity. This is not a program sitting around waiting for people to treat.

Minister, the Schizophrenia Society says quite bluntly to you that lives are at stake. I want to know what you're going to do proactively to deal with the $1.5-million shortfall, which everyone else seems to know about, coming out of the Whitby Mental Health Centre that is needed to sustain this program to keep essential psychiatric services for victims of schizophrenia and other severe psychotic disorders. We'd like to hear from you today.

Hon Mrs Witmer: As I said, we are very strongly committed to mental health services and providing the appropriate support. That's why we made the $60-million announcement. As well, as you know, my parliamentary assistant, Dan Newman, did a thorough review of mental health services in Ontario and certainly the indication is that we need to continue to develop a comprehensive plan.

We also put a moratorium on the closure of any psychiatric beds until such time as all of the community services were in place. In fact, last week I indicated to Mr Gravelle that in his community the facility would not be closing unless those services were in place.

I would say to you again, we have not received the operating plan from the Whitby Mental Health Centre. We will continue to provide the funding because we believe those services are certainly needed. No services can be eliminated unless we give the approval of the Ministry of Health.

Applause.

Mr Kennedy: I hear some scattered applause from your back bench, but I would suggest to you, Minister, they're out of touch just like you've proved yourself to be.

What people want from the Minister of Health is a response -

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Hold on.

Mr Kennedy: Minister, the people of the province are tired of hearing about your studies, tired of hearing about your maybes and would like to know what you are specifically going to do to ensure - last year you underspent your budget for mental health hospitals by $13 million. If there was a sufficient amount of concern and awareness and ability on the part of your ministry, they would be proactively dealing with this facility, with another 25-bed facility that may be closing down.

As the Schizophrenia Society has said, for a number of people afflicted in our society this is a matter of life and death. It deserves to be treated with alacrity, with respect and with some definite answer on your part. Will you act today to ensure that this facility will not close because of your cuts and the shortfall it's facing of $1.5 million, so that there can be this essential service for Whitby Mental Health Centre? Will you give us that assurance?

Hon Mrs Witmer: It's very important that we always make sure we have all of the information. I would just tell the member again that we have not received the operating plan from the Whitby Mental Health Centre, so there is no indication at this point in time of any reduction in service. We will always, as we have done in the past and as we are doing again today, continue to meet with hospitals. If there ever is a reason that more additional funding needs to be provided, we've done so. As I say, we've added $60 million recently to the mental health budget in response to the needs that we know are there. The Whitby Mental Health Centre actually got $270,000 as part of the $60 million so they could have a new assertive community treatment team. We are continuing to make investments into mental health.

The Speaker: Answer.

Hon Mrs Witmer: If there is an issue here, obviously the administration of the health centre need to be sharing it with the Ministry of Health and making us aware if there is an issue. But at this point in time -

The Speaker: New question; third party.

CHILDREN'S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): My question is to the minister responsible for children's issues. Minister, on May 13 the Premier promised that your government would act on the serious shortage of services for children with mental health disorders. On May 13 the Premier, in response to my question, also put you in charge of coordinating that, of working with the Minister of Health, the Minister of Community and Social Services, and with me and others to take action to improve the coordination and accountability of the government for service provision.

Nothing has been done. You haven't called a meeting. You haven't contacted me. You haven't contacted others. But what's critical about that is that in the month since that commitment was made, the erosion of services for children suffering with mental illness has continued.

In addition to losing children's mental health services at Sick Kids, today we hear about Whitby Mental Health Centre. All of this is happening because there is an inexcusable lack of coordination across community and hospital services, a lack of funding and no direction to the facilities forced to make these decisions.

Minister, why have you done nothing on this since your Premier gave you this direction?

Hon Margaret Marland (Minister without Portfolio [children's issues]): I'm certainly glad to have the opportunity to respond to this question. This is a very serious subject for all of us and our government is very concerned about the mental health of children in this province.

The reference the member for Beaches-Woodbine just made to the Whitby Mental Health Centre - that question was just answered by the Minister of Health. In fact, to date the ministry has not received the hospital's operating plan and has not approved these changes, so that, as far as we are concerned, is not happening, as an example.

To directly answer the question, I have been meeting with both the Minister of Health and the Minister of Community and Social Services on this matter. The commitments that the Premier made to the member for Beaches-Woodbine stand most affirmatively and we are moving forward in the direction that this minister asked for.

Ms Lankin: Minister, the reason that 40 children at Sick Kids, plus the 25 at Whitby, are losing their program is quite simple, and I'll quote from the coordinator and director at Whitby with respect to that: Over the last two years your government has cut $20 million in funding from Sick Kids' budget. At Whitby Mental Health Centre you added 40 forensic beds to get out of one public relations disaster, but you didn't fund those forensic beds and now they're having to make the tough decisions.

What I want to say to you is that the real crime in all this is that while your overall funding decisions are made here, there's no one looking over the shoulders of facilities to take a look and see what the overall impact is on kids. The Health Services Restructuring Commission said that these services should be added to, not deleted, not moved; that more should be added. You've not taken steps on that.

Do you have any idea what this costs the families involved? Most of them have been to several doctors and in several programs before they found something that worked. Now they're losing the program that has given them hope, has allowed them to cope and to live with their kids. Where are they supposed to go now, Minister?

Hon Mrs Marland: I think it's important for us to realize in this House that the commitment by this government to children's mental health, along with other services for children, is far greater than had been made by any previous government in this province. This is the first government that has ever had a minister for children in the history of this province.

I would like to reassure the member for Beaches-Woodbine that in terms of their own record, which of course that member can speak to in terms of having previously been the Minister of Health, she knows that they cut $60 million out of psychiatric facilities without and community reinvestment.

The other aspect of this question is important.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Answer.

Hon Mrs Marland: The leader of the third party, Mr Hampton, said he would mandate children's mental health services in legislation. That's really interesting -

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

1410

Ms Lankin: Minister, you are responsible now. You've been in government for three years, and let me tell you, you have not dedicated any services, any service enhancement to children's mental health. You and the Minister of Health speak about additional resources, all of them going to adult services. Children's mental health services are in a crisis.

The parents who are holding a vigil outside Sick Kids Hospital tonight are losing that service. It is not going to be replaced in the months ahead. Where are they going to get their services? You need to act now.

There are several things you can do. There needs to be an overall coordinating role, as was recommended by the Health Services Restructuring Commission. Give that to the Ontario children's mental health treatment centres. Give them a coordinating role, let them do the planning for you. Also, make a commitment to introduce legislation mandating these services, because what's happening in the hospitals is that as they have to make tough decisions because there's no mandate for this legislation for children's services, that's what's losing out.

The Speaker: Question.

Ms Lankin: Ron Ballantyne from Whitby says: "That's what we're going to have to do with these tough decisions. We don't want to do it, but that's where the money will come from."

The Speaker: Thank you. Minister?

Hon Mrs Marland: I want to finish what I was saying in my previous answer because I think it's very important for this question to be addressed by our government. The fact is that when their leader, Mr Hampton, said he would mandate children's mental health services in legislation, he in fact didn't do it; no one in his government did it for the five years they were the government.

Just in response to the picture of the Whitby Mental Health Centre, there has been an increase in the total number of beds in this facility since 1995, including 40 forensic mental health beds, so the record in terms of that centre, as far as our government is concerned, is very clear.

Most important, dealing with the subject of the Hospital for Sick Children, the negotiations are currently under way -

The Speaker: Answer.

Hon Mrs Marland: - between the hospital and the Addiction and Mental Health Services Corp about program consolidation. There will be no change in service levels.

The Speaker: New question, third party.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): To the same minister: Don't read the briefing notes they send in. Stand up for kids. At Whitby Mental Health Centre, those forensic beds are the reason we're losing children's mental health beds. At Sick Kids, the hospital restructuring commission said: "Add to the services when you put the addiction and research foundation together. Don't move services over there."

The question I want to ask you now has to do with your colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services, who joined yesterday with the federal minister to announce the beginning of the national child benefit program. You know that, as you kick in, the provincial government is going to take a dollar away from social assistance recipients for every dollar the federal government adds.

For some families who've got some little income, either from earnings or from child support or from unemployment insurance, that means they're going to go over the eligibility line. What that means is they're going to lose their drugs, dental and vision coverage for their kids. The lowest-income kids, who were supposed to benefit from this program, will now be worse off under your rules than they were before this grand new supplement. As minister responsible for children's wellbeing in this province, how do you defend that?

Hon Margaret Marland (Minister without Portfolio [children's issues]): I'm going to refer the final question, which is on a different subject, to the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Ms Lankin: No, this is the first question of a new question.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): The first question and the second question. Minister?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): The national child benefit, as the honourable member across the way will know, is a joint initiative between the provinces and Ottawa, where they increased the amount of money through the child tax benefit and the provinces will remove that from the social services cheque to that individual. Dollar for dollar, there is no change. Those savings are used for reinvestment in ways to take people off social assistance into jobs, to promote services for high-risk children, to eliminate the duplication between the federal government and the provinces. There is a public accountability, dollar for dollar. Ever dollar is going into services for kids and families across the country in every province. It's one of the most unique partnerships we have seen in social services in this country for many years, and it is actually going to result in new dollars for low-income working families, which is exactly what it is designed to do.

Ms Lankin: We're supposed to have a minister responsible for children's issues to make sure that other ministers don't do what this minister is doing. Let me give you an actual example. Take the case of a single parent with one child. She's trying to work her way off assistance, which you say you want her to do. She has deductible earnings right now of $920. That leaves her with a small Ontario Works top-up and health benefits. Starting next month, she'll have to declare the $50 she is going to get under the national child benefit supplement. That puts her over the top and she is no longer eligible for assistance. For an additional $50 she loses drug benefits for herself and her child, she loses dental and vision care for her child, she loses supplementary benefits like winter clothing and back-to-school allowances, she loses the Ontario Works child care subsidy that has allowed her to work in the first place.

Minister, the national child care benefit supplement was supposed to help low-income families, not leave them worse off. What steps are you taking to ensure that families on social assistance do not lose their health benefit and other benefits when they receive this additional income supplement?

Hon Mrs Ecker: As the honourable member well knows, on social assistance, sources of new income that take you above the threshold affect your eligibility. That is not different from any other source of income. For individuals, the agreement with Ottawa and the provinces is that, dollar for dollar, a social assistance person will not lose any money. For those who may well be caught in the transition, the ministry is assessing each case individually to make sure, for example, that they don't lose their child care support, because we recognize that that is a very important support.

The other thing I would like to remind the honourable member of is that our child care supplement, which the finance minister introduced, will result in over $1,000 per child under the age of seven for low-income working families. We are making sure that work pays, if you will, that those families get incentives and benefits when they're in jobs.

Ms Lankin: You're talking about if she's eligible, if she's working, getting maybe a maximum of $85. For that she has lost her drug coverage, her child's drug coverage, her child's dental coverage, her child's vision coverage, her child's back-to-school allowance, her child's winter clothing allowance. Minister, you could do something about this. In other provinces, let me tell you - British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Yukon, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, Labrador, and yes, even Alberta - they have put in place health benefit programs for low-income families to ensure that they are not worse off when they leave social assistance. They're maintaining things such as drug benefits, dental and vision coverage for kids and for their families. They understand this is important in order for people to be able to get off social assistance and not penalize them and not take away the benefits the federal government has put in place. When is Ontario going to do the same?

Hon Mrs Ecker: Of those parents who are perhaps in part-time jobs and for whom welfare is a top-up on top the income they might well be getting, there are some who may well be caught in the transition. That's why the ministry is working with those families to make sure they don't lose supports like, for example, child care, as the minister mentioned. But I would also like to remind the member that every dollar coming to this province as a result of the national child benefit is being reinvested for low-income working families so they can get the support and the help they need.

1420

POLICE SERVICES

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is to the Chair of Management Board. It carries on a concern I had in a question two weeks ago about new policing policies being developed by the government of Ontario, and yes, it is the Parry Sound situation.

I have in my hand a letter dated June 9, 1998, from the Ontario Association of Police Services Boards. Not surprisingly, that association, like myself and many others, is very interested in and concerned about the Parry Sound arrangement, whereby you as a government, through special relief funding, made half a million dollars available to a municipality that had long been paying for its local policing. On behalf of the Ontario Association of Police Services Boards and communities like Deep River and Arnprior, Renfrew and Pembroke, which I represent, are you prepared to stand in your place and offer the Parry Sound deal to communities like Deep River?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I know the finance minister welcomes this question.

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): I would like to put on the record very directly exactly what happened with respect to policing costs in the town of Parry Sound. The same thing happened in Parry Sound that happened to the municipalities of Cardinal, Hastings and Tweed. They were four municipalities that were treated like 572 other municipalities in Ontario whose policing contracts had expired; in Parry Sound's case on December 31, 1993, the same date for Cardinal. I believe one of the municipalities was December 31, 1994, and the other was December 31, 1996. Their contracts had expired and they were either making dramatically reduced payments or no payments at all, because they were arguing with the OPP. They did not want to enter into a new contractual relationship. The Ontario Provincial Police recommended to the Solicitor General's office that those four municipalities be treated the same as the other 572 municipalities that did not have policing contracts in place at the time.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): We all want the same deal.

Hon Mr Eves: You do have the same deal.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Minister, come to order.

Mr Conway: I want to say that it is true that the town of Parry Sound and the OPP have been having a fight about levels of service and a new contract. But it is also true that the town of Parry Sound has been paying, since that fight began in 1992-93, over $1 million annually towards their policing. Now, as a result of what your government has done, a municipality that had been paying a per household cost of roughly $275 for municipal policing on an annual basis, as a result of this half-million-dollar grant that has been made available by your ministry, their $275 charge is going to drop to an annual $90. I represent the town of Deep River, population 4,200. Their annual per household policing cost is 350 bucks. What they want to know, very simply, is this: Will the people of Deep River be eligible for funding from the community reinvestment fund that will allow their municipal policing costs to drop by a percentage similar to what you have arranged for the town of Parry Sound?

Hon Mr Eves: First of all, I have arranged nothing.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Eves: I have not.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Eves: The suggestion was made by the Solicitor General's office on advice from the OPP, by letter dated November 28, 1997, that these four municipalities should be treated under section 5.1 of the Police Services Act, the same as the other 572 municipalities. The recommendation came from the Ontario Provincial Police. If the member for Kingston and The Islands would like to challenge their integrity, say so outside the House.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Brant-Haldimand, they say the same thing about this side as well.

Mr Conway: Don't tease him. He's just back from -

The Speaker: Oh, I see. It depends where you're sitting. That's the question.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): My question is to the Chair of Management Board. I hope his answer goes beyond the pat answer of, "Step outside and say it out there." That seems to have become the standard answer from the government side these days.

Unlike you, Ron Barbaro, the new head of the Ontario Casino Corp, seems to recognize a whitewash when he sees it. He knows there's something wrong and that's why he has decided to hire Stanley Beck. He knew that the report you asked for just doesn't cut it. We tried, through our colleague from Welland-Thorold yesterday, to explain to you the difference between what he can do and what you can do. You still don't seem to understand that what Mr Barbaro is doing and what a public inquiry is are two different things. Mr Barbaro can't call a public inquiry. As well intentioned as his step is to have Mr Beck, he can't call a public inquiry. Only you and your government can do that.

A public inquiry is public, it's transparent, it's truly open. It will allow for the subpoenaing of witnesses and require them to testify under oath. Minister, you need to clear the air around this whole Niagara casino deal and the only way the air can be completely cleared is for you to call a public inquiry. Will you stop resisting? Will you do the right thing and call a public inquiry?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): The answer is no. We have to deal with the facts. There were some serious allegations and innuendoes made through newspaper articles and through opposition party questions. We wanted to find out the facts. I asked the Ontario Casino Corp, through their lawyers, to report back on the facts. We got that. I made that public to your party and the Liberal Party and the members of the media. We have the facts.

We also appointed Ron Barbaro as the new chief executive officer of the Ontario Casino Corp. I talked to Mr Barbaro, and just to make doubly sure everything is in order, we appointed Stan Beck. You said yourself that you agree with his integrity. We'll wait to see what he says.

Mr Silipo: Doesn't it bother you at all that the new head of the Ontario Casino Corp is actually showing a higher sense of responsibility around this than you as the minister responsible? You are heading into a serious blunder on this and you quite frankly may end up having to take the political flak for your government on this. You are just causing problem after problem, and the only way to get to the bottom of this is for you to acknowledge now that there is the need for a public inquiry, because that's the only way in which the air can be completely cleared.

Besides that, I want to ask you also what you are going to do in the meantime about the discussions that are going on around the negotiations with Falls Management on the awarding of the contract. We understand that they will sign a contract in the near future. By then, quite frankly, it may be too late, regardless of how the facts get unearthed. It will be a done deal. Minister, while you continue to reflect on the need for a public inquiry, will you at least put a freeze on the negotiations and ensure that we start again with this process of awarding the contract?

Hon Mr Hodgson: Mr Barbaro will wait for Mr Beck's report before any contract is or is not signed with the number one proponent.

I just want to address your preamble, though, and your assumptions on this. We have the facts as outlined by the Ontario Casino Corp and their solicitors. The facts do not warrant a public inquiry. What we've decided to do in the interests of making it an open affair and a transparent process is to ask Mr Beck, who is widely recognized as independent and a man with great integrity, to do a final review before Mr Barbaro would recommend signing that contract.

If you have any new evidence or new facts, I would encourage you to share them with me or this House, because we would like to know. If not, the facts do not warrant a huge public inquiry, which seems to be your party's response to every question you ask.

1430

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

Mr John L. Parker (York East): My question is for the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation. The Bloorview MacMillan Centre is located just on the edge of my riding of York East. I'm told that it's Ontario's largest service provider for young people with disabilities. I've visited Bloorview MacMillan several times and I've seen first hand the important work that's being done there.

The people at Bloorview MacMillan are very interested in what our government is going to do in the coming months to prepare an Ontarians with Disabilities Act. The minister is well aware of my interest in this matter and my interest in being part of the consultation process, as I know the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee would also like to be involved with the consultation process.

My question to the minister is this: What involvement can the ODAC expect to have in helping to develop an ODA?

Hon Isabel Bassett (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): First of all, I want to thank the member and commend him for his concern in preventing and removing barriers for persons with disabilities and also for his interest and initiative in trying to develop partnerships between business, government and the disabled in order to achieve this.

The honourable members on both sides of the House will recall the May 1996 resolution that made it quite clear that we are to work together with members of an ODAC, among others, in the development of any legislation we bring in in this area, and that will be the case. In fact, that is the case. I would therefore say that of course the ODAC will be invited to participate in this process.

I would also like to point out that my colleagues on both sides of the House have shown an interest in participating in this area. I know, for example, the members for Hamilton Mountain and Hamilton West have had a very good working relationship with members of the ODAC and they have been feeding in their input to me.

Mr Parker: Minister, I've met with a number of my constituents on this subject, including my predecessor, Gary Malkowski, who raised questions in this House on this matter during his period in office. I've also received numerous items of correspondence and telephone calls from constituents about our government's plan to develop an Ontarians with Disabilities Act. I would like to know, has the minister had an opportunity to meet with the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee to receive their advice and assistance on developing an Ontarians with Disabilities Act?

Hon Ms Bassett: I have met, of course, with the members of the ODAC and I've discussed the issue with David Lepofsky, its chair, on a couple of occasions. My parliamentary assistant has also talked with Mr Lepofsky of the ODAC. In fact, the morning of the release of the blueprint for an ODA, they tried to set up a meeting with me.

I can say that I've also received input right across the province from the disabled community. I've talked to David Shannon in Thunder Bay, who just received the Courage to Come Back Award, and I've met with Lois Hart Maxwell in Peterborough, who is a driving force in the Tower Hill Village community. Just last week, during National Access Awareness Week, I attended the ARCH awards at Osgoode Hall. I wanted to acknowledge the terrific contributions of individuals and businesses, such as IBM -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Answer, please.

Hon Ms Bassett: - in working to prevent and remove barriers for the disabled. So to answer your question, member for York East, we are very involved with -

The Speaker: Thank you very much. New question.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): My question is for the Minister of Education. This week, the Toronto Catholic district school board trustees are set to discuss some very serious cuts in education as a result of your funding formula, some $14 million over one year.

According to a document tabled by the school board and to be discussed by trustees, the proposed cuts include items that will directly affect classrooms. I refer, for instance, to 36% that will be cut from the budget of supply teachers and some 2% from classroom teachers, for a total of $9 million; 14.8% which will be cut from library and guidance, if approved; 8.7% from continuing education, summer school and international language; and 7.6% from school operations, which include, by the way, things like heating and lighting, which we'll acknowledge students need. All these reductions directly affect the classroom.

In addition, there will be an 11% cut to transportation, primarily for disabled kids and children in kindergarten, among others. If these kids can't get to school, I'm sure you'll agree that that too will affect their education.

You promised there would be no cuts to the classroom and that there would be equity for all children, regardless of the board in which they were educated. The facts state otherwise. How do you justify these reductions that are caused by your funding formula?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): Through the funding formula, more moneys in fact have been provided for school boards across Ontario. In 1997, about $13.3 billion went to school boards across the province, plus about another $1.1 billion in teachers' pensions, for a total of about $14.4 billion. In the next school year there will be more money than that being spent within the school boards across Ontario.

Not only that, but the focus now is in the classrooms of the province, so there are more moneys for teachers, more moneys for libraries, more moneys for guidance, more moneys for supplies, more moneys for textbooks. For all of the activities within the classroom, there are more moneys. It's absolutely true: More moneys to the classrooms.

Now, it's not beyond the school boards to be playing games, as you know, but the school boards have more money for their students and more money for their classrooms.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I challenge you to go outside and say that.

Hon David Johnson: By the way, there is $3 million more - and I'm pleased to go outside and say that, because it's true - for transportation.

Ms Castrilli: The facts speak for themselves, and everything the minister has said is not supported in this document. But I'd like to refer him to something else. I'd like to refer him to an article in the North York Mirror this weekend which screams out in bold letters, "Funding Gap Between School Boards Wider Than Ever."

Minister, nobody believes what you have just said. In fact, trustee Mike Del Grande of the Toronto Catholic district school board has bravely spoken out and challenged that there have to be some additional moneys, additional funds.

You have responded to the urgent request of the school board by requiring your ministry to review the finances of the board. That is unacceptable. But let me ask you this: In the event that your audit of the school board finances reveals that the situation is exactly as I've indicated, as the records speak for themselves, will you commit today to put the necessary resources in the classrooms where they are required?

Hon David Johnson: It's a pure statement of fact that there is more money in the system. That will certainly become evident. If the member doesn't believe that today, then in the fullness of time she will.

She indicates that nobody believes there's more money. Here I look at the London Free Press and it says, "School Boards Go on a Hiring Spree." Across the province of Ontario, more and more teachers are being hired. In Ottawa, the Ottawa separate board is hiring more teachers. The York board is hiring more teachers. The London board is hiring more teachers.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Minister.

Hon David Johnson: We are particularly concerned about special education because we wanted to ensure that there were more than adequate amounts for special education. For the first time ever, we defined "special education," protected it at over $1.052 billion, and yesterday we supplemented that with a further up to $40 million in case school boards decide that they need the intensive support amount to a higher level, another $40 million -

The Speaker: Thank you. New question.

1440

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question for the Minister of Education and Training as well. Speaking of playing games, it's his ministry that has been playing games. Yesterday, as he just indicated, he announced additional changes related to the funding formula. Recognizing that his cutting formula means that schools are going to close, he announced an extension for school boards with respect to student accommodation to keep the schools open for an additional year.

Could the minister indicate whether this announcement originated in the finance branch of his ministry or in the public relations/communications branch which realized that it wouldn't look good to have Tory MPPs showing up with American textbooks at schools that were about to close next September.

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): I don't know quite how to respond to that. In terms of the books, the two opposition parties are a little chagrined that for the first time ever in the history of Ontario a special fund, a $100-million fund, has been set aside for textbooks and science equipment to help our students. I don't know why the opposition parties are in opposition to the textbooks and the equipment for our students. I will also say that the textbooks are coming through the very same publishers on Circular 14 that provided books when the NDP was in power, and the same publishers that provided books to the school boards when the Liberals were in power.

Mr Wildman: Since the minister didn't deal with the question, I want to deal with the question of the extension of the date by which school boards have to make a decision on the closure of schools as a result of the shortage of funds from his funding formula. Can he indicate whether the additional funding that will be required to keep these schools open will be annualized so that the boards will be able to maintain and operate these schools to serve our students beyond one year hence, or is he just trying to get this decision for the closure of schools beyond the next provincial election so he won't have that embarrassment to deal with in the provincial election campaign?

Hon David Johnson: Although I wish I did, I have no knowledge of when the next provincial election is going to be. I guess it could be as late as two years from now.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): But we will have to correct your mistakes.

Interjections.

Hon David Johnson: That one is a little hard to take.

The member is right; I did not answer his question. The answer to the question where this emanated from is it emanated out of discussions with various school boards. Various school boards, including the Ottawa board I mentioned earlier, came to me and said they needed to address their accommodation situation. They had an overabundance of accommodation in one particular area and in other areas they had many portables. They needed to address it, but they needed a little more time than the September 1 date would allow them, so I agreed with them. I said, "Fine. I've heard what you've had to say. We listened to what you had to say," and we responded by extending the date.

CANADA HEALTH AND SOCIAL TRANSFER

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): My question is for the Deputy Premier and it involves the results of the outcome of yesterday's finance ministers' meeting in Ottawa. What I would like to know from the Deputy Premier is, what exactly did Ontario achieve in terms of results out of that meeting, and what is the minister's reaction regarding the Prime Minister's immediate rejection, it would appear, of any progress on a social transfer agreement?

Interjections.

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): The member for Etobicoke-Rexdale wouldn't have any problem going outside and saying anything he says inside the House.

The provinces unanimously, and I want to emphasize this, repeated their request to the federal government that it restore the cuts to CHST payments for health care, post-secondary education and social programs of $6.2 billion over the last three years. To the province of Ontario alone, this has meant, of course, the loss of $2.7 billion over the last three years. The federal government's response was simply that the cupboard is bare, that we don't have a fiscal dividend, that we don't know what it will be this year, that it could be somewhere between $1 billion and $3 billion. I want to remind the honourable members this is the same federal government that last year said it would have a $17-billion deficit and ended up with a $3-billion surplus, so we find that kind of hard to believe.

Mr Hastings: It would appear, Deputy Premier, that the results of this finance ministers' meeting were less than -

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Hold on a minute. Just hold on. You'll get your question. I can't hear you.

Member for Etobicoke-Rexdale, supplementary.

Mr Hastings: It would appear we've again touched a collective nerve over there because this group, particularly the provincial Grits, seems to dismiss any negotiations with the federal government that you would want to be successful for the citizens of this province, particularly the people of diverse communities in this province, and particularly in the greater Toronto area. The CHST reductions have had a dramatic impact in terms of not helping these people whatsoever. When you look at the disparity of $850 versus $2,500 for Quebec for newcomers to Canada, was there any discussion, Deputy Premier, regarding this specific item, in terms of aid to these communities in this province?

Hon Mr Eves: The discussion centred primarily around CHST payments and the equalization funding formula, which I think the majority of provinces, with the exceptions of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and Quebec, agreed should be done in concert. Our request was quite simple: that in the event of an anticipated federal fiscal dividend in this current fiscal year, the federal government restore CHST funding over the same three-year period of time in which they reduced it. Seventy-three per cent of Canadians understand that the federal government has reduced its funding. They feel it is inappropriate and should be restored. I must say, the provinces are unanimous in that request as well.

1450

ELECTORAL REFORM

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My question is for the government House leader. In the dying days of this legislative session your government is pushing through this House a bill which will allow a massive increase in the amount of money that political parties and candidates may spend during a provincial election campaign, and a substantial increase in the amount of money that corporations and individuals may contribute to political parties and candidates. You are also removing any limits at all on spending for polling research and campaign travel. I think you would agree with me, that's a huge expenditure.

If Premier Mike Harris insists that you force this bill through the Legislature without significant amendments, without public hearings, you will move Ontario politics in exactly the same direction as American politics, to a situation where money plays the paramount role in the election process and where influence is bought through huge campaign contributions.

Minister, will you recognize the enormous problem this bill will cause for our political system and will you accept amendments to this bill to avoid this inevitable problem, amendments which will minimize the role of money in our democratic process?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I refer this to the Chair of Management Board.

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I appreciate the question from the member of the opposition. As he is fully aware, we tried to negotiate with the other parties. We are taking the recommendations from an independent panel that they had representation on. They had an ad hoc committee that had a member of their own caucus on it.

If we made a mistake in accepting the only written, Liberal response to the commission, that was around the spending limits and that was exactly what the Liberal Party asked for. That's what the public has asked us to do, to make sure we look after their interests. There is a $15-million saving. We've modernized the election bill and it's regrettable that they didn't want to discuss these details further. We would have liked to have had a consensus. Unfortunately, we have to proceed the way that other provinces had to in this country.

PETITIONS

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): There is a mental health care crisis in Thunder Bay and northwestern Ontario, and while the minister has lifted the closure notice on the LPH for some time, there is still great concern -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): What are you doing? Are you giving me a petition?

Mr Gravelle: The petition reads:

"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 as well;

"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 that petition.

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Mr Bob Wood (London South): I have a petition signed by 31 people.

"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 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 agree with this petition and have signed it.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I have petitions to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we are concerned about the quality of health care in Ontario;

"Whereas we do not believe health care should be for sale;

"Whereas the Mike Harris government is taking steps to allow profit-driven companies to provide health care services in Ontario;

"Whereas we won't stand for profits over people;

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

"Do not privatize our health care services."

I proudly affix my signature to these hundreds of petitions.

PHYSICIAN SHORTAGE

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I have hundreds of petitions and letters to the Premier of Ontario. They ask: How can physicians survive when they must accomplish the workload of 14? Who will replace those physicians when they are exhausted? Why should citizens from the north be treated differently than those from the south of the province? Why must physicians work three times as hard in the north for the same remuneration as their colleagues in the south?

These questions remain unanswered, and they're looking for answers from the Minister of Health and the Premier of Ontario to resolve the situation in Kapuskasing, where they have a shortage of doctors.

GAS WELLS

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): Farmers are worried about government registration of their gas wells, and I have signatures here from Jarvis, Nanticoke, Cheapside, Selkirk:

"Whereas new regulations require the registration and licensing of all gas wells by June 27, 1998;

"Whereas most private gas wells in Ontario have been abandoned or are of marginal economic value;

"Whereas the plugging of private gas wells to industry standards is expensive and not necessarily justified environmentally; and

"Whereas in recent years there has been little communication, understanding and trust between the Ministry of Natural Resources petroleum division and area farmers, land owners and gas well drillers;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to exempt existing private-use gas wells from requirements under the Oil, Gas and Salt Resources Act and concentrate resources on detecting, preventing and rectifying any environmental risk or impact of these existing or new gas wells."

I agree with this petition and hereby affix my signature.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

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

"Whereas the Health Services Restructuring Commission recommends two sites, two boards, two administrations for Cornwall and area hospitals;

"Whereas the HSRC recommends the closing of hospital lab services in Cornwall;

"Whereas the HSRC recommends building upon a site that has no room for growth beyond the year 2003 and will be unable to meet the community's future needs;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to instruct the Health Services Restructuring Commission to consolidate all hospital services at the Hotel Dieu site, which offers 28 acres of property for future development, with one board and one administration."

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): I have a petition here to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

I affix my name to this petition.

1500

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I have a petition signed by a number of people from Parkdale and Davenport.

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

"Therefore 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 am signing my name to this document.

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I want to summarize my petition regarding health care workers who often experience coercion to participate in practices which directly contravene their deeply held ethical standards.

"We, the undersigned" - and there are some 300 to 400 - "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 will submit it today.

ABORTION

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I've been given this petition to read to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Ontario health system is overburdened and unnecessary spending must be cut; 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 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; and

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

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

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have further petitions regarding workplace health and safety, signed by members of the workforce from all across Ontario. The petition reads as follows:

"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."

I proudly add my name to theirs.

COMPENSATION FOR HEPATITIS C PATIENTS

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): I have a petition to the Parliament of Ontario, addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas many Ontarians have been infected with the hepatitis C virus as a result of transfusions using contaminated blood; and

"Whereas the current compensation package only provides funding for those people infected between the years 1986 and 1990; and

"Whereas in Canada there are at least 20,000 surviving victims who were infected with hepatitis C before 1986, who placed their faith in the blood system and are now suffering;

"Now therefore, we, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislature of Ontario on behalf of the victims and their families in support of the Ontario government's call for a compensation package for Ontarians who are infected with the hepatitis C virus through the blood system prior to 1986, and that pending a resolution of the federal liability for the contaminated blood problem, Ontario agree in the interim that such new package be funded by the Ontario and the federal government on the same basis as the federal-provincial agreement covering 1986-90.

"We call on the government of Canada to do the right thing."

I affix my signature.

ADOPTION

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): I have a petition for those who seek amendments to adoption reform here in Ontario. I will summarize it because it's long. Simply:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to enact provisions of the Child and Family Services Act and other acts to:

"Permit unrestricted access to full identifying birth information to adopted persons and adult children of adopted persons and unrestricted access to adopted persons' amended birth certificate to birth parents, birth grandparents, siblings and other birth relatives when the adopted person reaches age 18;

"Permit unrestricted access to identifying information to adoptive parents of minor children, emancipated minor adoptees, individuals with legal guardianship of an adopted person in special circumstances only;

"Allow adopted persons and birth relatives to file notice stating their wish for no contact;

"Replace mandatory reunion counselling with optional counselling;

"Permit access to agency and court files when original statistical information is insufficient for identification and contact with birth relatives; and

"Recognize open adoptions in its legislation."

These petitions are signed by people who live in the St Thomas and London area.

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.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): We will now go into questions and comments, after the speech yesterday by the member for Oriole.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I'm pleased to rise to respond to the comments of the member for Oriole. I note that he made a number of references to the minister, who of course continues to put forward the argument that somehow there are parts of the construction trades that are in support of what he's doing. Let's make it very clear. For instance, today there was an emergency meeting, and as a result of that emergency meeting of a number of construction trade leaders they issued a letter over the signature of Pat Dillon, who's the head of the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario, as well as being cosigned by 18 other construction trade leaders. It's addressed to the Minister of Labour and it says in part:

"The building trades oppose Bill 31 in its entirety.... We met with your ministry for over one year in trust and in good faith. You have betrayed that trust and demonstrated bad faith. You are putting everything that is good about the construction industry in jeopardy.

"There is no aspect of Bill 31 which we can support or cooperate in. Specifically, in good conscience, we will not be able to participate in any project agreement created under Bill 31. By introducing a bill that is viciously anti-union, you have decided that there will not be stability in the construction industry. You have decided that Ontario will not be open for business.

"Withdraw Bill 31 in its entirety!"

This is a letter that I would think is now in the office of the minister, that came out of an emergency meeting of almost 20 of the top leaders of the construction trades industry in this province who are responding to this anti-union bill, this union-bashing bill, and the fact that the government intends to ram it through in the next few days while claiming they have some support. They have no support among the trades workers themselves.

1510

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I want to compliment my colleague from Oriole on his analysis of the bill, particularly related to the role of the Ontario Labour Relations Board as the fall guy, with their having to make decisions that will render them somewhat like a eunuch in trying to address labour difficulties or resolve differences in the workplace.

As my colleague from Hamilton Centre has pointed out, the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario, with signatories from 19 specific trades, has sent a letter today to reinforce their opposition to this bill.

I would like to underline that the government (1) go to public hearings on this bill, which they've given no indication they're going to do, or (2) that they split the bill. They could look at the project agreement section, have some immediate meetings over the next day or so, and my hope would be that perhaps they could arrive at a consensus between all the parties involved and then bring that back with amendments to that section, with the balance put out for comments and hearings during the summer period.

This bill talks about being the workplace democracy act. Democracy will not be served if there is not an opportunity for the parties affected to respond to what is being presented in this bill when those issues were never on the table throughout the discussions that have been taking place for the last year and a half. I would underline that, and I would ask the minister to reconsider and make sure there are hearings and that there can be some discussions.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I listened carefully to the comments of my friend from Oriole with regard to Bill 31. I note that he dealt with the questions around workplace democracy, as this government calls it, but he also dealt with the questions around the construction industry.

I note that the letter which has been referred to by the member for Ottawa Centre and the member for Hamilton Centre, which is over the signature of Pat Dillon, business manager and secretary-treasurer of the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario, and cosigned by 19 specific trades leaders, states, "The provisions creating `project agreements' which are the complete opposite of anything we have proposed" - the complete opposite. This is interesting, because the minister repeatedly has referred to Pat Dillon and the discussions he's had with Pat Dillon and tried to indicate that Pat Dillon was in favour, and he kept referring to a press report.

But here we have a specific letter over the signature of Pat Dillon, dated June 16, addressed to the Minister of Labour, Jim Flaherty, in which he says, "The project agreements are the complete opposite of anything we have proposed." He goes on to say, and this really concerns me, "These provisions will only create instability and chaos in the construction industry." If the minister thinks that what he has proposed in this bill is going to ensure stability in the construction industry and good-quality jobs in places like Sarnia and Lambton, obviously the industry representatives don't agree with him. I hope the minister will at least agree to hearings so that Mr Dillon can make his position clear.

Hon Jim Flaherty (Minister of Labour, Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): The member would know, if he was here yesterday - I'm not sure whether he was - that the director of government relations for the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario was quoted as saying in the June 5, 1998, edition of the Globe and Mail -

Interjection.

Hon Mr Flaherty: I think the member might want to listen to what was said on June 5 rather than a copy of a letter that apparently is dated today. What was actually said the day after the bill was introduced was this: "In principle, we've agreed to helping to attract investment to Ontario through project agreements."

In the north, where the honourable member is from, in Timmins, the Timmins Daily Press says, "Such proposals are a good idea, especially for those in the construction industry." The editorial is headed "Ontario Open for Business". That was on June 9, 1998. The Timmins Daily Press editorializes as follows: "We applaud the decision of the Progressive Conservatives to balance the rights of business with those of labour to ensure the province will attract more business and more jobs."

The Windsor Star gives a rose to the provincial labour minister for introducing this legislation. It says it would be good for everyone who works in this province.

The Sarnia Observer says, "Labour Bill Good for This Area." It talks about the bill being introduced and says, "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."

We care about workers. We care about jobs. These are union jobs. If the other side cares about jobs in this province for union workers, they'll support this bill.

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

Mr David Caplan (Oriole): I'd like to thank my colleagues the members for Hamilton Centre, Ottawa Centre and Algoma and the minister, the member for Durham Centre, for their comments.

I would say to the minister very clearly that it is unseemly for a minister of the crown to take the words of a representative and of a stakeholder of this province and twist and turn them so out of shape that they bear no resemblance to the facts. The minister stands steadfast in his assertion that this bill marks agreement with the stakeholder groups, but we have a letter from the building trades cosigned by 19 other members saying quite the opposite.

Minister, it is a disreputable practice for you to stand in your place and make those comments. I would indicate to the minister the words of his colleague the member for Eglinton, who said, "Ontario is leading the industrial world in economic competitiveness." The member made those comments on October 14. He said that after a KPMG study which indicated that Hamilton, Sarnia, London, Toronto, Sudbury and Ottawa all compared well against the rest of the world. That's fact.

It is very clear that this minister wants to try to twist and turn, but it's not supported in fact.

Mr William Saunderson (Eglinton): I would just like to say , Madam Speaker -

The Deputy Speaker: Is this a point of order?

Mr Saunderson: Yes, it is a point of order. I would just like to say that I said only that we were certainly leading in the industrialized world. I did not make any distinction about where -

The Deputy Speaker: Take your seat. That is not a point of order. You cannot correct the record that way.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): On a point of privilege, Madam Speaker: This point of privilege has arisen out of the matters we just talked about now, so I could not give you the customary one-hour notice. I believe my privileges as a member of this House have been violated as a result of the letter we have received from the provincial building construction council in which they state that they do not in any way support Bill 31, when the Minister of Labour said in this House on June 11, at about line 1835: "Since we're talking about construction, think about this framework as the foundation on which a building is built. As everyone in this House knows, you don't just pour a foundation without" -

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Kingston and The Islands, take your seat for a moment. I've been listening carefully. This is not a matter that has just arisen today, so you do have to give the letter in writing.

1520

Mr Gerretsen: If I might just continue for a moment, Madam Speaker, the matter has arisen as a result of a letter that we received today from the provincial building trades council, in light of what the minister stated in this House on June 11. At that time he stated:

"Construction employers and trade unions have been discussing the development of such a framework for many months now and I've encouraged them repeatedly in those discussions. These discussions have helped shape the section of Bill 31 that deals with project agreements, and I'd like to spend a few minutes talking about why project agreements are important to construction industry competitiveness."

He definitely gave the impression in the statement he made on June 11 that the building trades council was in support of this bill, but their letter clearly states that it's not so. I believe that my privilege as a member -

The Deputy Speaker: I don't believe that is a point of privilege. You will have to take that up with the minister. You'd have to identify for me which head of the point of privilege has been infringed upon here.

Mr Gerretsen: The fact that he led us to believe that these unions were in agreement with what was being -

The Deputy Speaker: That cannot be a point of privilege. Thank you. Further debate?

Mr Wildman: The members have been rising on various attempted points of one sort or another to deal with issues related to a letter that is dated June 16, 1998, addressed to the Minister of Labour from the building trades council. I want to refer to this letter and to a copy that I have received of another letter also addressed to the Minister of Labour dated June 16, 1998. Both of these letters relate to Bill 31 and to comments that the minister has made in the House.

The first letter is quite disturbing. It is signed by Patrick J. Dillon, business manager and secretary-treasurer of the Ontario building trades council. It is dated, as I said, today, and it was -

Mr Gerretsen: How could you mistake -

Hon Mr Flaherty: If you read it, you goof -

Mr Wildman: Goof?

Mr Gerretsen: Don't call me a goof.

Mr Wildman: The level of debate is really good.

The Deputy Speaker: Stop the clock for a minute, please. Minister, I think that was fairly unparliamentary. Could you withdraw that, please.

Hon Mr Flaherty: Withdrawn.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Wildman: The copies of these two letters came to me by facsimile. The fax is dated today. The fax from the building trades council arrived at 1:34 pm and the other one arrived at 1:11 pm. I'd like to deal with them because they are central to the debate around this bill that deals with what the government calls "workplace democracy."

The letter by Patrick Dillon, co-signed by 19 labour leaders representing various trades in the construction industry, states clearly, "The building trades oppose Bill 31 in its entirety." I know the minister doesn't want to hear this, but the fact is clearly stated: "The building trades oppose Bill 31 in its entirety." It finishes by saying, in this letter addressed to the minister, "Withdraw Bill 31 in its entirety!"

I don't understand how the minister, when he is confronted with this clear statement by the representatives of the building trades, can simply refer to a press report and say, "Well, in the press they're quoted as saying such-and-such." This is a letter directed to the minister from the representatives of the building trades in which they state clearly what their position is, and their position is that they oppose Bill 31 in its entirety and they want the bill withdrawn by the minister.

If anything, this does beg for hearings on this bill. It raises considerable doubt about the statements made by the minister in which he said this was going to be good for the construction industry and improve the situation in places like Sarnia and Lambton. We've got to hear from these leaders of the labour movement. We've got to give them the opportunity to appear before a committee and make clear what their position is, since the minister claims that they support the bill and yet they have written a letter saying they want the bill withdrawn in its entirety.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Algoma, take your seat a moment.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I observe that there seems to be no quorum in the House.

The Deputy Speaker: Clerk, could you check and see if there's a quorum, please.

Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): Quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk at the Table: Quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Algoma.

Mr Wildman: I'd like to thank my friend from Scarborough North for ensuring that we have the members present to listen to this important debate which affects the rights of workers in the province.

This letter to which I was referring, written by Pat Dillon and cosigned by his colleagues in the construction industry, talks about "the provisions creating `project agreements' which are the complete opposite of anything we have proposed. These provisions will only create instability and chaos in the construction industry."

This despite the fact that the minister has repeatedly said in this debate that the project agreements are the central matter in this bill and that they are supported by the construction trades. Well, it's clear they aren't. The minister doesn't really know what these people think or he wouldn't have said that.

It's clear that we have to give these people the opportunity to appear before a committee of the House to explain their position with regard to Bill 31, as well as the owners of the companies in the construction industry to hear what they have to say. It's clear that we've got to get this matter clarified, and that requires us to have hearings. I hope the government and the minister will agree to hold hearings, as they should do.

It really concerns me that Mr Dillon would make a statement like "These provisions will only create instability and chaos in the construction industry."

1530

He goes on to say that "the provisions allowing so-called `non-construction employers' to unilaterally decertify despite having been lawfully certified and despite the present process which allows workers the right to decide for themselves" are something else that they oppose.

He goes on to say, addressing Mr Flaherty, "You are putting everything that is good about the construction industry in jeopardy."

This, again, is the man the minister quoted as being in favour of this bill.

He says further: "Specifically, in good conscience we will not be able to participate in any project agreement created under Bill 31. By introducing a bill that is viciously anti-union, you have decided that there will not be stability in the construction industry."

This, again, is the man representing the construction trades in Ontario whom the minister has repeatedly referred to as being in favour of Bill 31.

The other point that Mr Dillon, along with his colleagues, makes in this letter dated today relates to the other portion of the bill, the so-called workplace democracy. He says, "We oppose the amendments to section 11, which would allow employers to fire, threaten and terrify workers into voting against the union." Again, it's clear, as Mr Dillon concludes, that the construction trades are opposed to this legislation and they are requesting the minister, "Withdraw Bill 31 in its entirety!"

We've got to have hearings. We have to hear from these people to find out why they are so concerned about this bill and why they believe that it will produce instability and chaos in the construction industry.

I have another letter I referred to. It arrived today, dated today, to Mr Flaherty, the Minister of Labour. In this letter, which is signed by George Ward, business manager for the Ontario Sheet Metal Workers' and Roofers' Conference, they make a number of statements related to the statements made by the Minister of Labour and his parliamentary assistant during the debate on Bill 31.

First, he says, "In a statement reported in the June 4, 1998, Toronto Star, you," meaning the minister, "state that section 11 of the Labour Relations Act is an anomaly in Canada." That's the section, I'll remind members, which allows the Ontario Labour Relations Board to order certification if they believe there's been intimidation of the workers. Mr Ward states, "In fact, every province in Canada except for Alberta provides for automatic certification without a vote."

Further, Mr Ward states: "In the House on June 11, 1998, Mr Maves," the member for Niagara, "stated that project agreements are necessary because the Bayer project did not go ahead in Sarnia. This project has been used as the prime example in support of Bill 31" by the Conservatives "as it pertains to project agreements. In fact," according to Mr Ward, "the Bayer project did go ahead and was built in Sarnia at the full ICI rates and conditions. This is proof that the ICI collective agreements are competitive and that they do not act as a disincentive to investment in Ontario."

Again, completely contrary to statements made by the minister's parliamentary assistant in this House.

Mr Saunderson: They haven't gone ahead.

Mr Wildman: According to this, the Bayer project has been completed with union members doing the work at full ICI rates.

Then Mr Ward says, "In the House on June 11, 1998," the minister "stated that presently if one union went on a province-wide strike, `The result is everyone drops their tools, work stops, the project effectively dies.'"

According to Mr Ward, "In fact, section 79(1) of the present act explicitly prohibits such an action by other unions not in a legal strike position." Again, the justification used by the minister for the changes in this piece of legislation is not borne out by the facts.

Further on, Mr Ward refers to Mr Flaherty, the Minister of Labour. "You have repeatedly stated that Bill 31 requires that all project agreements are to be 100% union. In fact, nowhere does Bill 31 require this." I heard the Minister of Labour say that repeatedly the other night in the debate, and yet Mr Ward, in his analysis of the bill, says it is not in the bill anywhere. I've looked through the bill and I've come to the conclusion that Mr Ward is correct. If he isn't, I think we have to have the hearings in order to clarify what exactly is the impact of this legislation before we pass it into law. I am very concerned that we may in fact see a chaotic situation in the construction industry in Ontario, which is what is being predicted by these leaders representing construction workers in Ontario.

Mr Ward goes on to say, "Bill 31...is quite dangerous and can only cause chaos and instability." This is a piece of legislation touted by the minister to bring stability, new jobs and growth in the construction industry in Ontario, and yet the representatives, the people who work representing members of the labour movement who work in the construction industry, are saying the complete opposite, that it can only cause chaos and instability.

Mr Ward says, "Unlike the proposal made by the building trades to the employers group in July 1997, your bill does not require that only unionized contractors and unionized workers will be utilized" in the project agreements. "Having union and non-union working on the same project is an invitation to chaos and instability," according to Mr Ward.

Further, he says: "Unlike the building trades' proposal, your bill provides that only unions invited by the owner actually get to vote on the proposal. This sets up a structure whereby a minority will dictate the terms and conditions under which all workers are to work. This too is an invitation to chaos and instability." This is in response to the minister's repeated statements that all unions on a project will get one vote each and they will all be able to vote on whether or not there should be a project agreement. The minister defended that by saying that one union, one vote meant there would be majority rule, and that if the majority of the unions working on a project voted in favour of a particular project agreement, then the project agreement would proceed.

But Mr Ward says that the unions that will be able to vote will be decided by the company, by the owner, not by the unions themselves. The owner will decide who gets to vote, not the representatives of the workers. The minister said all of the unions on the job will get one vote each and they'll all be able to vote and there will be majority rules. But according to Mr Ward, that's not the case. In fact, the owner, the company doing the project, will decide which unions get to vote. I suppose it is possible that a number of unions representing a small number of workers on the project would be invited to vote by the owner but perhaps not some of the larger unions representing a larger number of workers on the project, and thus the minority will rule, not the majority, as the minister has alleged, according to Bill 31.

I don't know whether Mr Ward is right or Mr Flaherty is right. I don't know who is correct.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I am with Mr Flaherty.

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I am with Mr Flaherty.

1540

Mr Wildman: I think it's obvious that the members opposite would lean towards supporting the minister's position, but surely they must be disturbed by the comments of leaders in the construction trades who say that this will not bring stability, it will bring instability and chaos. Surely none of us want chaos in the construction industry, none of us want disputes that might lead to work stoppages that would adversely affect the investment climate in the province.

The Conservatives in the House would want to ensure, I think, that we have a good investment climate, that there will be more people interested in investing in this province and building, producing jobs, but if we have work stoppages related to jurisdictional arguments among unions, among trades, over the application of Bill 31, that will have an adverse effect on the investment climate. Fewer investors will want to invest. There will be fewer jobs, not more jobs. The situation in Sarnia and Lambton will not be resolved; it will be made worse.

Not only that, it won't just be subject to areas like Sarnia and Lambton; it will spread right across the construction industry throughout the province. We will have disputes among unions, we will have disputes between unionized and non-unionized contractors and their workers, and this will hurt the construction industry and hurt economic development in this province across the board.

Mr Ward concludes by saying:

"These are problems we could identify in the short time since Bill 31 was introduced. In all likelihood Bill 31 creates other serious problems, but because you are ramming this through with no consultation, we have not had the opportunity to study fully its implications."

He is suggesting there may be further problems with Bill 31 other than the ones he has identified.

Mr Curling: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: Again, my apologies for interrupting the eloquent speech being given by the member, but there seems not to be a quorum in the House. I can't believe that.

The Deputy Speaker: Clerk, could you check and see if there is a quorum, please.

Clerk at the Table: Quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk at the Table: Quorum is now present.

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Algoma.

Mr Wildman: We have before us two letters addressed to the Minister of Labour, dated today, that the minister wants to discount. The minister would rather refer to press reports of statements made, quotes from representatives of the labour movement in the press, than the letters those leaders themselves have sent to the minister.

How can the minister discount these very serious letters, which are predicting serious chaos in the construction industry if Bill 31 passes as it is? As a matter of fact, they are requesting directly to the minister that the minister withdraw Bill 31 in its entirety.

I haven't dealt with the other major problem in this bill, which is the attack on the rights of workers to organize in the workplace in Ontario under the guise of workplace democracy. In the Orwellian language that this government uses, they describe as democracy something which will deny workers the opportunity to choose who might represent them in the workplace in the negotiations with the employer.

For those reasons I believe, first, the government should withdraw Bill 31, as is requested by the labour leaders. If the government is not prepared to withdraw Bill 31, then I believe we must go to public hearings so that we can hear from the representatives of the workers, representatives of the building trades, representatives of other members of the labour movement, and we can also hear from investors, from the owners of construction companies across the province and from representatives of business about the effects of Bill 31. Then at least, if the government is determined to move forward with it, we can amend it so it does the things which the minister claims it does but which are challenged by the representatives of the very workers he claims he is helping.

The fact is that we cannot afford in Ontario to have disruptions and work stoppages in the construction industry that will harm the investment climate in this province. We cannot have a government bullheadedly go through with this legislation over the objections of the representatives of the workers when those representatives have warned the government this will lead to work stoppages and disruption.

I call on the minister to respond positively to these letters he has received today.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): I'm disappointed that the member for Algoma didn't mention the part of the bill, and concentrate on it in his remarks, that requires a secret ballot vote in every application for certification before the Ontario Labour Relations Board. We on this side of the House believe that's extremely important, and I would have hoped he would highlight that as one of the areas he supports. Those of us on this side of the House believe that every worker in every case should have the opportunity, in a secret ballot vote, to decide whether they choose or don't choose to be a member of a trade union. That's not an issue for government, that's not an issue for anyone but the workers themselves, and I would have hoped the member would detail part of that.

Certainly the motivation for the legislation is to ensure that we can continue with solid economic development and job creation. The members for Sarnia and Lambton have worked extremely hard on this issue to try to encourage more job creation and economic development in their part of the province. They're very concerned that construction labour relations are a real barrier to that job creation. That is indeed the top priority of this government: to create a climate that's positive for investment and for job creation, and I want to congratulate the members for Sarnia and Lambton for their efforts on this issue.

Mr Curling: I want to stand in the House and commend the member for Algoma for his excellent presentation. As balanced and objective as he was, it was rather surprising that the member for Nepean pointed out some part of democracy that he thinks was omitted. The member for Algoma pointed out over and over the undemocratic process and direction you want to go in with this bill. The nerve of the member to even stand on that kind of issue.

Mr Baird: You can't keep a straight face.

Mr Curling: My face is pretty straight to know that you would have done that.

I was very encouraged by the fact that the member for Algoma said he wants to encourage investment in the province in a balanced way, that unnecessary strikes should be avoided, but he emphasized so well the fact that the democratic process, the participation of the workers, must be there. He pointed out their bullying way of ramming this thing through without the proper presentation, the proper way of having people air their concerns about this bill.

I also would like to say to the member for Algoma that I wish he could have had another 10 or 15 minutes, because there are so many important things he could say. I apologize for the many times I had to get up to call for a quorum in the House to listen to the wonderful and very informative aspects of his presentation.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I want to congratulate the member for Algoma. He did an excellent job of relaying to the Minister of Labour and to the government members the anger and frustration out there, realizing that the minister and the government have brought in legislation that they did not expect, that was not part of the consultation process.

They stated it very clearly in letters they've sent to the Minister of Labour, which we've managed to receive copies of this afternoon. They are completely frustrated and upset, and they're saying that this is going to cause nothing but problems throughout the province of Ontario. They even go to the point of saying that if the Minister of Labour really wants to help this province and get it working again, he should resign immediately.

Laughter.

Mr Len Wood: Some of the members across the way laugh at that, but the minute you have the construction industry shut down because of something that Mike Harris and the Minister of Labour and the Conservative caucus are bringing in in legislation - they're probably going to bring in time allocation and shut everybody out from the committee process where the public hearings are being held. It's serious. Some people have even written letters saying that it's another little gift Mike Harris is giving to the large construction companies and his friends out there, so they can use this legislation to get out of collective agreements and drive wages down so that eventually everybody, whether they're in construction or working for the industrial sector, will be down to the minimum wage.

It seems this is the agenda that is happening here. It's quite obvious that there is a lot of anger and frustration coming from the building trades unions, the Ontario sheet metal workers' union, the consortium of trades council. The frustration is going to grow and grow, and the anger is going to be vicious out there.

1550

Mr Galt: It's a pleasure to respond to some of the comments that have been made around the Legislature this afternoon, particularly by the member for Algoma. He seemed to spend most of his time talking about letters to the minister and back and forth, when he might better have been spending more time on the bill. I gather, since he wants to zero in on the letter, that probably he's supportive of the bill but just doesn't want to openly admit it.

Certainly it has been interesting to listen to the member for Scarborough North, who repeatedly got up and called for a quorum and interrupted this fine gentleman from Algoma in speaking and getting his point across, but at the same time he talked about a bully way of getting the bill through, when in fact what we're doing is overcoming this schoolyard bully tactic whereby they force certification and force through a vote. This bill is all about ensuring that there will be a secret ballot, that there will be a democratic process in certification and in decertification, that there will not be the bully kind of tactic the member for Scarborough North was referring to.

The member for Cochrane North was talking about the concerns of the union movement. The present Minister of Labour is doing more for the union movement than any minister from your government ever did. We're creating more jobs, and by creating more jobs it's like a recruitment program for the union itself. With more jobs there are more people to join a union. I would think you'd be very enthusiastic about this kind of activity, helping the unions come up with more people working who would have an interest in joining the organization you're promoting.

There's no question that this bill is there to restore the workplace democracy that's so right. I don't know how anybody could argue about a democratic process in the workplace, and also fairness to help small business in Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker: Response, the member for Algoma.

Mr Wildman: I want to thank the members for Nepean, Scarborough North, Cochrane North and Northumberland for their comments. I'm disappointed the member for Simcoe East didn't take the opportunity to comment. I wanted to have the opportunity to compliment him on his sartorial splendour.

I want to say that I'm not surprised the member for Nepean is disappointed in my comments. Frankly, if I hadn't disappointed him, I would have been disappointed. The fact that I dealt with the construction industry is related to the fact that we've received these letters just today from representatives of the construction industry, Pat Dillon and George Ward. Pat Dillon is the individual who the minister repeatedly said, in his remarks on this bill, was in support of the legislation. In fact Pat Dillon is asking that Bill 31 be withdrawn in its entirety because the building trades oppose Bill 31, despite what the Minister of Labour says.

That's why I should deal with this. I dealt with it because both of these representatives of the workers in the construction industry are predicting that if Bill 31 is passed in this form, there will be chaos and instability in the construction industry, which will produce problems in the investment climate in Ontario that nobody in this House wants to occur.

I want to thank my friend from Scarborough North for calling quorums and indicating that we on this side of the House believe this is an important piece of legislation and an important debate.

I also want to thank my friend from Cochrane North for pointing out that the minister has made incorrect statements in this House about support for the bill. I can't understand why the minister continues to depend on editorialists and their opinions, rather than the opinions of the people who actually represent the workers this bill affects.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Saunderson: I'm pleased to rise to talk about Bill 31, but before I do I'd just like to set the record straight on what was said yesterday in Hansard.

On page 1429, Mr Patten said that I, as the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism, said that we are leading the industrial world in competitiveness. I did say that, but when he goes on in his speech, he implies other things to me. I'd like to refer to Mr Caplan's speech on page 1443 in which he says that there was an article dated October 14, 1997, and what he is referring to is the KPMG booklet, I guess we'd call it, called The Competitive Alternative - they do this every year, and it has always, since we have been elected, been good news for Ontario because we are doing so well economically. But in Mr Caplan's comments he says, "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.'"

Of course I did mean that we were leading the world and that we were leading the world because of what we are doing in this province. But that doesn't mean that things are perfect in this province. When KPMG do their studies, they look at a number of things. They look at overall cost of doing business in Canada and also in Ontario. They do say that most individual cost components favour Canada. They -

The Deputy Speaker: Just take your seat a moment.

Mr Len Wood: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I believe we should have a quorum for this important piece of legislation.

The Deputy Speaker: Clerk, could you check and see if there is a quorum, please.

Clerk at the Table: Quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk at the Table: Quorum is now present, Speaker.

Mr Saunderson: As I was saying, the KPMG study covers a lot of points -

Mr Baird: Where's Len Wood?

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Nepean, come to order.

Mr Saunderson: - which favour certainly what we're doing in Ontario. They talk about industrial land costs, construction costs, labour costs, employer-sponsored benefits. They also talk about employer-paid statutory employee benefits, electricity costs, transportation costs, telecommunication costs, interest costs, annual depreciation charges, federal, regional and local tax rates, and income tax credits for research and development. That favours Canadian cities.

However, having gone through that list and saying we are leading the world doesn't mean to imply that everything is perfect, particularly in the Sarnia region. That's why I'm very pleased to stand up today and talk about Bill 31, because I think it is a very good bill and one that will encourage investment and job creation in Ontario.

This bill addresses, in my opinion, some of the concerns that have been expressed to me by many businesses in Ontario. I've had the chance to talk to many businesses. I've tried to meet with them on a regular basis, first as minister and then as the chairman of the OITC.

Mr Len Wood: Did you talk to the workers?

Mr Saunderson: Yes, I tour the plants and I often talk to the workers as well.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

1600

Mr Saunderson: I'm very pleased to say that when I talk to them they are encouraged by what we are doing in this province and that we are as productive as we are.

These business have expressed frustration, when I talk to the management, with what they perceive to be a major remaining barrier to investment and growth in Ontario. This new legislation would be fair and equitable to both industry and Ontario workers.

I have already heard Mr Galt eloquently talk about democracy and I'd like to comment on that as well. First of all, this bill brings democracy to the union movement. When we all are elected on the basis of a secret ballot, I see no reason why the union movement would not want to be conducted by a secret ballot process as well.

Second, I'd like to talk about another aspect of this bill. It gives the companies flexibility to negotiate project-specific contracts outside the provincial collective bargaining process. This is particularly important in the Sarnia region, where I had been told many, many projects had been scuttled by one union not agreeing to changing and operating outside the provincial collective bargaining process. These agreements would remain in effect beyond the time of renewal of the provincial agreements, which is not currently the case.

I want to add that I agree with the comments made yesterday by the member for Sarnia, Mr David Boushy. He has worked very hard for his constituents and is to be commended for his efforts. He has invited me down to the Sarnia area to take a look at the potential of that region. Believe me, that potential is not being fully tapped. As the former Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism, and currently as chairman of the Ontario International Trade Corp, I have heard from many sectors of the economy about the need to make changes to our labour legislation to improve our ability to compete. We are competing well but we can compete better.

In particular, I want to speak about the concerns expressed by the chemical and petrochemical industry. I have had the opportunity to meet with and travel on trade missions with members of this particular industry. It is a very important industry for our province and our country. We are very competitive with this industry around the world, but there is one problem that we have in Ontario.

In the course of the conversations, I have heard that Ontario is located at the heart of the North American market, wonderfully located, but now we have to make sure we can realize our potential. I have heard from them that we have a very skilled workforce and I believe that.

Mr Wildman: That's not what Snobelen says.

Mr Saunderson: I can tell you that about 60% of our workforce has some college or university experience, so we are highly skilled and highly trained.

Mr Wildman: He says the education system is broken.

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Algoma.

Mr Saunderson: Also, I hear from the petrochemical industry that Ontario has an excellent transportation infrastructure. That means, when we talk about infrastructure, our roads. We have a four-lane highway connecting Sarnia to the rest of Ontario and into the United States. The bridge in Sarnia has been twinned. That makes sure that the trucking industry can cross at a much faster rate than they could before. We have a wonderful Great Lakes shipping system, which means that goods are easily transported by water. We also have a very good telecommunications infrastructure, which means that all aspects of that transportation can be carefully monitored so the goods can be safely delivered.

Now the pipeline from Montreal to Sarnia has been reversed. That means that raw oil can be shipped into Montreal and, by the reversal of the pipeline, can come directly to Sarnia. So that's another great aspect of our infrastructure. That's a change we spoke to Ottawa about over the last couple of years, and now that change has occurred.

Of course we have an exchange rate advantage. So we have a lot of great advantages in this province, but I want to keep coming back to the construction costs.

We know that Ontario is very business-friendly. The tax cuts also that we have instituted over the last three years have been very well received by all aspects of business, particularly the petrochemical industry. Also, we have been told all future construction is carefully considered, and considered in the light of the tax system in a jurisdiction. Our taxes have decreased dramatically.

However, in Sarnia there has been a consistent problem in that a single union can destroy a construction agreement. This situation has dramatically slowed the building of new facilities for the chemical and the petrochemical industry. I have seen it and I have heard it at first hand. Therefore, Ontario, particularly Sarnia, has been losing out to Houston or Alberta. I've had the opportunity to visit the port of Houston in the United States, and also to visit in Alberta to their petrochemical industry. They, of course, have lower taxes than we have, and we are watching those jurisdictions so that we can try to keep our taxes from going lower, and we will do that in the future. But we have accomplished a great deal in the tax area in the last few years.

I've heard over and over again, "If you can change things, we will be there in Sarnia," and the things that they're talking about are the construction rules. Some $50 billion of new money is going to be invested in the chemical manufacturing industry throughout North America over the next few years, and close to $4 billion of that is earmarked for Alberta. You notice I have said nothing about what has been earmarked for Ontario up to now.

Ontario needs to be competitive. We need to change our construction rules, and that's what the Minister of Labour has done with this bill. The Economic Development and Workplace Democracy Act would amend the Labour Relations Act of 1995 to address competitiveness in the construction industry. This legislation would bring about project agreements that would help businesses compete for significant projects for the chemical and petrochemical industries. That is what I was referring to earlier. That is what the industry has been saying to us: "If you make this change in the construction system, then we will be in Sarnia and we will be big investors there."

The local unions which will be supplying members to the projects that I'm talking about would negotiate the agreement directly with the proponent. If 60% or more of the local unions approve the agreement, it would be binding with respect to all work on the project within the trade jurisdiction of the local unions that were given notice of the negotiations. I think this is a democratic way of dealing with projects. It speaks to one of the issues that has been raised with me over the past three years, and I've been referring to that throughout my speech, and that is the unpredictability in dealing with our system of union negotiations.

The chemical and the chemical products industry is the fourth-largest manufacturing sector in Ontario after transportation, equipment, food and electronics. We should be proud of that industry, and within the chemical sector, the petrochemical industry is the largest sector. Ontario is a prime location for the chemical industry. Currently, chemical shipments from Ontario are 47% of the Canadian total. Just think of how that per cent would rise if we can increase the facilities in Sarnia.

I want to speak particularly about the companies located in the Sarnia area. The Sarnia area is home to five refineries and 17 petrochemical plants. With this combination of plants and refineries, along with two plants in nearby Michigan, this area is known as the Sarnia complex. It's known throughout the world and I've heard from companies throughout the world saying, "Why don't you capitalize on that facility, that complex in the Sarnia region?" I have said to those companies that have spoken to me over the years, "Our biggest problem is the labour construction situation." The Minister of Labour is going to resolve that.

Our third most active port, Sarnia, accounts for roughly 8% of Canada's combined exports and imports. The primary advantage enjoyed by firms in the Sarnia complex is their proximity to key US and Canadian markets. After all, if you are a supplier of raw materials to the manufacturing industry throughout North America, and now because of the free trade agreement down into South America, just think of the increased productivity we could have in Sarnia to provide the raw materials that manufacturing companies need throughout North America and South America and indeed the rest of the world.

1610

The primary advantage enjoyed by firms in the Sarnia complex is this proximity to these markets. Within a 500-mile radius or one day's trucking distance lies about 50% of the population of the United States and Canada. Think about that - 50%. We have the infrastructure. We have some of the product they need. With this change because of Bill 31, we'll be supplying a lot more of the products that are needed throughout the world and this will create economic development and jobs in the Sarnia area.

Obviously, the economic wellbeing of the chemical industry is very critical to that region, because when you expand, of course you have construction jobs, but once the construction jobs are finished, then you have more jobs on a permanent basis. Then the word gets out around the world that Sarnia and Ontario is a place where we are completely competitive because of Bill 31's changes, and then we are going to have much more happen in Sarnia. Success builds on success, confidence builds on confidence, and I think Sarnia will be a huge beneficiary of Bill 31.

The bottom line, of course, is it means jobs. As you know, we made a commitment to create a large number of jobs which we're well on the way to creating. We will create even more in our next term.

I have met with representatives of the industry both here at Queen's Park and in Sarnia and they've shared with me their concerns and frustrations with the existing labour legislation and its implication for their future plans. In a 1997 year-end survey released by the chemical manufacturing industry, plant construction costs were identified as a key barrier to new investment. So it keeps coming back and back and back, not only in 1995 and 1996, but still in 1997.

The industry looks for a track record in a jurisdiction when considering new or the expansion of existing projects. That's what I have been saying. As I have travelled around the world talking to companies in this field, they have said, "Build it and we will come." I think that is what's going to happen because of Bill 31.

Cost estimating procedures are based on experience in a region. They are very keen and accurate on assessing the cost situation. This Competitive Alternative book, which comes out every year by KPMG, highlights what's going on in Canada and the parts of Canada. I'm happy to say that since we got elected, Ontario gets mentioned quite often in this study as having some of the best statistics to attract companies to this region.

Representatives of the chemical industry have told me that this legislation is a step in the right direction. Dennis Lauzon, chairman of the Canadian Chemical Producers' Association, said on June 4:

"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 new investment of some $2.5 billion to $5 billion."

That is a lot of construction, that is a lot of jobs and that's a lot of economic activity. That's what we want in this province.

The new legislation could mean up to 42,500 jobs in the province.

According to the CCPA's calculations, each billion dollars of new investment in the chemical refinery and related sectors means about 8,500 new jobs in construction and in other sectors of the economy.

But not only does it create the construction jobs, it also creates the permanent jobs for the refineries that are produced. Of course, it also gets the message out that Ontario is open for business, more so than ever.

Bill 31 attracts investment and it creates jobs. As I have said before in this House, this government listens and responds. As this government continues to build the confidence of investors and businesses in the climate here in Ontario, everyone benefits. Our wish is that when the economic tide comes in, all sectors of the economy rise. I think that is what is happening. We want more jobs. We want more opportunities for our workers. We want an expanding tax base because the more we have happening in this province, the more profitability occurs, that means more taxes for this province. That is what is happening now, as we see from the Minister of Finance's recent budget, and we are going to have even more of that because of Bill 31.

I am proud to stand in this Legislature today and tell you that I believe Bill 31 will continue to move Ontario in the right direction, to be more competitive and attract investment from the chemical and petrochemical industry.

Mr Len Wood: Lots of strikes.

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Cochrane North.

Mr Saunderson: This is an industry that deserves our support. I am very pleased to have had the opportunity to work with the Minister of Labour, to be involved in this debate. I'm very thankful to him and to that industry that Bill 31 is going to be producing the economic development, the jobs and the proper economic climate in this province to move it ahead and keep it moving ahead steadily as it has been in the past.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): It is interesting to hear the comments from the members opposite with respect to this bill, the so-called Economic Development and Workplace Democracy Act, which significantly is an intrusion into collective bargaining in the construction trades industry.

One of the reasons the member opposite talks about why this bill is needed is this mantra that there has to be more or a better level of competitiveness in Ontario with the rest of the world dealing with industrial development or what have you. I have to quote back the words of the member for Eglinton, who quoted, and I have the article right here - there was a KPMG survey about the status of Canada in terms of competitiveness around the world. The headline to the article was, "Canada's Construction Costs Lowest" and to quote the trade and tourism minister at the time, the member for Eglinton, "We're leading the industrial world in competitiveness."

It just begs the question therefore: Why are we having this bill coming in and intruding upon collective bargaining in the construction area? Why are we having these amendments being made to the collective bargaining process that over time has proven its worth? Why are they sticking their noses in here? According to this same article, Canada is among the lowest in terms of investment costs, labour costs, transportation costs, electricity costs, telecommunications costs, interest costs, and even our corporate income tax burden is among the lowest in the world.

Here on the other side, the member for Eglinton is saying, "We need this bill," but just a few months earlier he was standing up and crowing, "We are leading the industrial world in terms of competitiveness."

Quite frankly, this bill is not needed, but it fits another agenda that this government has which is to tilt the balance in terms of collective bargaining. This government will find it will increase costs rather than reduce costs.

The Deputy Speaker: Further questions and comments?

Mr Wildman: I'd like to comment briefly on the remarks of my friend from Eglinton. I know he is convinced that this piece of legislation will improve the competitive advantage of Ontario, and that's basically why he is in support. Unlike the member for Ottawa West, though, I don't think the situation is such in Ontario that, as he put it, "This bill is not needed." In fact, I think the bill will have the opposite effect from what the government members believe it to have.

I am most concerned about the letters that have been sent to the Minister of Labour today by the representatives of the construction trades; by Mr Pat Dillon, the head of the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario, in which he predicted that there would be work stoppages, there would be strikes, there would be disputes as a result of this bill if it passes as it is now. He requested that the bill be withdrawn.

Surely if Mr Dillon is right - if he's right - that will hurt the competitive advantage of this province and in particular Sarnia and Lambton. I wonder if the member for Eglinton has taken that into account. Surely if there are all kinds of disputes and chaotic situations in the construction industry because of problems related to this bill, that will hurt the investment climate in Ontario; it won't help it. It won't make Ontario more competitive; it will make us less competitive in terms of the member for Eglinton's comments in this House today.

I would really like to hear from the government if they are prepared, if the Conservatives are prepared to hold hearings on this bill so that we can hear from Mr Dillon and his colleagues and we can also hear from the representatives of the construction industry, construction companies, their views about this bill, so that if this government is determined that we move forward with it, at least it can be improved so we don't have this chaotic situation that will hurt the investment climate in Ontario.

1620

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): I want to compliment the member for Eglinton for his speech. He's a very wise man who understands the world's investment community in a unique fashion. As the former Minister of Economic Development and Trade in this government, he deserves a lot of credit for the economic boom that's happening in Ontario today.

He was rudely interrupted when he was making his speech, when he talked about visiting plants around Ontario. Someone shouted, "Did you talk to the workers?" Of course he responded, "Yes, I talked to the workers." The most important thing the workers said to him was: "We like to work. We appreciate the jobs, and the booming economy is what's vital to us."

I'll tell you of another man who talks to workers: the Premier of this province. When he opened a plant, when he celebrated 1,000 new jobs in the Brampton Chrysler plant recently, after they were finished and the other dignitaries stayed up on the platform, the Premier walked down among all the workers in that plant and took picture after picture with those workers, who said: "We appreciate what you're doing. We appreciate the jobs climate that you're bringing to Ontario so that we can continue to work and so that our kids will have a bright future."

With regard to the project agreements, the member for Eglinton correctly pointed out that these project agreements will create work by giving the go-ahead to many construction projects throughout the province. Not only will this create work for those people in the construction industry, but after these plants are built there will be jobs for those construction workers' brothers, sisters, cousins and kids to work inside these plants for many years to come in good, high-paying jobs that are going to make Ontario continue to boom for many years.

It's also important to note that 60% of the unions themselves must agree to a project agreement. That's democratic. It's not union bosses in Toronto who must agree; it's the local unions, who know how important work is to their membership.

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell): It's very interesting to hear the comments of the member for Eglinton. We all support a bill that would stimulate the economy, but I wonder what this government has done for eastern Ontario. Today we're talking about stimulating the economy in the Sarnia area. In eastern Ontario there are 14,000 to 17,000 construction workers who come from outside the province. This government hasn't done anything yet to prevent this from happening and to try to stimulate the economy of eastern Ontario.

We know that at the present time in the construction industry we've lost 19,000 jobs over a period of seven months, right up to January 1998. But what has this government done? We know 14,000 to 17,000 of those jobs go to Quebec contractors. Today we're saying that Ontario is open for business. Will it be open for the construction contractors or people coming in from outside the province who will not pay any taxes to Ontario? This is why we are fighting at the present time. We don't want to prevent those people from coming to Ontario, as long as it goes both ways. We want a level playing field.

Today, because we're talking about a major industry going to Sarnia, we're ready to get on the wagon and pass legislation to support this construction that would be going on in Sarnia. But are we going to do the same thing for eastern Ontario? I urge this government to do the same thing for eastern Ontario, the Ottawa, Hawkesbury and Prescott and Russell areas, and right up north, the Hearst and Kapuskasing areas. With Sarnia, definitely I agree that we all work for the economy of this province.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Eglinton.

Mr Saunderson: I would like to conclude my comments by saying that our construction costs, as we have noted them in both the 1996 and 1997 versions of the KPMG report, are reported as being very low, but quite frankly, they're just not low enough for the Sarnia region, for the competitive petrochemical industry around the world. You have to travel to see what's going on there. Concessions are made so that these plants can be built on a cheap - well, on a reduced-cost basis. They do compete seriously with us.

That is why I am so enthusiastic about the bill that we're talking about today. No matter what we all might say in the House, the fact is that construction has been very limited in the Sarnia region. Yes, Bayer has made a new plant and I don't dispute that, but there's more to come from Bayer. They're waiting for this change to happen. I could mention Dow, I could mention Imperial Oil; Nova is another. There are a lot of companies sitting, waiting to see what's going to happen in that region.

But it is a worldwide industry and that's why my comments are so fixed on this particular industry today. I have worked with these people since being elected in 1995. I have met with them and tried to bring other ministries together to talk about their problems. I'm so pleased to see something now happening. We show that we are responding to their concerns.

I thank the member for Prescott and Russell for saying, I think, that he supports this bill, that he wants this to go through to support the Sarnia region. I'm hopeful that we can continue to help all regions of Ontario in the future.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate? The member for Scarborough North.

Mr Curling: Madam Speaker, I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on this bill.

Before the Conservatives get off on this rampage about my colleague from Prescott and Russell supporting this bill, you should go back and read Hansard, where he said of course he supports construction and he hopes that some of the things you're talking about are done all across the province, not in the kind of dictatorial manner in which you are doing them. I encourage you to do that.

Let me see if I've got this thing right. I understand that Bill 31 is entitled the Economic Development and Workplace Democracy Act. When introducing this bill, the minister said, "It is an appropriate title for an important piece of legislation." Funnily enough, somehow when I read his speech and listened to him, I didn't see anything about democracy in all of this, whether this was a democratic approach at all. He completely omitted making proper reference to democracy in that tone.

Later on in the speech, he mentioned: "Ontario has to develop innovative ways to attract outside investment. Bill 31 would do that. It would enhance competitiveness in the construction industry by creating a framework to negotiate specific agreements for major industrial projects in Ontario."

Basically, he's going to dictate what should be done without any consultation or anything at all.

I'll just make one other comment on what he said. "Ontario has had province-wide construction collective agreements since 1978. Those collective agreements have helped create a certain amount of stability in the construction market but they haven't allowed the flexibility that Ontario needs to compete nationally and globally for major industrial projects."

It is evident that this government intends to destroy collective agreements. Let me for a moment just remind them what happened to the previous government when they tampered with collective agreements. You can recall that. People stood up and protested in every form. As a matter of fact, they paid the consequences and are not in power any more. I hope that when the unions and the members of the unions see the tampering with their collective bargaining agreements that this government intends to do, they will throw these bullies out and make sure that democracy reigns once more.

I can recall, of course, even when people resisted, when this government tried - and the people have not forgotten the OPSEU strike outside. The people protested very fairly. What happened? They brought in the riot squad. You'd think that you were not in Canada any more. This is the kind of attitude this government has taken.

1630

Our party has told you straightforwardly that Bill 31 is not the way in which you should go. As a matter of fact, we talk about having more openness, more people coming in for representation and not pushing it through as quickly as possible. I think you feel that as the opposition we oppose because we intend to oppose, but what we are doing reflects what the people of Ontario are saying. In my constituency in Scarborough North, people have spoken against this bill, the way it's going to go.

Of course everyone wants to have a job, everyone wants to be treated fairly, everyone wants to hope and think that in this democratic society they will get their say. We're not the only ones saying that. Many of our colleagues have emphasized that they have written comments and statements from people who are much closer to it than we as members of Parliament. Many of my colleagues have read from the trades council of Ontario, and it's important for me also to make some comments about that, because in my constituency people also refer to that.

I have a copy of that letter that many of us have read and that went to the minister as recently as today, signed by the business manager for the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario. It says to the minister, "You do not speak for us and have been misrepresenting our position."

It couldn't be clearer. This is an organization which represents 100,000 members and has said you do not speak for them, and further, that you misrepresent their position. It goes on for the one line that tells it all: "The building trades oppose Bill 31 in its entirety!" They go on to tell you where they oppose that.

This government somehow never gets the message. They feel that having acquired the power in an election, they don't need to respond to the people at all, that they have all the answers. They will dictate, they will not have consultation, they will ram bills through the House as quickly as possible. When it comes to time allocation, I think they have broken the record everywhere. When things come to the House, we have limited time in which to respond, limited time to research the document itself and put very pertinent information on the table.

However, our thanks to those groups outside who have been living with some of these concerns and have been able to address this in writing, but they are being denied the right to make good representation before the committee.

The words we say here and the emotion we may express here will not influence this government one bit. They will ram this thing through in their own bully way, with their own bully tactics with which they feel so comfortable. As the Premier says: "All the bully tactics I have done, I make no apologies for. I feel that absolute power will give me this absolute way of doing things."

However, we know that when election time comes, people like the trade unions will make sure this doesn't happen. The teachers are another group extremely concerned at the attitude. Just the basic attitude and the demeanour of the members of the Conservative Party tells you of the arrogance and how far this can go.

Today we saw the response of the member for Scarborough East, Mr Gilchrist, and his threatening manner to a principal, threatening these teachers by cutting off their grants and scholarships. This is the ultimate bullying approach that this government has continued to carry on here. But the time will come when they themselves will be responding to the people, and they await.

I can recall a Tory cousin of theirs, Brian Mulroney, who in his time ignored the people. No one would believe that the largest majority in this country could be reduced to two members. That's what democracy is all about, and that's why I'm so confident that the people will not forget the way this government has continued to deny the people.

Let me say, though, that we are requesting full public hearings on Bill 31. We are requesting that these not be curtailed to short presentations, where people haven't got adequate time to express their concerns about the way things are done. Of course, there are businesses that would like to come in and do their jobs. Everyone here would like to make money, would like to make a profit. So would the workers. They would like to be adequately paid to work under good conditions.

The minister mentioned how mobile capital can be, that if they don't invest here, they can go elsewhere. What would stop them if they feel they can get cheaper labour at terrible conditions elsewhere? But again, we continue to speak from two sides of our mouths. One is to say we have the best standard of living in this world. The reason for that is because of good collective bargaining agreements, because of respect for democracy. But this Conservative Mike Harris government, the power he has - he can destroy that, because he's here forever.

When the time comes for representations before the committee, I appeal to this government, if you're talking about democracy, give them the time to speak and to make their presentations heard. If they want good legislation and a good Bill 31, that's the kind of bill we will support, when we see that the people have had their input and it is done in a democratic way. I look forward to those changes to come very shortly.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bernard Grandmaître): Questions and comments?

Mr Len Wood: I want to comment briefly on the speech of the member for Scarborough North. It's quite obvious, as he pointed out, that there is no support for Bill 31 from the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario. As the member for Algoma pointed out earlier, there's a letter from Brother Pat Dillon, and we're fortunate to have him here as a guest in the audience as a witness to this. Some of the things he has said in here - he's saying very clearly to the Minister of Labour: "You do not speak for us. You are misrepresenting our position in some of the comments you have made in the House on June 11. The building and trades oppose Bill 31 in its entirety," and they go on to say all the reasons why they oppose it.

It's quite obvious that the sections that are in there, the amendments to section 11 which will allow employers to fire, threaten and terrify workers who are voting against a union, the language they've put in there turns the clocks back 50 years. That's not what the people in the province of Ontario are looking for, to turn the clocks back 50 years to have labour peace in Ontario. Bill 31 is not going to do it. There is just too much opposition to it.

If you look at the signatures representing all the construction unions right across Ontario, opposition is there big-time. The consultation they had out there - when the Minister of Labour brought in the bill, it was something different altogether. It's not what they were being told was going to be carried in Bill 31. As a result, any support that was out there for public hearings and amendments that could be brought in to Bill 31 has disappeared because of the bully tactics of this government.

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): It certainly is a pleasure for me to make a couple of brief comments on Bill 31. I'd like to comment on some of the comments that the member for Scarborough North made. He said, "The government never gets the message." Let me tell the member for Scarborough North that this government does get the message. Consultations and meetings have been going on for well over a year between the unions and the corporations and labour representatives, construction representatives. I have personally met with some of the union membership and some of the construction associations, along with some of the corporations.

There is no doubt in a democratic society that whenever a government proposes a bill to change legislation, you're going to have some people who will be happy about it, and some people are not going to be very happy about it. On Monday I did discuss the issue with one of the local business agents, Local 663. They have been very vocal in the past, and I don't blame them for being vocal. However, they have to realize that their membership in the past five, six years has been experiencing a high level of unemployment. That is the reality of the economic situation in Sarnia-Lambton. I think this government saw fit to take an opportunity to try to resolve the situation. As the member for Prescott and Russell mentioned, there was definitely a tough economic situation in Sarnia-Lambton in the past number of years.

This government took the opportunity to negotiate between the corporations, the labour unions, the construction unions. Of course, at the end of the day, there's no doubt that some groups will be happy and some groups will not be happy, but we all have to realize that in a democratic society that's exactly the way the system works.

1640

Mr Cullen: I find it ironic that we hear the members opposite talk about a democratic process and they don't understand the amount of effort and blood and toil that went into developing one of the finest collective bargaining processes in the world here in Ontario; yet this government's going to step in and, instead of letting the free market dictate how the price of labour is going to be, how the costs of construction projects are going to be, they're going to dictate through this bill what's going to happen there in collective bargaining.

For a government that was elected to get out of the face of both industry and labour and the ordinary taxpayer, here is their heavy hand coming in. And what has it provoked? Well, here we have the letter that just came in June 16 to the Minister of Labour from the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario that says quite explicitly, "Withdraw Bill 31 in its entirety!"

Who has signed this? Indeed, it's the International Association of Bridge, Structural, and Ornamental Iron Workers and Rod Workers. It's the Bricklayers and Allied Craftsworkers. It's the International Union of Operating Engineers. It's the Pipe Trades, the Millwrights, the Elevator Constructors, the carpenters, the painters and allied trades. The list goes on and on and on, and they are vociferous in their condemnation.

Here's a government that says, "We've been consulting with the trades councils, with the labour unions," and using that as a smokescreen to come in and talk about improving competitiveness. But we already know from the member for Eglinton's own remarks earlier on that the issue of competitiveness is not before us today. We're doing very well, thank you, in the international marketplace for competitiveness.

The construction trades don't want this bill; they don't like this bill; they ask you to withdraw this bill. In terms of industrial democracy, do you not understand how this stuff came about? Initially, 40 years ago, we didn't have this kind of legislation. We learned that we needed it. This government is going backwards.

Mr Christopherson: I want to compliment the member for Scarborough North for, as always, focusing on the issues that matter. I was interested to listen to the member for Lambton respond that there had been consultations. They've slowly kind of modified all this, "We're working closely with people." We started out with the minister saying just yesterday, and I quote from Hansard, "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 listen to the building trades unions." Why don't you listen to them? There's the president of the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario right there. Here's his letter. What does he say about the consultation? Listen to this: "We met with your ministry for over one year in trust and in good faith. You have betrayed that trust and demonstrated bad faith." That's what they say.

Why don't you listen to your own minister, take your own advice, and listen to what the labour leaders are saying? Listen to what they're saying. You talk about wanting to help the construction industry. Look, without the tradespeople you don't have a construction industry. What do they say about what Bill 31 is going to do? Listen:

"By introducing a bill that is viciously anti-union, you have decided that there will not be stability in the construction industry. You have decided that Ontario will not be open for business."

Do you honestly think all of this is going to help the construction industry and help our communities when you've got every single trade union member up in arms over what you're doing? And at this point we don't even a commitment that they're going to hold public hearings. They're going to ram this sucker through, just like they have every other piece of anti-union legislation they brought in.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

The member for Scarborough North, two minutes.

Mr Curling: I want to thank the members for Cochrane North, Ottawa West and Hamilton Centre for their comments. The member for Lambton was rather amusing. He said, and I think he quoted me right, "You have not listened, or maybe you have listened but you haven't heard." Maybe that's the important part, because the one area he heard was the union that said they like it, not the other hundreds and hundreds of members who said: "We don't support this bill. We don't support, not only the bill but the approach in which you carry out this bill, the undemocratic way, the continuous bullying, the continuous way of denying people to make presentations." Then he said, "We have listened."

You have not listened, and the fact is if you could stand up today and commit yourself to a full public hearing on this, then I would say that somehow you have one of your ears cocked enough to realize that you have to respond.

Bill 31 is not going in the direction we talk about: democracy. It is typical of the way you've conducted business since you got elected: the bully, pushy approach; the way you close yourself down; the way you have made sure we cut debates to the minimum; the way you have made sure you get out of the House; the way you have not been here to be accountable to questions and answers; the manner of ultimate power; and the "We are untouchable."

Maybe you have been fooled by all the funds you are getting from the big corporations to fund your election and have said: "We don't need anything more. All we need is money." Let me tell you something. The people of this province are much more powerful than the money you will get in your coffers, because they can speak much more profoundly than the dollar you have in your budget to talk about running an election. I say to you, make sure we have public hearings on this.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Len Wood: It's unfortunate the rules have been changed in this place to limit the speakers to a very short period of time, especially on the bill we have here. If you talk to any of the working men and women out there, they are saying, "Why put such a name, 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, on something like that?" It looks so phoney.

We look back at Bill 7 that was brought in last year or the year before to allow the use of strikebreakers and scabs in the workplace, and now Bill 31 in its present form is not acceptable the way it is. Whether public hearings are going to bring forward enough amendments to make changes to it, at this point in time the government looks as if it's going to try to sidetrack the public hearings and ram this bill through before the end of June. Next week will be the last week of this sitting of the Legislature.

We have letters, as I mentioned earlier in comments, from Brother Pat Dillon, the business manager and secretary-treasurer of the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario, addressed to Mr Jim Flaherty, Minister of Labour, 400 University Avenue. I'm sure he must have copies. They're addressing the very serious concerns they have. They say, as it presently stands right now: "The building trades oppose Bill 31 in its entirety. We oppose" because of the amendments in there, "the amendments to section 11 which will allow employers to fire, threaten and terrify workers into voting against" a particular "union."

This goes back 50 years. I can recall, back in 1963 when I was working in the pulp and paper mill in Kapuskasing, there was a strike at Reesor. Because of the labour laws that were on the books at that point in time, it allowed union and non-union workers to come to blows. As a result, one group took out hunting rifles and decided this was how they were going to solve their labour dispute. As a result, we had three people dead and six injured and taken to hospital. Sure, the six recovered, but for the other ones, there's a monument between Kapuskasing and Hearst at Reesor Siding.

1650

This is the type of legislation that we're now seeing Mike Harris and his buddies bring in. They are going to roll back the clock 50 years. When you look at the reason they are doing it, it's only for the sake of trying to raise money from the large companies out there that are going to fill up their coffers so they can buy the election when election time rolls around.

They don't care a single bit about ordinary working men and women. They've rolled back the labour laws to the point where we're going to end up with Ontario being shut down. There's going to be nothing but turmoil in the construction industry right across Ontario, because before you bring in a piece of legislation of this kind, you should have consultation and try to come up with a consensus opinion on how the legislation is going to be worded.

We have one letter here from Pat Dillon to the Minister of Labour. We have another letter here from George Ward, business manager of the Ontario Sheet Metal Workers' and Roofers' Conference. He has pointed out a number of comments that the Minister of Labour and other Conservative members made in the Legislature on June 8. He has gone on to state the facts, what the minister is saying in here and what the facts actually are. He even quotes the member for Niagara Falls on a project in Sarnia. Then he goes on to say that these are the facts, that what he's said in the Legislature is not actually what is happening. At one point in time it looked like there could be a fair understanding over the project agreements, but because of all the other nasty, bully tactics they've included in this piece of legislation, support for Bill 31 in its entirety has gone.

I will be one of the people standing in my place demanding that this piece not be allowed to have third reading before the end of June, and that we have public hearings right across this province to get feedback from the ordinary working men and women in the construction industry and also from some of the employers, because I'm sure there are a lot of employers out there that do not want to have conflict, strikes and walk-outs, on a continuous basis because of what Mike Harris and his Minister of Labour are doing to all the collective agreements in the construction industry.

They've already attacked all workers, as far as Bill 7 is concerned - the anti-union bill that allows major changes to all of what's considered to be fairness in labour-management agreements. A lot of that was recognized by Bill Davis back in 1975 when amendments were made. Now we have a Premier who is rewriting history, and not for the betterment of the people in Ontario, but to turn back the clock to what he calls the good old days.

He's basically written off northern Ontario. The minute you get a Premier who comes from northern Ontario, who goes up to North Bay and stands there and turns his back to the rest of northern Ontario, that's what you get. Now he's attacking the whole construction industry in southern Ontario by making changes and amendments to the Labour Relations Act that are going to do nothing to turn the economy of Ontario around.

One of the comments here says that if the Minister of Labour wants to help out the construction industry in Ontario, he should resign. He should resign immediately and allow somebody else to step into his place, because after going out and consulting with the construction industry and telling them, "This is what we're going to do; are you people going to be happy with this?" then he did a complete 180-degree turn and brought in something that is the opposite to what the construction trades unions thought was going to be before them.

It doesn't make any sense in this day and age to allow union and non-union workers on to the same site and to do the same work, because the end result of that is that you drive wages down. A lot of people have a hard time making ends meet now with the wages that their getting, even if it might be $18, $19 or $20 an hour. There's no way we want to see people brought down to the bare minimum wage, which is around $7 an hour. This is what we know the Minister of Labour and Mike Harris would eventually like to see in Ontario, and we're not going to allow it.

We know that it's quite obvious the Conservative government cannot get re-elected to another term. They're walking on their last legs now. You see them all walking with their heads down, knowing they've only got another eight or nine months and then they'll be going back to their other jobs and it will be another NDP government in the province. This is what I'm sure the construction union workers out there, and even some of the companies, are going to be looking forward to, seeing that there have been too many major changes, a lot of them in the wrong direction, over the last three years.

Now we're heading into the fourth year of this government. It's time they start listening to people. They haven't listened to people up until now and it looks like they're not going to, but I hope the requests the construction industry and the union rank and file and the leadership are making for public hearings right across this province are heard.

I hope the Minister of Labour will pay attention to that and not take this into third reading without having two or three months of public hearings right across this province, because we have a flawed bill. It will not work the way it is. There is no consensus. There is no support for Bill 31 out there from the workers or from the labour movement. Probably even half of the companies are not in favour of it because they know Mike Harris is going to be banging on their door and saying, "Look at what I did for you, I need $1,000," or "I need $50,000 to run my campaign in the next election." Not all of them are going to want to come up with that kind of money.

This is the main reason a bill of this kind would be brought in, for no other reason than to try to get contributions into the Tory coffers so that they can buy the next election. So public hearings are important. If they're not being held, we're in trouble in this place in the province.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mr Maves: I just want to address one of the things the member opposite talked about. He quoted from some letters, some of the folks in building trades in the letters, and I have one here, "There is nothing in Bill 31 which the building trade unions support, including the provisions on project agreements." He also quoted from a letter -

Mr Cullen: What date is it?

Mr Maves: That's June 15, very recent. He also talked about a letter from Mr Dillon signed by members from the bricklayers and electrical workers and millwrights and so on. Here's the problem I have with those recent letters: July 18, 1997, Final Proposal to the Minister of Labour from the labour representatives of the industry committee. What did these same members who signed these letters here support at that point in time? "All provincial... agreements shall be amended to include the following provisions.

"Project agreements

"...Issues for consideration for a project agreement are standardized hours of work and no strike/no lockout provisions or any other provisions which the parties may agree to which apply equally across the board...."

They also said in the agreement, "The government of Ontario has clearly expressed its desire to attract new business to the province. This proposal addresses concerns of owner-clients in ensuring uninterrupted construction for the duration of the project. This process allows for increased flexibility so construction costs are not the limiting factor in determining Ontario's suitability as a jurisdiction to do business."

Who's it signed by? It's signed by George Ward. He signed the letter that the member for Hamilton Centre talked to from the sheet metal workers; it's from the millwrights, it's from the carpenters, it's from the boilermakers. The same people who in July supported project agreements here are now - and I understand, politics being politics, you may have to do this - today flip-flopping and saying they don't support project agreements. I rest my case.

1700

Mr Lalonde: I understand some of the concern brought to our attention by the member for Cochrane North.

If I look at some of the letters that we've received here, one dated June 16 and the other June 15, I can see that apparently the minister had met those people concerned. But I don't know if we have gone into detail in the discussion that we had, because according to this letter those people are very upset, and they represent quite a few union representatives. Also, the letter on the 15th is clear: "If passed, Bill 31 will cause chaos and instability in the construction industry."

I've said many times in this House that at the present time the government hasn't done much for the construction industry. Today they are coming in with this Bill 31, especially for one sector of the province, but what have they done? When the American embassy was under construction in Ottawa, the construction was done by a Quebec contractor and there was an evasion of $2.718 million in taxes, and the government hasn't done anything. Today, because it does affect an area which is represented by a member of the government, we're doing everything to protect the construction workers of that area. This is only one example. Axor Construction. How about Mirtech from Concord, Ontario? They were the successful bidder and won the contract but they couldn't do it. Right here in Ontario they couldn't do it because Quebec contractors were coming in and they were $183,000 lower than the Ontario contractors. But Ontario hasn't done anything.

Mr Wildman: I want to congratulate the member for Cochrane North on his presentation. I am a little bit confused, though, by some of the comments made by various members about the member for Cochrane North's remarks.

First, it doesn't appear to me that the member for Prescott and Russell really understands what's happening in terms of Lambton and Sarnia. He seems to think this bill will protect the workers, when the representatives of those workers in Lambton and Sarnia have themselves written letters saying that this bill will not do that. As a matter of fact, Mr Dillon, who is here in the gallery, has written a letter dated June 16 to the minister in which he says, "The building trades oppose Bill 31 in its entirety.... Withdraw Bill 31 in its entirety!"

I have the other letter that the member for Niagara Falls, the parliamentary assistant, referred to from Mr Ward. He says:

"In the House on June 11, 1998, Mr Maves stated that project agreements are necessary because the Bayer project did not go ahead in Sarnia. The project has been used as the prime example in support of Bill 31 as it pertains to project agreements.

"In fact, the Bayer project did go ahead and was built in Sarnia at the full ICI rates and conditions. This is proof that the ICI collective agreements are competitive and that they do not act as a disincentive to investment in Ontario.

"You have repeatedly stated that Bill 31 requires that all project agreements are to be 100% union.

"In fact, nowhere does Bill 31 require this."

Then the member for Niagara Falls holds up the July 19, 1997, proposal from the building trades. This is the letter in which they're looking at your bill. There is confusion about this. There is confusion about their position. We need to have public hearings. Will the government agree to public hearings?

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I'm pleased to make some remarks on the comments made by the member for Cochrane North. I listened very carefully as he made his speech and I noted that there was a lot of doom and gloom, a lot of general remarks about the labour policy of our government and comments that quite frankly I thought were a little silly. To suggest the terrible labour situation that occurred in the vicinity of Hearst many years ago where people were shot and killed and to actually refer to that as though this legislation would somehow lead to that I thought was rather silly.

I think it would have been much more helpful if the member had commented on the specifics in the legislation. I think it would have been much more helpful if he had talked about democracy in the workplace and perhaps the most high-profile part of this legislation, section 11, where the trade unions no longer can be automatically certified; in fact, the act will allow that the board, instead of automatically certifying a union, will order another representation vote. This is a commonsense amendment. It's one that people in my riding will support.

The member for Cochrane North's suggestion that this legislation will somehow lead to the kind of violence that he has experienced earlier in his life is rather silly, and he did not comment on some of the issues that have been spoken to regarding the construction contracts. The Minister of Labour has acted in good faith in responding to the requests from the construction industry and from labour leaders in the construction industry. We have the documentation to prove that.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions or debate? The member for Hamilton Centre.

Mr Christopherson: Thank you, Speaker. I'll take the opportunity to comment on the remarks of my colleague from Cochrane North. The fact of the matter is he's right in everything he said. I was looking at the minister's statement the other day, because my colleague talks about what the minister had to say, and the minister brags, "These collective agreements mean the province-wide agreements have helped create a certain amount of stability in the construction market." Hey, you don't have to have a degree in business to know that stability is an attractive factor for investment.

What do the building trades say as a result of what you're doing and what you've done? "By introducing a bill that is viciously anti-union, you have decided that there will not be stability in the construction industry." Do you have any idea of what you are provoking by what you have done here? This is not rhetoric. It has taken a while for people to catch on to exactly what is going on, that's true, but I want to tell you, I know some top-notch legal firms and it took them right up until the day of second reading to do a proper analysis and commit themselves to their analysis of what this bill means and the implications.

The construction industry is extremely complex, and that's the first point we ought to start with, and when there is this kind of division - never mind the historical records in this case - between the employers, the government and the trades workers, you're setting up every one of our communities where construction is an important part of our economic and job creation climate for chaos. You're causing it, and then you won't even commit to having public hearings to try to clear it up. It looks like what you're prepared to do is accept the chaos and, trust me, there is chaos coming.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Galt: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The member for Hamilton Centre has already used up his two minutes.

Mr Wildman: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: The member for Cochrane North had a reply.

The Acting Speaker: A two-minute reply, the member for Cochrane North.

Mr Galt: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I believe, in the rotation, that the member for Hamilton Centre has already used the member for Cochrane North's two-minute time slot.

The Acting Speaker: That's not a point of order. The Liberals skipped a turn.

A two-minute reply, the member for Cochrane North.

Mr Len Wood: I want to thank the members for Niagara Falls, Prescott-Russell, Algoma, Muskoka-Georgian Bay and Hamilton Centre. The member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay is making a comment that we don't stick to the bill and we're causing fear and anxiety out there. We spend 40 or 50 years building up healthy, strong communities, and then, with Bill 7, Bill 15 and Bill 31, you see Mike Harris and the Minister of Labour tearing Ontario apart. It's an attack on the working families in this province, one after the other. It's anti-union all around. It's going to cause nothing but problems.

We don't even have a commitment. The Minister of Labour walks in here and he walks out. He doesn't even come in and make a commitment that we're going to have public hearings throughout July, August, September, October, November and maybe up until Christmas, until we can get enough people out there that are going to make a representation.

Bill 31, as it is written, will not work. The labour movement and the union leaders right across this province in the construction industry are saying that Bill 31, as is, must be withdrawn. They oppose it. It's nothing but an attack on the working men and women in this province.

1710

Once again, for the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay to support Mike Harris in his attack on working men and women in the construction industry in this province, along with Bill 7, which they supported before, which legalizes scabs and replacement workers in the workforce, destroys the Workers' Compensation Board and eliminates the health and safety board that was out there - it's just one after the other. It's three years of attack on the working men and women in this province.

If there are no public hearings held in July, August and September, you can rest assured that this government is gone for good. That's it. They'll never get elected again for another 40 years.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Galt: Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on Bill 31, the Economic Development and Workplace Democracy Act, 1998. First, it's important to recognize that all the provinces have labour relations statutes which really strengthen the bargaining position of the worker, promote improved and harmonious relationships between the employer and the employees and, third, facilitate settlement of industrial disputes by means of collective bargaining.

With time, there's no question that the system here in Ontario has become increasingly unwieldy, and this has been particularly true during the last term when the NDP formed the government. It has certainly become unfair to employees as well as to employers.

Last week when I was speaking on opposition day, I pointed out just how corrupt some of the system had become, particularly, as I referred, in the case of Highway 407 and how they went about that request for proposal, the tendering process. It ended up that some three unions cut a very nice, sweet, insider deal. It was probably, from what it appeared, in exchange for fund-raising support at their fund-raiser of some $200 a plate. They certainly didn't set their objectives very high.

The fact is that the only ones who really benefited from the NDP's labour laws were the biggest, most powerful unions and their union bosses. They even sought - and I was quite horrified at the thought - to unionize the family farm. I can't imagine a sadder, sicker situation than trying to unionize a family farm.

If the system indeed is to work, there must be a balance, and it must be maintained, and also a flexibility must be built in. That's really what Bill 31 is about: increasing flexibility of unions in certain contract negotiations and ensuring workplace democracy during certification.

I'd like to focus this afternoon on two key parts of Bill 31: workplace democracy and fairness to small business. Unions, collectively, generally consider it rather unjust that non-union members gain, as free riders, from the benefits of union activities without having to pay the expense. On the other side, some workers feel equally strongly that they don't want to be forced into having to join a union against their will or against their better judgement.

The situation we now have in Ontario is closed shops and union shops, and that has become the norm. Consequently, if you want to work, particularly for a unionized firm, you have no choice but to join the union, either immediately on starting employment or within a given, specific period of time. Compare that to an open shop where employees would be free to choose whether to join or not. Although the second one is certainly a fairer approach, these situations are indeed rare in Ontario. Why? Generally because of union hostility.

In a unionized company, employees are bound to pay dues whether they want to or not. To be truly fair, it seems certification should be granted only if unions first obtain a majority of support from the workers and workers have the opportunity to express their will through a secret ballot. In a free and democratic society, that's the only way it really should be.

Certainly, laws provide sanctions against the employer and against the union that uses intimidation targeted at employees when they're working towards a certification vote. Regardless, it almost approaches intimidation when there's this heated environment when they're making a public declaration of non-support either for the union or for the corporate management team.

In this case, if you should vote against certification you become the target of the other employees and the union, and if you vote for certification, similarly, you can become the target of the employer. It's something like the school yard bully. You're trapped even though there are laws there to protect you. It's a very ugly social situation indeed.

There's no question that intimidation is wrong in any form. This is easy to remedy. Why shouldn't it work in these votes? Why shouldn't they be private with a secret ballot? We don't ask people to declare their support for the NDP or any other party in provincial or federal elections, so why in this case should it be any different?

Bill 31, the Economic Development and Workplace Democracy Act, ensures union certification if there's a majority of employees who are in favour and when it is indeed by secret ballot. This certainly addresses a long-standing inequity which has been very objectionable in the past.

In the present, there are certain circumstances where unions may become certified to represent the employees without a vote or regardless of the outcome of a vote. Legislation should work both ways. There must be votes for certification and for decertification.

Looking at being fair to small business, in my riding of Northumberland small businesses are paying very high taxes to support publicly funded bodies like school boards and municipal governments yet cannot bid for contract work. Bill 31 amends the Labour Relations Act, first, exempting non-construction employers from construction provisions in the Labour Relations Act, and second, allowing non-unionized subcontractors to bid on work for municipalities and school boards that in the past was restricted to unionized contractors.

Non-unionized subcontractors are small business people in many communities, including Northumberland. Why should they be excluded from bidding on work, particularly public projects, projects that are funded by public money, by their money, the taxes they pay, as well? We must ensure there is a level playing field so that small business does have a fair chance to bid on a whole range of large and small projects.

There is no question of the importance of small business in the province. Small business is creating the vast majority of new jobs that we've seen come to this province in the last three years. I've spoken on this theme on many occasions. In recent years, small business has been creating some 85% of the new private sector jobs in Ontario.

Our government has been very supportive of job creation and we have improved this by helping small business through the reduction of the payroll tax burden; we've helped by accelerating the elimination of the employer health tax for the first $400,000 of payroll, and that will come into effect on July 1, 1998; we've dramatically reduced the bureaucracy and red tape in this province; we've reduced the personal provincial income tax by 30%, and that will be fully in place by July 1, 1998; and we're in the process of reducing the small business corporations tax from 9.5% to 4.75% over eight years. That is a 50% reduction. Eliminating this tax alone will create some 90,000 jobs in this province. These are the kinds of actions we're taking, actions that are foreign to the Liberals and NDP, but they are helping to restore competitiveness and business confidence in this province.

In conclusion, this bill will give small business the opportunity to compete and make investments in jobs in Ontario, which is so important. Everybody talks about job creation. We'll also be strengthening workplace democracy, sending a message to investors that fairness is paramount in the province of Ontario. I don't know how any member of either the official opposition or the third party could stand up and be opposed to the democratic process we're bringing in in this bill.

These, along with other measures incorporated in Bill 31, will ensure that the democratic process is respected and will also ensure greater stability in the Ontario labour market. For these reasons, I can enthusiastically support Bill 31, the Economic Development and Workplace Democracy Act of 1998.

1720

The Acting Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mr Cullen: I'm not surprised that the member for Northumberland would enthusiastically support another anti-union, anti-collective bargaining and, really, an anti-democratic bill.

We have laws in this province that forbid people from intimidating anyone going into the voter booth, yet here we have a piece of legislation that only addresses one half of the issue. There should be no intimidation in terms of anyone considering their options of whether or not to join a union. It's in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that there is freedom of association. Later on, I'm going to relate a personal experience from within the past dozen years or so where this law is important, is a real day-to-day event.

The member for Cochrane South talked about something that happened 50 years ago. I don't think the members opposite understand the origin of this legislation. It was indeed their party, their government, that brought in this legislation, not the NDP, not the Liberals. It was brought in because it made sense. Later on, I'll provide some context so the member for Northumberland can understand how important it is to protect our rights in society, to protect against abuse from those few who would seek to intimidate. Unfortunately, there are more than we imagine.

The member for Northumberland also talked about how horrible it is in this province to have union shops and closed shops and that people are forced to join unions etc. He needs to understand one of the basic principles of collective bargaining, the Rand formula, and how it is that when you join a workplace and you gain the benefits of what people have struggled for and negotiated for - and remember, over 97% of all labour negotiations in this province are settled peacefully at the table. We are a model of industrial policy in the world because of this. Please remember that.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Boy, these guys are just something else when it comes to speaking about labour laws. They're so anti-labour it just comes out every time they stand up in this House.

Mr Wildman: Even when they're trying to hide it.

Mr Bisson: Even when they're trying to hide it - exactly the point.

The member for Northumberland asked how the opposition party, and more specifically the third party, can oppose this democratic bill you're imposing on the province that you call the Economic Development and Workplace Democracy Act. It's because it has absolutely nothing to do with democracy.

What you're doing is giving employers the ability to prevent people within the construction trades and others from joining a union. That's what you're doing. Currently, under section 11 of the Ontario Labour Relations Act, if an employer poisons the workplace in trying to stop a union drive, that provision says to the board, "If the employer has done a whole bunch of work to intimidate workers from signing a card, you can grant the bargaining unit the ability to certify." That's where the situation has been poisoned. That's there for a reason. It's to stop the employer from intimidating and harassing workers who are trying to join a union of their own free, collective will. What's this government doing? It's taking that away.

The premise now, once this law is passed, is that employers will have carte blanche. They will be able to do absolutely anything they want when it comes to intimidating a worker, threatening a worker, doing whatever they want when it comes to preventing that worker from signing a union card. You call that democracy. I call that intimidation. It's as simple as that.

You ask, how can I not support this bill? Because it has absolutely nothing about protecting workers' rights, has nothing to do with democracy, has everything to do with trying to bully workers into submission yet again by this government.

Mr Baird: I listened with great interest to the speech by my colleague the member for Northumberland. He did an excellent job at laying out the facts and providing a good underpinning for why this legislation is so urgently required.

I did see in the gallery our good friend Pat Dillon from the building and construction trades council. I had a very enthusiastic reception the last time I visited one of their conventions. The members for Hamilton Centre and Windsor-Walkerville can tell you about the roar of interest throughout my entire remarks at that convention.

The member for Cochrane South got up and spoke. I was reading just the other day the Timmins Daily Press from June 9 and they had an editorial, "Ontario Open for Business."

Mr Wildman: Who owns that newspaper, Conrad Black?

Mr Baird: Yes, the home newspaper of my friend from Timmins.

"We applaud the decision of the Progressive Conservatives to balance the rights of businesses with those of labour to ensure the province will attract more business and more jobs." I agree with that.

We also look at the Sarnia Observer: "Labour Bill Good for This Area.... This bill also makes the union certification process more democratic." I'll tell you, those people in Sarnia owe a lot of thanks.

We see in the Toronto Sun on the 16th, "The bottom line is this: Estimates are Flaherty's legislation will save 42,500 jobs in the petrochemical industry alone."

When those jobs are saved, those workers will be able to thank the member for Lambton and the member for Sarnia for all of their hard work to save these jobs. They have been outspoken advocates on these issues, outspoken advocates for economic development for the hardworking people of Sarnia-Lambton, standing up for the workers. This bill will do more for the trade union movement. It will create more jobs, more union members, more democracy, more union dues for the unions.

Mr Gerretsen: You know, the sad part about all of this is that the government really believes that somehow we will be better off in Ontario if there has been another division created between management, business and labour. They like to give this spin that "We're going to create X number of jobs as a result of this bill being passed," but I think what's much more important is the aspect that if we really want business and labour to work together on these big projects, shouldn't there be at least some consensus about the bill?

The really sad part is this: The Minister of Labour stood in this House and he made it sound as if labour had bought into this bill. He stated, among other things: "Construction employers and trade unions have been discussing the development of such a framework for many months now and I've encouraged them repeatedly in those discussions. These discussions have helped shape the section of Bill 31 that deals with project agreements...." Would you not take from that that the unions have bought into this bill, that they somehow agree with the contents of this bill?

You can well imagine the surprise that all of us got today when in effect we got a letter from the provincial building and construction association, which represents some 20 unions in the matter, in which they say that they completely oppose Bill 31.

All I would ask the people of Ontario is, who do you believe? Do you believe the Minister of Labour when he says that everybody has bought into this bill or do you believe the construction unions when they say that they totally oppose this bill?

Why don't you get it right? Why don't you get people in this province working together again rather than dividing them the way you're doing?

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

Mr Galt: First, thanks to the member for Nepean for his very kind comments and his very thoughtful, intuitive comments about getting jobs and creating dues for the union and all of that.

It's interesting the member for Cochrane South talking about poisoning the workplace. I suggest to him that what's poisoning the workplace was the recent drywallers' strike when houses were trashed. That's when the workplace had been poisoned, and I suggest that you think about that kind of poisoning.

To the member for Ottawa West, saying we don't understand what the problem is, I suggest to you, that you don't understand what the problem is. If a union or any organization is worth its salt, people will join it. If it's worth its salt, they don't have to be forced to join a worthwhile organization.

To use the example of various licensed bodies such as the College of Physicians and Surgeons, the College of Nurses, the college of veterinarians, who have lobby groups to work on their behalf, do they force their members to join their association? No, they put forth a worthwhile program and the membership is very willing to join to have a lobby group represent them.

Why, in the workplace, do we have to have unions where you have to be forced into joining? Obviously, if you have to be forced into joining, there must be something wrong with the organization. If the organization is working properly, pressure would not be necessary whatsoever.

I did not understand where the member for Kingston and The Islands was coming from; it was a lot of gobbledegook. I'd like to respond, but it just isn't possible to respond to his comments.

But certainly the poisoning of the workplace is something I object to. Poisoning relates to the thing that happened with the drywallers.

1730

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Cullen: I'm pleased to join in this debate about Bill 31. Bill 31 is 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. In the typical Newspeak or Orwellian doubletalk of this government, it really is a bill to restrict collective bargaining in the construction trades area and as well to provide amendments that will alter the certification process under the collective bargaining rules we have here in Ontario.

Others have spoken very eloquently to the impact on the construction trades industry and how much the construction trade unions oppose this bill and have come out uniformly asking for its withdrawal. I'm going to speak to that part of the bill that seriously alters the balance of due process under certification, and this is an area where I have some very personal experience. As a matter of fact, it's one of the reasons I'm here in this House, because of something that happened to me 20 years ago that illustrates the necessity of this kind of legislation.

Section 8.1 of this new act has the government's amendments that seek to alter the process of certification. This has to do with the process by which the labour board orders an automatic certification when proof has been found to the satisfaction of the labour board that indeed the employer has engaged in intimidation. I just want people to understand what has prompted the government to bring in such a draconian change to a piece of legislation that has evolved over five or six decades, which today this government takes such an axe to. We heard the member for Cochrane South talk about some of the origins and the members opposite just laughed. They can't imagine the kind of life that was lived before this legislation was put into place.

Let's understand the context here. From 1992 to 1997 there were 4,547 applications for certification of bargaining agents, just over 4,500 applications. Do the members opposite understand how many automatic certifications were done out of that more than 4,500? Twenty-two. So here we have this legislation coming in to deal with 22 automatic certifications out of 4,500. And why does the labour board do this? Because it will have been given evidence - which would also have been contested, by the way - to show that there has been intimidation. As a matter of fact, before the labour board even gives its decision, it holds a hearing. Therefore, the employer will be there with its lawyers and the union will be there with its lawyers. Evidence will be given before a fair hearing and the labour board will have made a determination, yea or nay, whether indeed there has been intimidation.

I would say to the members opposite that whenever there is an organizing drive, we have these laws in place to protect the integrity of the process. Obviously, of the 4,547 application, some 4,522 went through the ordinary certification route where a majority of members voted clearly for their union, either voted or had the majority of cards signed, clearly indicating a majority. For this very small handful of 22, the labour board would have found evidence of intimidation.

Back in 1978, I was a savings supervisor for the Bank of Commerce. In those days the Canadian Labour Congress was engaged in a union organizing effort with bank employees. In my branch, I happened to be interested and I called because I wanted to know what was being offered. We were in a banking industry where over 70% of the employees were at low wages - a pink-collar ghetto. I was a male and I was actually earning more than someone who had been there for 20 years, but I thought that was unfair so I called.

Do you know what happens when you call a union and the bank finds out that you're simply talking to find out what your options are? They send in a SWAT team. They send in six people: lawyers, human relations officers. They come in, they close down the branch and they interview each and every teller who's there, each and every employee who's there. You're dealing with a small branch of maybe a dozen people, and they close it down and they bring in these people. They sit you down in this room and they want to know whom you've talked to, when you talked to them and why. If they find anyone who has spoken to a union, they fire that person right away. They fire that person, and it's up to that individual to then reclaim their rights under the law because it's clearly an unfair labour practice. That's what happens. People who work in the banking industry who are the tellers are very often single-support mothers or they're a needed second income for their families. This is called intimidation.

The Bank of Commerce, along with many other banks, was brought before the Canada Labour Relations Board and found guilty of carrying on unfair labour practices. One of the beneficiaries of all this was that the Bank of Commerce ended up paying for part of my university education, which gave me a far better background for employment, and here I am today. So we can thank the Bank of Commerce for their illegal activity, which, by the way, they had to apologize for. But I can tell you that they did this with other branches all throughout Toronto. They blacklisted people and they made sure the word got out: You even think of picking up a phone and doing something that's legal in this country, which is to talk to a union, and you're fired, you're gone, you're out of here.

This is precisely why the legislation, years and years ago, was amended, so that people could have free and complete choice, yet this government is going to take it away. This government is going to permit this kind of activity, and the members opposite say it can't happen today. For crying out loud, it happened 22 times in the past five years. That's enough to cause the labour board - and every time this issue comes up, the evidence is contested by the employers' lawyers and it goes through a fair and due process. But this government thinks, "Oh, it's too much."

Now, come on. Let's think about it. The majority of the time the rules are plain and clear. Even union intimidation is not allowed; the union cannot intimidate people to join their bargaining agent, and that, we all agree, is right. But if the union is not allowed to intimidate, why should this government then say, "But Mr Employer, you can"? Whether it's Wal-Mart, whether it's the Bank of Commerce, the Bank of Nova Scotia or the Bank of Montreal, all of whom have been found guilty before the Canada Labour Relations Board of unfair labour practice complaints for violating the rights of - come on, who are we talking about? The men and women, particularly the women, from low-paying jobs who seek to have a little bit of protection in terms of working conditions, a little better pension, a little better wage, a little bit of protection in the face of increasing automation technology - why should we forbid these people from a fair and clear opportunity to make up their minds?

Let the banks, let the other service industries, let the employers battle for the hearts and minds but not intimidate them by saying: "You think about it, you lose your job. You want to come after us? We've got lots of deep pockets to deal with lawyers. You're going to have to hire your own, or go to the union you signed a card for, and maybe they can protect you." I'm sorry; that's called intimidation, and that's wrong. That's a clear violation of people's civil liberties in this country, and this government countenances that. It countenances that by the amendments they're bringing through.

1740

I heard one of the members opposite say, "Every vote should be a majority vote." I agree. The legislation is set up that way. This exception that allows the labour board to put in an automatic certification is only to protect the integrity of the process so that any employer who thinks of it will back off: "Gee, if I start doing this illegal stuff, I'm going to lose my employees." It's there to force them to back off and deal with an honest, open, transparent process. But this government says, "Oh, no, we're going to take this away."

There is no justification for it. In the past five years, of over 4,500 certifications only 22 fell under this particular aspect, and you say it's too much? Come on. They were proven, clear cases fought before the Ontario Labour Relations Board, and the board in its wisdom, after hearing from the parties, looking at the evidence, said: "Employer, you went too far. You intimidated these people." Now you want to withdraw that.

There's a reason this legislation came into place. It was your government, 40 or 50 years ago, that brought it in place to protect the integrity of the workplace, and you want to take it away. Shame on you. Shame on you all.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mr Bisson: I would like to echo what the member said, a very important part of this debate that we have to keep in mind: that the government at one point in our history in the development of labour legislation recognized that employers just couldn't help themselves in many cases when it came to trying to prevent people from signing union cards. They were using all kinds of intimidating tactics, scaring people, threatening people, telling people that if they signed a card they'd lose their jobs, that they wouldn't get a promotion, that their nephew or their friend, whoever was looking for a job - especially in smaller communities, where it's basically the one large employer, the employer has all kinds of ability to threaten, coerce and do a lot of stuff to prevent people from signing a card.

So at one point in the development of labour legislation, the government, a Tory government - and I think that's important. It was not a Progressive Conservative government; it was a Tory government that eventually recognized and had a really hard time trying to swallow what some employers were doing out there, especially in the construction trades. They saw that those people working in the construction trades in those days did not by and large have the largest amount of education; in many cases they were people who were new to Canada, who did not know the laws, who were easily threatened because they were trying to survive in what was a very new land for them.

The government said, "We have to have certain laws that say if the company threatens and coerces and poisons the environment when there's a drive to organize, the labour board has the ability, if they think there's irreparable damage in terms of the poisoning of the situation, to grant automatic certification." It was done for a very good reason: to put balance into the system. It's ironic that it is a Conservative government that's deciding they want to throw it back to the wolves, as we might say, and give the employers the opportunity to coerce, intimidate and do whatever when it comes to certification.

Mr Maves: I want to thank the member for Ottawa West for his remarks. It's very interesting that every Liberal who has got up to speak to this bill has talked about the title. I'm wondering if they can't get by the front page.

But the member did go on to talk about automatic certification, and he talked about either union or employer intimidation to join or not join a union. He said there are remedies that the OLRB can exercise in those instances. That's true, and those remedies are still here. If there is any untoward activity, those remedies are still in place that the OLRB can enact, and then they can ask for another vote. The only remedy that's not there is the automatic certification remedy. It's the only one that's not remaining.

It reminds me of the 1990 provincial election, when the Peterson Liberals were on top of the polls going in. They got very desperate during the campaign, because they saw the NDP coming up fast. What happened? The Liberals decided to try to intimidate the voters. They tried to say: "Oh, you can't vote for them. Let's fearmonger. Let's tell them how the world will fall apart if they vote NDP."

What happened? Ontario voters had a remedy. That remedy was that they could exercise their vote, and they did. They didn't buy into the fearmongering and they voted for the NDP.

The same remedy still exists here. You can still vote if you want to have a union in your workplace.

Now, history bears out that this was probably the greatest mistake Ontario citizens ever collectively made, and maybe they should have listened to some of the things Mr Peterson told them. However, the point is that in cases like this, the OLRB has all kinds of remedies and ultimately anyone in a workplace situation like that will have the opportunity to exercise a vote whether or not they want to be represented by a union.

Mr Patten: I'm pleased to respond to the member for Ottawa West and his vivid explanation of what can happen, through his own personal experience, through intimidation on a membership drive.

I want to underline one thing: We're really talking about changing a system in which at least 99.5% of applications for certification were accepted. This comes through now, removes a deterrent for companies or employers to be bullies. Twenty-two cases out of 4,547. Is that the real reason? That's not the real reason. The real reason is to send a message, to loosen up things and change the environment, which it of course will do by relieving the labour board of its responsibilities heretofore.

The government side continues to say that this particular clause is universal across the country. There's only one other province that has this particular arrangement. I bet you it would be hard to guess which province it is? Let me think.

Interjection: Alberta.

Mr Patten: Oh, you're right, it's Alberta. How did we arrive at that conclusion? Because of course the Harris government is always looking to the Klein government for their simple solutions. What might work in Alberta doesn't necessarily work here. Look what's happening in Alberta to their health care system, to their education system and to a lot of services to people in that particular environment. They're now last in the whole country. That's what has happened to them, and that's exactly where we're heading too: last in terms of post-secondary education, going towards the base in other areas.

Mr Wildman: I want to congratulate the member for Ottawa West in describing the problems involved in certification drives among workers, particularly vulnerable workers.

I would like to respond also to the comment from the member for Niagara Falls, who ignored a very important point. Basically, he just said that under the proposed changes to section 11 the labour relations board will be able to order another vote, and then the members of the workplace, the people working in the workplace, will be able to exercise their right to vote, and if the majority wants to join a union, then that's it, there's no problem.

It's not that simple at all. There's one basic fact that the member for Niagara Falls is ignoring: The workplace is not a place where there is complete equality. In fact, the supervisor, the manager, the boss or the owner has far more power than the individual workers or the workers collectively, because, simply, that individual, the boss, the supervisor, the manager, can decide to get the message out among the workers that if this place is unionized, if it's organized, if the members, by majority, vote to join a union, the operation could cease and they would all be out of work. The manager doesn't even have to do that directly.

That's why this was so important. In those few cases where the labour relations board, such as in the Wal-Mart case in Windsor, came to the conclusion that the employer, the owner, had poisoned the workplace, there could not be a fair democratic vote and therefore the board had to protect the workers from intimidation.

1750

The Acting Speaker: Response, the member for Ottawa West.

Mr Cullen: I'd like to thank the members for Cochrane South, Niagara Falls, Ottawa Centre and Algoma for their remarks.

I'm particularly puzzled by the remarks from the member for Niagara Falls who claimed that I hadn't read past the first page. I have to say that one of the things that happened when I went back to university was that I took courses in economics. I also took courses in labour relations. We had to walk our way through the Ontario Labour Relations Act. I don't think the member for Niagara Falls understands. If he looks at the explanatory note, he will see that section 11 of the Labour Relations Act is amended. Section 11 allows for applications for certification to be dismissed in certain circumstances, despite the result of a representation vote. Instead of those remedies, what the government is proposing is an amended section 11 which will allow the board to order another representation vote.

What he's not understanding is that right now the Ontario Labour Relations Board has the power to certify the creation of a new union local, even if the majority of employees vote against the union. But this is a special power and it's only used when the employer was in flagrant violation of the Labour Relations Act and created an atmosphere of intimidation that precluded a fair vote.

What he's taking out is the opportunity to ensure that there's a fair vote. That's what section 11 does. That's what his government amendments do. If the member for Niagara Falls doesn't understand that by now, he should read it again and ask the Ministry of Labour bureaucrats what the intent is here.

What we're talking about here is ensuring that there is indeed a level playing field. It's not as if we have a huge problem, but clearly out of the four thousand, five hundred and whatever it is number of applications in the past five years, there were 22 times the employer flagrantly violated the act. That's what we're trying to protect.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate.

Mr Bisson: The rule changes in this House dictate that the legislation before us get speedy passage. There won't be any committee hearings. We've got 10 minutes to debate what is a very complex piece of legislation, a piece of legislation that changes the way we organize workplaces in this province and turns the clock back 50 years on labour history. This government is going to pass this through lickety-split with the new rules.

Mr Wildman: You don't think they're going to have hearings?

Mr Bisson: Of course they're not going to have hearings. I think this government should, especially when we look at the following. This government is trying to pass this legislation through and it's trying to tell us it's because nobody's opposed to this. Everybody who is affected by this legislation, they all think this is good stuff, says the government. The parliamentary assistant and the minister, they say: "Nobody's opposed to this. Even the people covered by the legislation are really in support of this. This is really good stuff."

I've got a couple of letters here I want to put on the record because I think they kind of run counter - I can't say anything stronger than that. Actually, they run directly counter to the claims made by the minister and the parliamentary assistant.

I have here a letter dated June 16 addressed to the Minister of Labour, Jim Flaherty. It's from the Ontario Sheet Metal Workers' and Roofers' Conference employee bargaining agency, people who are going to be affected by this legislation.

To cut through the letter, because it's four pages and I don't have the time to go through it all, let's just pull a couple of things out here. It says here:

"In a statement reported in the June 4, 1998, Toronto Star, you state that section 11 of the Labour Relations Act is an anomaly in Canada.

"In fact, every province in Canada except for Alberta provides for automatic certification without a vote."

The second point, "In the House on June 11, 1998, you stated that presently if one union went on a province-wide strike, `the result is everyone drops their tools, work stops, the project...dies.'"

In fact, that's not the case.

I can go through this letter but I don't have the time. What they're basically saying from the building trades is that the minister's comments have been incorrect. First of all, they don't support this legislation, contrary to what the minister said earlier. Secondly, there was a whole bunch of statements made by the minister that tend to be inaccurate as it comes to where this particular organization stands when it comes to the legislation.

I have here another letter from the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario, addressed again to the Minister of Labour, and it says the following - and I think it's a very telling thing. Remember, this is somebody who supposedly supports this legislation, according to the minister. The letter says: "You have been making statements that the provincial building trades unions support Bill 31 as it pertains to `project agreements.' You do not speak for us and you have misrepresented our position." It's signed by a number of people. It's signed by Patrick Dillon, who happens to be the business manager for that organization, and it's signed by a whole bunch of other people who represent the Ontario Sheet Metal Workers' and Roofers' Conference; Ontario Pipe Trades Council; International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Local 128; the Sprinklerfitters Local; Ontario provincial council of carpenters. It goes on and on. All these people are saying, "You're misrepresenting what we have taken as a position."

I think there's a lot of grey area when it comes to this legislation, and if there's ever a need to have hearings when it comes to a particular bill, this is probably one of those. Clearly, the government is at odds with what the record actually states. The government says: "There's no opposition when it comes to this legislation. The very unions that are affected by this legislation are in favour of it," when in fact we have all kinds of letters that say the government is misrepresenting the position of those unions. I'm sure, given the opportunity at the hearing level, after second reading, those people would have reams to say to the government when it comes to what their actual position is.

I would call on the government at the very least to provide for good public hearings so that people who have been misrepresented, according to the words of those letters, by the Minister of Labour when it comes to the positions their individual unions are taking can come and clarify the record and also tell the minister where they think this bill is failing.

I want to make clear what this bill is doing, because it is important to note. The member for Northumberland I thought was interesting. He was going on to talk about how this bill creates flexibility and how it allows a better environment for business to invest in Ontario. That's not what this bill does. This bill gives the hammer to the employer - real simple. Most employers know how to use a hammer. Wham. That's what they do with it when they get the opportunity.

One of the reasons we've had labour peace in this province for a lot of years is that we've had balanced labour legislation on the books when it came to certain aspects of collective bargaining and organizing. Employers knew when it came to organizing drives, they had to adhere to the rules that were in place. They didn't have the right to intimidate. They didn't have the right to coerce. Employers, for the most part, were pretty reluctant to do those activities because they knew that under the law, if they did that, things could go against them. So they tried to behave in a more civil fashion.

Unfortunately there are still employers out there in the construction trades, and others, who think they can go on and do what they want and not be concerned about the law. That's why that law is in place. It basically says that if you're in an organizing drive and if the employer is using tactics that intimidate and coerce people into not joining the union, and if you can prove to the labour board that if there's a vote or not a vote it's not going to be representative because people have been intimidated, the board has the ability to grant automatic certification, because there's no way you can get an accurate count when it comes to the vote when people are feeling intimidated.

Let's put this on the record: Has that been used a whole bunch of times by the board? Has the board willy-nilly gone out and automatically certified all of the province of Ontario? Not at all. I think it's been used a grand total of 14 times.

Mr Wildman: In five years.

Mr Bisson: In five years. So it tells me that the Ontario Labour Relations Board is pretty careful about how it uses that particular section of the act. They understand that they have to look at how the legislation is written and apply it fairly. They're saying that only in those extreme cases where employers are using tactics that would intimidate and coerce workers from joining a union should they apply that particular part of the legislation. Now this government is saying: "No we don't want that. We want to give the employer the hammer. Us Tories, we want to give the employer the hammer so they can go out and whack the employees beside the head and say: `Don't you vote for that union or else you're going to lose your job. Don't you vote for that union or else I'm going to close my plant. Don't you vote for this union or else I'm not ever going to be able to get a contract again.'" Total hooey.

You have to have balance when it comes to labour laws in Ontario and other jurisdictions, otherwise the system becomes totally out of kilter. We've managed to build a fairly good system of balances. It's not perfect. Certainly employers have the upper hand even with the most progressive labour legislation out there, but we've managed to put in place rules that give a certain amount of protection to workers and their ability to organize. This government wants to get rid of that and do it quite quick.

The other point I would make very quickly, because we're getting close to 6 of the clock, is that the member for Northumberland makes the point of how anti-union he was. I wonder if he took that position when he was a member of OPSEU for some 12 years. I wonder if he gave away all the benefits that he got from OPSEU because OPSEU happened to represent him, along with a whole bunch of other public servants who actually got half-decent wages and benefits, as a result of what? The ability of people to organize and, most importantly, the ability to negotiate a fair collective agreement. I wonder if he was against those things when he was collecting a paycheque within the civil service of Ontario.

Mr Speaker, being that it's almost 6 of the clock, I move that we adjourn the debate until the following day.

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

The House adjourned at 1800.

Evening meeting reported in volume B.

16 juin 1998