Journal des débats 1998-juin-18 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I move that, in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should amend legislation to permit all-terrain vehicles, ATVs, of three, four, five or more wheels, that are registered to a bona fide farmer, to be insured as a self-propelled vehicle of husbandry.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 95(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Stewart: Thank you for the opportunity of introducing my private member's resolution. I'm pleased to present this resolution on behalf of the agricultural industry and farm insurance brokers.

This resolution is about insurance as it pertains to all-terrain vehicles, known simply as ATVs, that are exclusively used for farm use, and I want to emphasize the words "exclusively used for farm use." But more important, it is about farm safety and liability. It's a very simple resolution but I believe a very important resolution.

In no way does this resolution change the registration procedure with regard to the Ministry of Transportation's fees that they collect on all-terrain vehicles, nor does it interfere with regular insurance procedures of ATVs that are used by many residents other than a bona fide farmer.

The resolution sets the process in place to allow a bona fide farmer to insure his vehicle as a vehicle of husbandry if used exclusively for farm use. The onus is on the farmer to decide himself, in consultation with his insurance broker, if the ATV will be for farm use only or for other uses, which may include off-farm services such as hunting, fishing or cottage use.

I'm asking you to support this resolution which will permit legislative amendments to permit all-terrain vehicles of three, four, five or more wheels that are registered to a bona fide farmer to be insured as a self-propelled vehicle of husbandry. If this is to happen, then the farmer will have the opportunity to insure his ATV at approximately 40% of the cost in comparison with it being classified as a motor vehicle, which it is now.

There are many types of ATVs being used on the farms in Ontario, but two such types, the John Deere Gator and the Transporter, manufactured by Polaris, seem to be part of the problem and indeed part of the controversy. A recent article by the insurance industry reads:

"It has been brought to our attention by a member that there is confusion in the marketplace over the proper method to insure a Gator. This is a self-propelled farm implement manufactured by John Deere." I want to emphasize the words "farm implement" in this statement. "Many brokers in companies are under the impression that this type of vehicle can be covered under a farm liability policy similar to a tractor. We have reviewed this issue and found that this type of farm implement" - again emphasizing "farm implement" - "falls under the definition of a motor vehicle."

I ask you, why? It is because the legislation does not allow a special-circumstance classification. These vehicles are being used continuously in current farm operations in Ontario, things like fertilizing fields, transportation of feed from one farm to another, fence-mending and, in many cases, as a compact tractor. Why then would it not be classified as a farm implement and insured as a farm implement to a bona fide farmer?

Let me clarify. A bona fide farmer is a farmer who is in business, registered under the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993, or Bill 42. This includes membership in the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and the Christian Farmers organizations.

Let me give you an example of insurance costs for farm implements in comparison with other implements used on the farm that have the same classification.

A compact farm tractor with a replacement value of $20,000 is insured as a farm implement at an approximate cost of $115, which would include fire, theft and liability for one year and is typically covered under a standard home/farm insurance policy.

By contrast, an ATV, at a cost of $8,000, also exclusively used as a farm implement and so recognized by the Ontario sales tax guide, must be insured as a licensed vehicle under the auto insurance act, or Bill 59. The cost to insure that ATV is between $300 and $1,000. Again, a vehicle that is exclusively used as a farm implement is triple the cost to insure.

It appears that the gatekeepers of the auto insurance act do not realize that ATVs are an integral part of today's farm operations, doing work where heavy tractors fail.

As mentioned before, the onus is on the farmer or the farm business to insure their ATV correctly, if it is reflective of an agri ATV. The farm business has the option, then, to insure the implement as they see fit.

Many farmers today are not insuring their farm-use ATV due to high insurance premiums, as I just indicated. If this is the situation, then the farm liability insurance is not in effect. This has a great impact on the farm business if the ATV, in the operation of that farm unit, injured a member of the family, staff or indeed the general public.

1010

If this resolution is to come into effect, then ATVs classed as a farm implement registered to a bona fide farmer would have to adhere to farm implement regulations, ie, carrying a red triangle, a slow-moving vehicle sign, and travelling on secondary roads under 40 kilometres per hour. As well, they would have to have a qualified person operating that ATV.

Also I would like to mention that for farmers who would have had their ATVs insured as a farm implement but who wish to operate them away from the farm, it is suggested that the insurance companies may create an interim short-term policy to allow farmers to take them on fishing trips, to the cottage or indeed to hunt camps, as many do. Again let me emphasize, the onus is on the farmer. The onus is on him to discuss and consult with the insurance company to make sure he has the right insurance on that farm implement.

This is a resolution that goes beyond the farm gate. Small family farms are diminishing. Large farms spread over large areas, some a number of miles away from each other, are indications of farming in the future. Equipment that supports the agri-industry of the future has also changed, and new ideas, new and advanced technologies have to be identified and supported.

I would like to thank publicly Mr Norm Blodgett of Darling Insurance, Peterborough, and Ken Kelly of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture for their help, input and counselling on this issue.

As I first indicated, this is a resolution that deals only with the agri-industry. It deals with options, it deals with public safety, and more importantly, it deals with liability. This resolution addresses an issue that is long overdue. It is a resolution that supports the agri-industry of this province and the farmer of the future. I ask for your support.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I am pleased to rise to speak to this resolution of the member for Peterborough this morning and would say at the outset, without any doubt, that we support this resolution and its intent.

Interjections.

Mr Crozier: It wasn't meant to please you; it's meant to please the farmers.

In any event, like any resolution, what might seem to be a very simple issue is difficult to deal with. We all know that farmers use these all-terrain vehicles the same as other farm implements, to perform a number of farm tasks. They use them to transport feed and fertilizer sometimes, in small spraying operations, to go out and mend fences, to generally more conveniently get around the farm.

Others use all-terrain vehicles for all means of recreation, as has been mentioned; hunting; they may use them at their cottages where they simply wouldn't be off the property. Some just use them for plain fun. I know of one person, for example, who has such a great relationship with her all-terrain vehicle that they have named it Big Red, this kind of thing. So they're used for all manner of uses.

The issue here seems to be one of liability, and as has been pointed out by the member for Peterborough, that really goes to the root of it. How is this vehicle used? How is this implement used? We can all understand that within reason a farm tractor is going to be used for that purpose, to do work on the farm. Occasionally we see them in rural fairs and parades where they draw floats and things like that, but generally speaking you see a tractor and you can be assured that it's going to be used as a farm implement.

The problem here is, as has been pointed out, that if the farmer insures the vehicle as a farm implement and assures the agent or the insurance company that it's going to be used only as a farm vehicle, and then for some reason, albeit it may be the only time, they use it for some other reason that's more recreational and something happens, then where are we? We then have a claimant who probably wants to satisfy a claim, perhaps a liability claim, and we have an insurance company that says, "Well, you assured us this was only going to be for farm use and now I see that in this instance it has been used for some other reason, therefore we're going to claim that we aren't liable," and you get into a real tough situation.

Somehow we must find, to take the intent of this resolution and if the government sees fit to bring legislation forward - of course, with a resolution of this Legislature in private members' business, we have no assurance whatsoever that the government will bring forth legislation - we have to somehow assure ourselves that in carrying out the intent of this resolution claimants somewhere down the line aren't found to have absolutely no coverage.

It even goes beyond these all-terrain vehicles where farmers are concerned about some of the regulation and some of the definition that they're under. We just met with the corn producers recently, and there is a new carrier safety rating system that the government is bringing in, one which on the surface we all agree with because of the safety aspect but which causes farm owners and farm operators a great deal of concern, because they have other vehicles that they use: trucks, for example.

We have trucks that are only used during tomato season in Essex county to bring tomatoes into the factory for processing. Are they going to be under the same regulation? We have farmers who use trucks, again, and it may only be for occasional farm use but probably wouldn't have any more than 2,000 or 3,000 kilometres a year on them at most.

So there are those kinds of issues, not only with an all-terrain vehicle which could be used as normal farm equipment, but we have other farm equipment considered to be vehicles at the present time that are going to fall under some stringent regulations the government is bringing in in the way of a carrier safety rating system, and we would ask in the same vein that the government look at those kinds of uses of vehicles.

We support the resolution. We understand what the member for Peterborough is trying to do and we understand the concern of the farming community, but if this were to come to some kind of legislation, we must be sure that they are only being used for farm use and that insurance agents explain to users that if they're insured under that specific category, they not be used for anything else or they're running the risk of having any kind of a claim denied, whether it be property damage or liability.

We want to make sure that if these vehicles fall under this category, and it's been suggested that sometimes they're used to move material from farm to farm or from field to field, the operator complies with all the safety regulations and has a slow-moving vehicle sign on the equipment as well, and to recognize that all ATVs shouldn't be covered, that no one should try to take what would be normally in everyone's view a sport ATV, and just for the sake of saving the premium, then use it for any other purpose.

The resolution is simple, it's straightforward, it's understandable, but it raises a lot of questions. I'm sure the member for Peterborough understands that, and if we are to go forward with any kind of legislation on this, we're going to have to look very carefully at the regulations this would fall under.

I think the most important thing, and it's a problem within the insurance industry in general, I think, is communicating with their customer, making sure that the person who purchases the insurance for the intended use understands what the limitations are.

1020

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I rise to support the resolution. I acknowledge that the farm community often uses all-terrain vehicles for small jobs, transferring things, whether it be fertilizer or feed or seed in small amounts, from farm buildings to the field or from one field to another, and in doing so may have to travel on public roads, and the question then arises about liability and insurance.

I would accept the view and I understand the member saying that qualified people would have to be operating the vehicle - I hope that would mean someone at least 14 years of age and over - and also the use of the triangle sign at the rear of the vehicle to ensure that other vehicles on the road will know that there's a slow-moving vehicle on the sideroad, or hopefully the sideroad. I wouldn't want to see these on highways.

Having said that, I want to raise two particular concerns. The first one is that we must ensure that in doing this we are not allowing those who use these vehicles recreationally to somehow get an exemption or to get out of having to have proper insurance coverage. There are a lot of people who use these vehicles for hunting or, if they're going out in the bush, for recreational travel on trails. These vehicles are used a lot in northern Ontario in these areas, and in most of rural Ontario, I'm sure, by people who are cottagers and people who are recreationists. We want to ensure that in passing this resolution, the regulation is done in such a way that we know these vehicles are being covered because of their use for farm operations, number one.

Number two, I want to raise a concern about some kinds of all-terrain vehicles. In my experience over the years I've come into contact with a lot of people who have had accidents with these vehicles. The four-wheelers, it appears to me as a layman, appear to be more stable than the three-wheelers. At a certain level of speed, if an operator of a three-wheeler needs to turn quickly, unexpectedly, it often tips. They are not as stable as the four-wheelers, it appears. I know of some very serious accidents that have occurred, one where an individual lost his leg because of the injuries he sustained because either a wild animal or a dog had run out in front of him when he was operating a three-wheeler. He was going at close to its top speed and he had to brake and turn the vehicle quickly. The vehicle overturned, his leg was crushed and he ended up losing his leg. It was very serious.

I would be tempted to argue that perhaps we should be passing a regulation under the Ontario Highway Traffic Act about the use of these three-wheelers in themselves for anything, because I don't think they are very stable and they can cause very serious injury in emergency situations that arise unexpectedly. I would hope, and this is just my personal opinion, that anyone using an all-terrain vehicle or purchasing an all-terrain vehicle would look very carefully at whether it's better to have a four-wheeler than a three-wheeler.

It reminds me a bit of these Sea-Doos or snow machines on water that are infesting our lakes across the province. These things -

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): - are fun.

Mr Wildman: They are fun. They're fast. You can go up to 60 kilometres an hour, I think, or more. But one of the problems with them is that at high speed, if another vessel traverses the path of this water-borne snow machine and they let off the throttle, they can't steer. They are very unsafe. If you're going at high speed and you let off the throttle you can't steer, you can't turn, so even if you try to turn you go straight ahead. In the brochures, the warning is there. Bombardier and other manufacturers warn purchasers of these vehicles that at high speed, if you let off the throttle, you cannot turn them. I know this is a sidebar to what we're discussing this morning, but I think we really must be very careful about these kinds of vehicles that are used for recreation largely and ensure that they are safe and that they are operated in a responsible manner.

Having said that I am concerned about the safety of three-wheelers as opposed to four-wheel all-terrain vehicles, I support the proposed regulation change to ensure that farmers can operate these vehicles in the normal practices of their farm activities of transporting from one place to another small amounts of fertilizer, feed or seed or other materials, whether they be insecticides, herbicides or whatever, and that we ensure they are indeed used, first, for farm purposes, that they are responsibly operated by responsible people and that they have the triangle warning on the back of slow-moving vehicles and in this way support our farm community.

I add the sidebar that I hope the Ministry of Transportation would ensure that all these kinds of vehicles, when they are used for recreation, are indeed safe.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Durham East.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): Mr Speaker, I seek permission to share to my time with the member for Northumberland as well as the member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings.

The Acting Speaker: You have it automatically.

Mr O'Toole: First, I want to thank MPP Stewart from Peterborough for bringing forth a very practical resolution to assist the farming community and clarify the use of ATVs.

Second, I want to take the time to thank Dr Ross Stephenson, who is a professor as well as a former cabinet minister, an MPP as well as an MP, for assisting me in research on this very important resolution this morning. His consultations were with the farm community itself, the Durham Region Federation of Agriculture, Karen and Dennis Yellowlees.

The response from those consulted has been supportive of Mr Stewart's resolution. I would be remiss not to mention other important farm practitioners. These people are familiar with the use of the ATVs: Kirk Kemp, a well-recognized apple producer in my riding. David Frew was consulted, as well as Joe Christl and Jim Rickard. Harvey Graham, former president of the Ontario Cattlemen's Association, was also consulted.

ATVs have become an integral part of the equipment of husbandry on most of the large farms in Ontario. Many of my farming constituents have remarked to me about their value in a farming operation. The proliferation of ATVs in the farming community is a direct result of their usefulness and flexibility in a wide range of farming enterprises. The ATV can access difficult areas and can pass through emerging crops up to seven centimetres in height with little or no damage to the crop. Compacting the soil is minimal with an ATV, especially when compared to large four-wheel tractors or pickups.

ATVs are particularly useful for farmers with large cropping enterprises. Farmers are advised to take soil samples and establish existing soil fertility levels and to determine any additional requirements for fertilizer or manure. To walk over several hundred acres of crop land is a very time-consuming job and too frequently proper soil analyses were not determined because of the time and effort required. With an ATV, the job is done with ease, and there is the time consideration, as well as no damage to existing crops. Also, ATVs have convenience carrier racks to provide ease of transportation of heavy soil samples, for instance, as well as fertilizers.

1030

An additional farm use of ATVs is for herbicide application. In crops where weed growth exceeds crop growth weight in the spring, a differential in height between the weeds and the crop is created as height differential allows the farmer to wipe out the tall weeds with a saturated wick. Thus there is minimal herbicide released to the environment. Because of the soft, low-inflation tires, there is essentially no damage to the crop. This form of weed control is used most commonly for milkweed control in soybeans and white beans. In my riding of Durham East, these are important cash crops. Note that soybeans are the most widely used cash crop in Ontario, recently passing the acreage of corn.

Superior crop management requires infield observation of the germinating and growing period. Specifically, farmers look for proper emergence of the crop, adequate weed control, disease infestation and insect problems. If difficulties are recognized early, in many cases, corrective action can be taken. Farmers with large acreages too frequently use a drive-by method of observation from the roadside or the laneway. ATVs allow for convenient, quick, intrusive inspection of fields throughout the spring, regardless of the crop.

In large pick-your-own operations - we're all familiar with these; Watson's in my area is well known throughout the area; there are a number of them - ATVs are useful for supervising client pickup as well as transporting baskets of fruit down the narrow pathways to the checkout. The flexibility of ATVs for this application far exceeds the use of conventional tractors, cars or trucks.

For large livestock operators - I mentioned before - like Harvey Graham and Trevor Nesbitt, ATVs have become almost a necessity of doing business. On a large ranch the ATV has replaced the horse for checking cattle as well as fences. Predators are becoming a concern among many livestock producers as the value of animals has greatly increased. ATVs provide the fastest and most thorough coverage of any means of transportation modes used.

Possibly the widest application for ATVs is on the livestock operation for pasture reclamation. Farmers commonly pasture their roughest or wettest lands, which many times can only be harvested through grazing by animals. Hence pasturing obviously is a very practical application for the ATV.

In summary, ATVs have acquired a lasting presence in farm operations as useful, flexible, convenient and modest cost vehicles of husbandry. Their usefulness far exceeds their role as a recreational vehicle on the farm. For those reasons, I support the resolution brought forward by my colleague from Peterborough, Mr Stewart.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'm pleased to join the discussion on the resolution and to say, as my colleagues said, that we're very supportive of it. My background: In the private sector I spent 25 years working mainly in the food business with producers, processors and retailers, and learned that it's an industry that is rapidly changing, that embraces change readily, that has been able to adapt technology and modern environmental pesticides and has really kept itself world-wide competitive by changing quickly.

What we've got before us is another move to help the industry continue to adapt and change and keep up with technology. I was pleased the member for Peterborough spelled out for us some of the protections that are in his resolution. Without doubt, our agricommunity makes widespread use of these vehicles now. They are an integral part of their operations. We have to make sure, as government, that we remove the unfair impediment to the use of these vehicles.

The member for Peterborough spelled out also some of the protections that are in here that I think are important in terms of ensuring that our agricommunity get the proper insurance on these things and, if they are used in a recreational sense, that they're properly insured and, if they're used on roads, that they're properly marked and things like that. It's a small, but important step forward.

It raises a broader issue, and that is, how do we, as government, ensure that we are moving as fast as our industries are moving to allow them to remain competitive? We have to have a resolution here and will spend an hour debating it. It may require legislation. I'm sure to many in our agricommunity it seems that rather than government being contemporary and modern, we're the ones that are slowing things down. This illustrates it. ATVs have been widely used in the agricommunity for some time and yet we've got in the road of them because we have on our books legislation that makes it difficult to get proper and fair and farm-related insurance.

It raises for all of us, as legislators, how do we change the way that we govern and the way that we operate that will keep up with the rest of the world, which is moving very quickly?

I have some suggestions, something the NDP did in their final year: They introduced a process of bringing forward annually an omnibus bill that encompassed changes to all sorts of legislation. The bill probably had changes to 500 pieces of legislation.

Mr Wildman: But they always have to be non-controversial.

Mr Phillips: What the member for Algoma said is true. They said to us, in opposition, "Listen, if you've got problems with any of these, we'll withdraw them." We did express concern on two or three areas, or four or five areas, and they were withdrawn from the bill. The bill then was introduced as legislation and passed.

Interjection.

Mr Phillips: I will say, because Mr O'Toole has provoked me a little bit, that the omnibus bill was a good idea, but it was abused in the first months of the Harris government when an omnibus bill called Bill 26 was brought in and was tried to be rammed through within days of being introduced. It had nothing to do with an omnibus bill that was designed to update legislation; it was all about ramming through dramatic changes under the guise of an omnibus bill. What was a good idea, an omnibus bill designed to update legislation in a non-controversial, all-party-agreement way, was abused by Mike Harris in the very first few weeks of his government. It became known as the bully bill. That was an abuse of a good idea.

The member for Peterborough has brought forward a good idea. It is very helpful to our agricommunity. But it's probably one of 50 ideas that we should be bringing forward. We probably still have impediments to new technology, biotechnology, all sorts of things that our agricommunity have to and want to and will embrace. There's a suggestion, that a thing like this should be brought forward annually in an omnibus bill where we can deal with 500 items that would help, not just our agricommunity but all of Ontario, but it has to be done in a way that is fair to the community and fair to the process.

I was very supportive of what the NDP brought in, in their final year. It was a huge bill. It was given to us with ample time to consult. There were three or four things in there where we said, "We don't think this should be in the omnibus bill." They were taken out and we passed that bill. I bring that forward because the public look to us to move our institutions on into the 21st century in a modern, contemporary way. This illustrates that today.

The resolution, this motion on ATVs is worthy of support, but it could be encompassed in a more all-encompassing bill, and maybe the government will choose to bring it forward in that manner, where we can assure the public that we're as modern as the world outside these four walls. We'll be supporting the resolution. I appreciate the resolution coming forward, and my suggestion is ways that we can encompass good ideas like this in a broader fashion.

1040

Mr Bisson: I rise in support of this motion brought forward by the member for Peterborough. We understand what the member is trying to do here. The member is trying to make life for those who operate farms a little bit easier.

I know in our community of Cochrane South we have a number of farm operations, from the Black River and Matheson area, in and around Val Gagne and Timmins, and often you don't need to be pulling a full rig out of the barn in order to bring a sack of seeds or a pump that needs to be changed or a part for a piece of equipment that's broken down into the field. They need to use something that's a little bit more economical and a lot easier to start up and take out into the field. That's what the member here is trying to do. He's trying to say that you can use an ATV for the sole purpose of being able to do those small odd jobs that need to be done on the farm rather than using a large piece of equipment. There are all kinds of good reasons for that and I support what the member is trying to do.

I want to say up front that I am supporting it, but I do have a few concerns. Growing up in the city of Timmins, a lot of my friends came from the farm community. As youngsters of 14 or 15 years old, we used to like taking off on our motorbikes - they didn't have ATVs back then - and going for a ride in the bush or whatever. Given some of my friends, the ability to take their -

Interjection.

Mr Bisson: No, not at that age. I won't repeat what the member just said.

The opportunity to take out an ATV or a motorbike at 14 or 15 years old, thinking, "Because I live on a farm I can go anywhere I want," is a bit of a temptation for a young man or a young woman, to take such a motorized vehicle out on to the roadway, maybe without having full control or trying to do something that they shouldn't be doing.

My plea would be this: I don't want to create some kind of regulation that's so complex it's difficult and impossible to put in place, but I'm wondering if the Ministry of Transportation would look at some sort of permit system that says: "I'm a farmer. Here's the geographical area of my farm. I have to cross Highway 11 or car road number 3" - you remember car road number 3, Mr Wildman? You would have to have a permit that says, "This ATV can be operated for the purpose of the operation of the farm within a particular geographical area."

At least in that way you're taking away the temptation of some to take that vehicle and say, "I don't have to bother getting insurance; if I get caught I'll just say I was on my way to the next-door neighbour's farm to pick up something," or whatever it might be. It raises a whole bunch of other issues of liability.

We know there are increasingly more accidents with what we call ATVs today, especially three-wheelers. As my colleague from Algoma pointed out, there's an increasing number of accidents because these are very fast machines and can be very dangerous, not only for the person operating it but for somebody who might be walking along a country road or going out for a ride on a bike, in a car or whatever it might be. We want to take away the temptation of somebody taking that machine out and driving it for other than what it was intended to be used for in this particular motion that we have before us today.

I would ask that the Ministry of Transportation look at that to see if it's practical. It may not be. Maybe in the end it would just be too complicated to put in place, but we need to find some way to assure ourselves that this particular motion would make the regulatory changes under the highway transport act to specifically make sure that ATVs are used in this particular case for farm operations.

The other thing I want to speak to very quickly is the question of a qualified operator. Again, that's something we need to make sure is covered here. We don't want a situation where this vehicle is being used by somebody who is not able to handle it safely, for his or her own safety as well as for other people who might be around. We need to find some way to say either it's a person with a valid driver's licence or somebody who goes through a required training program or whatever, to assure ourselves that that person is utilizing that equipment in a safe way.

Let me just give you one of my experiences. I said earlier I like to ride dirt bikes quite a bit. I have a number of motorcycles and like to go in the bush with both my dirt bikes. I've gone out with a lot of friends who have ATVs and they tend to be a little bit braver with ATVs than I would ever be with a two-wheeled bike, because you have this false sense of security that this thing is a lot more stable than a two-wheeled motorcycle.

Often, when we want to get from point A to point B, we'll end up crossing some abandoned field that might be in our way to where we're going. You know what's in abandoned fields. There are all kinds of ruts, there are all kinds of hidden hazards under the tall, unkempt grass - hay, actually - in those fields.

I've had a number of my friends take some pretty major wipeouts with their ATVs because they have this sense of, "I just go flying across here, I don't have to worry, I've got four wheels, nothing will ever happen to me," and wham. They end up in a predicament where they go flying off the bike. Luckily, up till now, neither of those two fellows I was with have gotten hurt in a serious way.

I bring it back to the point of making sure that we have qualified operators on these pieces of equipment, because you wouldn't want somebody, especially because it'll be used primarily in the field, utilizing this equipment who is not trained to do so. They're dangerous pieces of equipment if not properly operated. I think for the safety of those people who are using them, those people we're intending to have this regulation applied to, we want to make sure that we make it safe. I would also urge the ministry to look at, if at all practical, some sort of a system that makes sure that those people who are utilizing the ATVs, the operators, are properly qualified.

The other issue I want to talk about is the issue of liability in the case of accidents. That comes back to the first point. You could be in a situation where you're going for a walk or a ride down a country road and all of a sudden you get hit by an ATV that happens to be driven by somebody who is not using it for it what it was intended. In other words, rather than going from field A to field B, the person says, "I'm 15, 16 years old. I want to go for a ride down to Harry's place," and is bombing down the road with the ATV and all of a sudden somebody gets run over. The issue of liability comes here because if that thing's uninsured, you know what's going to happen. Basically the person is out of luck when it comes to some sort of compensation or, in the event of death, benefits that have to be paid to the family.

That's why I want to ensure that we limit the use of these things on public roadways just for the purpose of getting from one field to the other and not for bombing down country roads to go visit your friends or neighbours. These things should be used for what they're intended. If you want to put them on a roadway, they should be licensed, driven by a licensed operator and insured, and for the regulation we have here, just to be able to cross from one field to another.

Mr Gary Fox (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): I certainly appreciate the opportunity to rise in the House to support this resolution from my fellow colleague, the member for Peterborough.

I'd like to explain some of the different ways these vehicles can be used on a farm. The reason I can do that is that I feel I'm probably the closest to being a true farmer here in the House, though there are other members here, like the Minister of Agriculture and the member for Simcoe East, who have had farming experiences. They're retired from it now. We do have a few hobby farmers here also.

The first thing that comes to mind is a farmer is using this machine for getting around to check the fences. Myself, being a cattle and sheep farmer, and I do have four pasture farms, that leaves me with miles of fences to repair. They're great for carrying tools, especially a chain saw. I've walked miles of fences with a roll of wire over my shoulder and a pair of pliers in my back pocket and carrying a chain saw. You've got to have this with you because you get windfalls all the time and you've got to check these fences.

Then we've got an apparatus rigged up on the back of them. That's for rolling out wire. A lot of us use electric fence now and then we have fences along woods and other areas where you have to use barbed wire. It's a handy tool for making sure that you can get this job done a lot easier.

1050

I was impressed with the comments of the member for Durham East. For a fellow who lives in the city of Bowmanville, he did an excellent job of explaining a lot of uses of this machine on the farm. One that he mentioned was for chemicals on the crops. One particular item that we use a lot is a wick-weeder. This is a wick, really; you can put it on the front of a four-wheeler and use it for spot spraying thistles in crops. But two of the most common ones which have been mentioned are milkweed and velvetleaf. These are common weeds in soybean. What happens is that these weeds grow faster than the soybeans, so therefore they get taller. When you go through with a wick-weeder, they will actually only rub on the velvetleaf and the milkweed, so therefore you can eliminate these two particular weeds without interfering with the crop itself. It's amazing: A gallon of spray will do 100 times more than if you are actually having to spray it on the crops. It certainly saves on the cost of chemicals and it's certainly a lot better for our environment.

Another thing that happens is that upshot corn can be a real problem, especially if you've had a late harvest the year before, and you have to eliminate that from a soybean crop.

A lot of people use them for spreading of grass seed and fertilizer. I know we do a lot of this ourselves because we grow winter wheat. Probably in March, somewhere in there, we like to get over these fields and put the grass seed on so that when the spring thaw comes, it will work into the ground and start to grow so that we'll have a hay crop the next year.

In some cases you have to use them for fertilizer. If you get an early breakup of frost and the fields are a bit soft, you don't want to be leaving tracks in the fields, so therefore it's nice to use this machine to do that, especially on your winter wheat and sometimes on meadows, because you like to put extra fertilizer on your meadows.

The great thing about these machines for this purpose is the fact that they're light. They don't pack the ground and they don't leave ruts in the fields. We like to keep our fields nice and smooth. The thing is, because the machine is light, when you do drive over a crop, it doesn't destroy the crop. They'll usually spring back up and continue to grow.

The other thing is that they're great for getting around to check the fields and check the crops and particularly the livestock, because you've got to keep track of them to see that they are all there and there's no sickness. You can soon scoot over the fields and do this.

Another thing that's important, especially where I'm also a sheep farmer, is that we use this machine a lot for yarding of sheep at night. We have to yard our sheep at night for predator control. We don't have to do a lot of this in our place because our sheep come to the yards at night, but when you turn them out first in the spring, you have to get them the first month or so to the barns at night before they get the idea and come on their own.

They're great for getting around to different barns. I know we have five different barns that we operate in the wintertime, and they're great for slipping around quick and easy to get to these different barns to do chores. You know, the big machines they've got now have even got electric dump boxes on them and they are great for handling feed.

The other thing that's important is the fact that they certainly save on the pickup truck by being able to get around in the fields and that a lot easier, and they're certainly cheaper to operate and to own. There's a significant difference in the cost comparison and the upkeep. The thing is, keep the pickup truck on the road and out of the fields and it'll last you a lot longer.

These machines should be classified as a self-propelled farm vehicle, the same as a tractor, for the uses that I have described.

I had a major fire in January 1989 and all the machinery was stored at this time, including the ATV. It was quite a coincidence, because the day before the fire I said to my boys, "Put that ATV inside," because it was sitting on the lawn in front of the house, and they did. I had no insurance, and with this resolution it could have been a claim for me instead of a total loss.

The thing I want to point out is that to a farmer this is considered as a piece of equipment, not a toy, and I fully support this resolution.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I appreciate having a couple of minutes to make a few comments on the resolution being brought forward by the member for Peterborough, a very thoughtful resolution to put in proper perspective the use of all-terrain vehicles on the farm, to recognize the importance of insurance and to get that into the proper category as we look at this as properly being classified as a self-propelled vehicle of husbandry.

We've had an excellent description from the member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings on how these are used, everything from spraying of crops to wicking to checking for pests to examining crops and livestock. They're used in all kinds of weather and seasons. They're very ideal as it relates to their size, very light, with large wheels for getting across wet land in the springtime and also not packing crops or packing the soil. But as you look at this vehicle sitting there and you look at a small tractor, yes, it's driven by all wheels, but there's not an awful lot of difference other than the name that we put on them in what you would use a small tractor for versus what you would use an all-terrain vehicle for.

Certainly this resolution is consistent with the legislation that's presently on the books. This particular resolution is supported by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and by the insurance industry. The recognition of an ATV or all-terrain vehicle as a self-propelled vehicle for husbandry means that for farmers the insurance liability changes considerably and for insurance it's automatically considered as other farm equipment. We're talking about here a bona fide farmer who owns an ATV for farm use and who is registered with the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act of 1993.

I compliment again the member for Peterborough for bringing forth this particular resolution and I, as a member of this party, can enthusiastically support it.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Peterborough, you have two minutes.

Mr Stewart: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'd like to thank the members - and it's going to take a minute or two - for Algoma, Cochrane South, Agincourt, Essex South, Durham East, Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings, and Northumberland for their support.

As I mentioned, this is a liability resolution, a safety resolution, but indeed it is an agricultural resolution that I believe is long overdue. I know there's concern that maybe it may give them an option not to insure these vehicles right. I think the farm community is very cognizant of the fact that they have to make sure they do have the right insurance on farm implements that they use. In this particular case, it does give them the option to decide whether it should be for farm use or whether it should be for recreational purposes or off the farm, ie, hunting, cottaging, whatever.

What we're trying to do here is make sure that, first of all, the vehicles are insured, which is not happening in some instances because of the great price for insurance in comparison to tractors or whatever. I think what we're trying to do is to make sure that there is insurance, that the farmers can afford it, and that the vehicle will be insured so that their farm liability will kick in if indeed there happens to be an accident or whatever.

Again, I appreciate the support of this House. I appreciate the support of the agricultural community, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and indeed the insurance companies, one of which is probably the largest farm insurer in this province. I appreciate their support, their consultation and their advice to get this resolution presented. I again appreciate the support of all sides of the House.

The Acting Speaker: The time for the first ballot item has expired.

1100

ZERO TOLERANCE FOR SUBSTANCE ABUSE ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR UNE TOLÉRANCE ZÉRO EN MATIÈRE D'ABUS DE SUBSTANCES

Mr Young moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 30, An Act to promote zero tolerance for substance abuse by children / Projet de loi 30, Loi encourageant une tolérance zéro concernant l'abus de substances par des enfants.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 95(c)(i), the member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre): A few weeks ago 14 high school students were arrested on drug trafficking charges. There was nothing particularly special about this school. It was not labelled by police as a school that had a particularly bad drug problem. Rather, it was a school practically like any other. That being the case, we have a very serious problem on our hands and it's time we faced the fact that the drug culture is an entrenched part of our youth culture of the 1990s.

The Addiction Research Foundation's most recent statistics show that drug and alcohol use among youth is at its highest level since 1980. Cannabis, cocaine, hallucinogen and alcohol use ebbed during the late 1980s and the 1990s, but it is steadily rising again. Fully 31.9% of grade 7 students - these are children 12 and 13 years old - and over 80% of grade 11 students, 16- and 17-year-olds, consumed alcohol in 1997; 42% of grade 11 students had smoked marijuana last year; over 13% of grade 11 students had tried LSD, a powerful hallucinogen.

I know through my involvement with Parent Watch, an organization in my riding that teaches parents how to recognize and deal with substance abuse, that these figures are not exaggerated. Today, drugs are far more potent than they were in the 1960s. There are new herbal drugs that are technically legal; young people take them and don't actually even know what's in them most of the time, and they can carry deadly side-effects. They're attractive because they're affordable and they're easy to get.

As I stated in this House a few weeks ago, coolers are growing in popularity among young drinkers. Products like Strawberry Shortcake, which is a pink milkshake look-alike, contain 12.9% alcohol. Daiquiri Slush is a frozen treat, like a Slushie or an Icicle that we used to have when we were kids; it comes in a wide-mouthed bottle and you put it in the freezer. It's got 6.9% alcohol. When my generation was young, if we wanted to experiment with alcohol, we had to put up with the horrible taste but now the marketers have got around that. They have fruity, sweet drinks, and the young people don't have to put up with taste; if they drink them cold, they don't even taste the alcohol.

While the popularity of drugs and alcohol are growing, so are the societal costs, including academic failure and family breakdown resulting from addiction and crime. We have health problems, and occasionally, through accident, death. Hardly a week goes by that we don't hear about a serious automobile accident, a drowning, an injury or a death involving drugs or alcohol and youth.

Our children gather for bush parties, where they drink and take drugs in neighbourhood parks and ravines. A pickup truck with 16 teens in the back flipped over on a road outside Ottawa a few weeks ago. It was actually a miracle that no one was killed. They were coming from a bush party.

Many schools put garbage bins outside schools as huge ashtrays, permitting cigarette use in our schools. We are sending our youth terribly mixed messages. Experts tell us tobacco is perhaps the most addictive drug available. Some youth become addicted to it on their first try, introducing them to an addictive lifestyle and condemning many of them to the expense and misery of ill health.

Tobacco kills 30,000 to 40,000 Canadians a year from cancer and other respiratory diseases, often a slow and agonizing death. The cost to our health care system, for which we all pay, is in the billions. I try to answer, how will we justify to our teens, when they become middle-aged adults in the future, that we stood aside and let them head down this path of self-destruction?

Tobacco use and drug use often go hand in hand. A drop of hash oil on an ordinary cigarette turns it into a powerful cannabis joint. As we drive by our high schools, we often witness drug use in the open via this method. You can drive by many of our high schools and see our teens having a last puff as they head into class; we think they're smoking tobacco, but in fact they're smoking a powerful cannabis joint. It makes it impossible for them to learn and it makes it impossible for them to function. A cigarette package is the best place to hide dope, so our school authorities need a truly effective ban on tobacco to keep drugs out of our schools.

The vast majority of marijuana smokers smoked tobacco first. In fact, it's the only place they could ever learn to inhale smoke.

I have made important changes to the bill since it was first introduced last session. I listened very closely to the debate from my colleagues in the other parties, which was approximately a year ago. I also took the input I received from teachers, principals and parents and used it to make this bill more effective. Gone are the fines and penalties for teachers and principals that some of my colleagues in the House couldn't support. Gone are the fines and penalties for students and their parents that some members couldn't support. This bill was never meant to be punitive. It was meant, and this new version is meant, to get our young people's attention and their parents' attention, to educate them, to help rehabilitate them, to prevent first-time or casual use of substances from becoming a lifestyle and a habit, and to bring our youth back from the edge.

Support for this legislation is critically important. We are witnessing a terrible trend towards increased substance abuse among our youth. For their sake, we must not delay in addressing it. Some say there is no sin but ignorance, but there is another: It is denial. I advocate no measure of tolerance for substance abuse by youth in Ontario. Let us face this problem and insist that our youth and their parents deal with it, while offering them counselling and help.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I'm pleased to rise to speak to the bill from the member for Halton Centre. When you look at the title of the legislation, on the surface it's motherhood and apple pie. But with this bill, as with many others, the devil is in the details. When you look at the specifics of the bill and what the bill is supposed to do and how it can be implemented, it is a disastrous piece of legislation.

What you are doing with this bill is that you're taking a serious problem and putting such an absolutely bizarre degree of dealing with it that it lacks credibility in terms of enforcement. If this bill were passed, it would be an absolute nightmare for schools to try to implement, particularly as it deals with cigarettes, lit or unlit. Schools are realistic. Schools understand that just because there are smoking bans and kids under the age of 19 can't purchase cigarettes, it doesn't mean kids are not going to smoke. Unfortunately, that's a reality and it's a problem. It's a problem that has to be dealt with through education, through dealing with kids at an early age through the school system, to explain to them the effects of cigarette smoking. You don't do it by taking this tough, law-and-order and muscle approach to try and deal with a problem of attitudes with kids.

1110

When you look at this bill, it amends the Education Act and the Tobacco Control Act. It makes principals and teachers be police officers, bouncers and enforcers. Look at how it's going to work. If a teacher, board employee or principal suspects that a student - no definition. It could be a kid in grade 2 or a kid in grade 12; it could be the kid in grade 2 who, as a joke, took the cigarette from mommy or daddy at home and put it in his pocket, or the kid in grade 12 who smokes. There's no distinction between the two. So you can take any of those situations and they would give principals and teachers the power to search a locker or to search a kid and use reasonable force to do so - again the term that came up in the bill last week, "reasonable force."

What is it with this Tory government and the use of reasonable force on kids? What is this obsession you have with using violence and force? I don't understand that. It is mind-boggling, why you would ask a teacher to use force in order to get into a locker to see if a kid has a cigarette in there. That is the role of police officers. Police officers are there to enforce the law and police officers have the authority to use force if necessary to do their work. It is not the role of teachers or principals and it is absurd that you would suggest that in this bill.

So you first of all use this force. Then if you find a cigarette, you get to the stage of excluding the student. So now, because the student has an unlit cigarette in his or her pocket, you're going to exclude the student from the classroom. This is great. That'll solve the problem. You're into exam time, you're into May, you're into June. A kid gets caught with a cigarette in his pocket and you're going to take him out of the class, exclude him. Then you're going to put him in a segregated program. You're going to set up programs for kids who have cigarettes in their pockets, for them to take whatever courses they were in to get kicked out of that class.

Think about how bizarre this is. Think about school boards that cannot even deal with carrying on with programs you now have as a result of your massive cuts, and now you're asking programs to set up segregated programs. You take a kid out of French immersion and you're going to set up a French immersion for that one kid because he has to be out of the classroom, according to this bill, and he's been excluded and now you have to have a program for him. Just think of the implementation.

Then you force mandatory addiction counselling. So you're out of your class. First of all they use force to get into your locker if they have to. Then they kick you out of your class and they put you into a special program that they're going to set up for you. God know who's going to fund it. Then you're going to force counselling. You're now going to have mandatory addiction counselling. How is that going to work? Who is going to do that? Are you going to hire addiction counsellors in the schools now? Or are you going to ask the guidance counsellors, who I'm sure are not experts on addiction, to carry on with their regular responsibilities and to counsel maybe 100 or 200 kids in a high school on addiction.

Then if they don't follow the criteria you set out, you go to the next step. You kick the kid out of the school completely. That solves the problem. Kick a 16-year-old kid out of school because he hasn't followed your addiction counselling program, because he had a cigarette in his pocket. Think how bizarre this is. What is that going to solve? How are we going to deal with the problem by doing that? It gets better.

Mr Young: The bill doesn't do that. Try reading it.

Mr Agostino: It gets better. The member for Halton Centre is heckling and out of control as usual. He's had his opportunity. If he would just listen quietly for a minute it would help.

Mr Young: Why don't you read the bill?

The Acting Speaker: The member for Halton Centre

Mr Agostino: Then there's the provision for calling the police. That's even better now. Now we're going to call the police. So we've kicked the kid out of class, we've put him in a special program, we've given counselling - he doesn't want it - and we've kicked him out of school. As that kicks in, we're now going to call the police.

Again think of this. We're talking about cigarettes. We're talking about a kid with an unlit cigarette in his or her pocket. You are now going to file a report with the police department because it breaks one of the Ontario laws that you're going to pass through this. A police officer is now going to investigate the case of the cigarette in the kid's pocket. Think about this: Police officers, police departments are stressed to the limit, police departments are absolutely overworked, police departments sometimes don't have the ability, from the point of view of staffing, to come to a break-in at your home and you have to file a report, or if your car gets broken into, because they don't have the manpower to do that, and now you're going to get them to be the cigarette police. So the principal has to file a report and turn over the evidence, I presume this wrapped cigarette in a plastic envelope with no fingerprints on it, and this evidence then gets turned over to the police, and God know what the police are supposed to do at that point.

That is what this bill is talking about. It is an extreme, Reform-minded approach. It is a law-and-order, lay-the-boots-to-the-kids approach. It is the tough-love vision that you have with every problem you deal with, that if you pound the kid into submission he's going to get better. That is not how we deal with it. There isn't an addiction counsellor or an expert in this field anywhere across this province who is going to tell you that technique works.

Principals that I've spoken to are upset about this bill; teachers are upset about this bill; the police officers I've spoken to laugh at the bill. It is not workable. It is not enforceable. It is an extreme, extreme, extreme reaction and it doesn't deal with the root of the problem. It doesn't help the kid.

To wrap up, clearly the use of violence, kicking the kid out of school, using the police, all that's going to do is aggravate and make a situation that can be dealt with into one that you're not going to deal with. I ask the member again in his remarks to explain to me how kicking a 16-year-old kid out of school because he has an unlit cigarette in his pocket and doesn't want to follow the Gestapo regime that you've set up is going to solve the problem. I do not think it will.

I hope the members of this House see the unreasonableness in this bill and vote against it.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I'm going to take half the time and allow another of our caucus members to speak to this.

In the time I've got, let me say up front I recognize that the member is honourable and is trying to address a problem in our communities, but that's as far as I'm willing to go. There is a problem in our community, where not only young people but older people, some people our age, have an addiction to various types of drugs, and the member's trying to speak to that, but I think his approach in trying to deal with it is way off base. If you take a look at this particular bill, it really is a question of the member grabbing a shovel to swat a fly. In my view, it goes way beyond the bounds of trying to deal with this problem.

Let's just go through the bill very quickly so people understand what the honourable member is trying to do. He is basically saying that any person under the age of 19 who is in possession of unlit tobacco on school property can be searched by a principal or a school board employee. If the school board employee or principal thinks that this child of 13, 15, 17, whatever, has unlit tobacco on their premises, the teacher or the principal or whoever can search that student. I'm not sure, as legislators, we want to give that kind of power to principals or any other school board employees, to search people because they believe they have unlit tobacco.

It goes on to say that in the event there is a search and there is unlit tobacco found on the young person under the age of 19, the principal then has to - it says in the legislation "must" - withdraw the student from his or her regular classes, withdraw the student from his or her regular school activities after classes and put them in an addiction program. Excuse me? An addiction program for someone who's carrying a pack of cigarettes I think is a bit beyond the bounds.

Then it says if the student is found to be in possession of tobacco on a second offence - get a load of this: Young Julie or young Charlie who walks into school, in grade 9 or 10, and for a second time there's reason to believe that this young person has tobacco, they're going to get searched by the principal or by a school board employee, and if they're found to be in possession of unlit tobacco a second time, the principal is going to expel the student and write a report to the police. Give me a break here.

I can just see this young person applying for a job after they're finished college or university. They make their first application and there's a little part at the bottom that says, "Do you have any kind of record with the police?" You can't lie. Most people are honest. They'd say, "Yes, I was caught with unlit tobacco in high school when I was 14 years old." Give me a break. This is a bit beyond the bounds.

The other thing it does is protect those people who are doing the searches, the board employees, the principal or whoever, from any civil liabilities. In other words, in the event of the search, if the principal or somebody happens to rough up the child in some way, they're protected from civil liabilities. Excuse me? The police don't even have that right, so why would we want to give that to a principal? It seems to me that teachers should stick to the business of teaching and principals should stick to the business of being team leaders within schools and not have the authority to become police within the schools or even have powers that are broader than what we give our own police. It goes way beyond the bounds.

1120

The other thing I want to mention quickly in the time I have is that this is the second such bill this member has brought before this House. He introduced a bill on June 12, I believe, of last year as a private member's bill. It got second reading. This is the important part: His bill, which was a stricter version of this one, got approval on second reading - there weren't a lot of members in the House that morning. Anyway, the bill passed at second reading. The point I want to make is this: His own government recognized, and after the bill had passed second reading, even it wasn't crazy enough to adopt the bill. They let the thing die on the order paper, as it should. If the bill passes second reading in the House this morning, I would be extremely surprised if the Mike Harris government, with the Minister of Education, Mr Johnson, allowed this bill to go past second reading.

We've already voted on this bill once, it's got its fair hearing, it's got its debate in the House, it passed second reading a year ago under a former version, and the government made the decision that I think any responsible government would have done and said, "We're not going to allow this bill to go beyond the point of debate."

If the member wants to come back into the House with a bill that speaks to how we deal with the effect of drugs on the youth of our communities, I along with all other members of this assembly - I don't care what their political stripes are - are more than prepared to deal with that. But to all of a sudden say that because a young person happens to have unlit tobacco in their pockets is a reason to believe they're carrying all kinds of drugs is really beyond the line.

I want to read out of the briefing note that was supplied with the bill that was sent by Mr Young. I thought, "Wow, this really tells you where this guy's coming from." It says, "As well, the police recently made me aware that when we see the teens out in front of high schools smoking cigarettes, we may be witnessing something else." Like all those young people who are out there smoking cigarettes off school property, because they're not allowed to smoke on school property, are all doing drugs. Maybe some are, but it's certainly not the majority.

I, as well as other members in this Legislature, am fairly well connected within my community. When I go to the Ontario high schools there, Timmins H and VS or O'Gorman or Roland Michener, and I see young people standing out there having a cigarette, I don't see a lot of them doing drugs and I know quite a few of them quite well.

Mr. Young: You can't see it.

Mr Bisson: He says you can't see it. Excuse me, all kids there with unlit tobacco who decide to go out for a smoke outside the school property are all out there taking these oils and putting them at the end of their cigarettes and getting stoned - give me a break. That's not -

Mr Young: You're naïve.

Mr Bisson: He says I'm naïve. I think you're naïve. The reality is that most kids in our society are responsible young individuals who are doing nothing different than we did when we were kids. For us as an older generation to come into this House all of a sudden and start implanting our new moral values really doesn't respect kids for who they are. There is a drug problem within the youth of our community. Nobody denies that. But to somehow say, as he does here in the briefing note, that every kid who's standing out in front of the school in Ontario who's smoking a cigarette is taking drugs goes way beyond the limit of what I think is reasonable.

I wish that people in the public would write to Mr Young for this briefing note and have an opportunity to read through it because the entire briefing note says where this member is coming from. He understands there's a problem, and for that I give him credit. But really he's going way beyond the bounds when it comes to how to deal with this, and believes the problem to be quite different than what it actually is.

I certainly will not be supporting this legislation and urge other members not to, because it really goes way beyond the limits of what we should be doing in this Legislature when it comes to dealing with this problem.

Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex): It's certainly a pleasure as well to add comment to the debate this morning regarding my colleague from Halton Centre's private member's bill. At the outset I want to congratulate him. The member continually demonstrates extreme diligence in pursuits and educational matters and is no stranger to the ministry. I think that's indicative, not only of his interest in representing his constituents but certainly his interest in bringing his perspective to the Minister of Education, to myself and to the ministry on behalf of the people of Halton Centre.

I congratulate him in that context and also congratulate him for his continuous work with the ministry in an effort to address concerns in areas of objection through the previous submission. I think he should be congratulated for finding some flexibility in that regard. He indicated in his opening comments the degree to which that has been achieved.

He should be congratulated as well in that he continues to seek opportunities to improve the learning environment of young people in this province, and in that context the member has attempted to craft his bill in a framework that is very supportive of and perhaps complementary to the government's objectives in terms of putting student needs first, and the protection and interests of teachers in this province, by supporting our front-line teachers and ensuring that their time is devoted to academic pursuits and not pursuits that detract from the classroom, and also about our objective in investing in the classroom itself and ensuring that our schools in this province are places of academic excellence.

The member for Halton Centre has undoubtedly -I think other members have addressed this as well - taken a very aggressive stance on issues. I don't see fault in anyone taking that point of view and being aggressive in terms of the issues that he feels are important to himself, and clearly, as he indicated this morning, issues that are important to parents, students and the education community in his area of responsibility.

I congratulate him on that front because he has come forward in a very contentious area, an area that some would not want to address. He's examining the issue of substance abuse - the possession of tobacco - and in part has attempted to highlight what he believes are the inconsistencies in laws that exist between the sale of tobacco product, possession and the location of use of tobacco product by students in this province.

Very clearly there's a focus here that's one of not only just being local in nature, as he's indicated, but one that meets a broader policy perspective and one that perhaps addresses the inconsistencies that exist today. As well, as we heard last week, the member from Halton Centre has attempted to address the area of exclusion, which has reference in the Education Act, but typically, from a practical perspective, the only area -

Interjection.

Mr Smith: I hear the member for Oriole carrying on, as he typically does. As a former trustee he will know that, practically speaking, school boards only recognize suspension and expulsion, as it applies to the Education Act. Now, there are areas in other school boards where that grey area has been addressed by individuals and individual school boards, but very clearly the member is attempting to bring some conclusion to that issue. I again congratulate him on his efforts as very clearly, collectively, we have to be satisfied that our existing prevention or anticipated prevention and intervention initiatives that we establish for our school communities, the goals we want to see achieved in those regards, are in fact being achieved.

Quite frankly, there is very much more we can do. I conclude by saying to the member for Halton Centre that his work is valuable in terms of the ministry's review of zero tolerance violence policies and initiatives that assist our students in the classroom and assist them in healthy lifestyles while in that education community.

Mr David Caplan (Oriole): It's a pleasure to join the debate today on Bill 30. There are a couple of points I will be making.

First of all, nobody in this House, and I don't think anybody in our society, is in favour of substance abuse or addiction. In fact, the member in his briefing note that he forwarded to everybody says he believes one of the problems in our society is that we're inclined towards addiction. It is strange that he and his government would support the Mike Harris gambling halls and the expansion of casino gambling in Ontario, which has a severe problem with addiction. There is inconsistency between what the member is saying and what the actions of his government are. I know that the member is earnest in his beliefs and I know that he will now be opposing the government on its gambling policies.

I will not be supporting this bill. I'll just say that at the outset, and in fact I'm going to talk in a number of areas.

The first and the greatest flaw with this bill comes down to funding. There is no money for alternative programs today. Bill 30 calls for alternative programs, guidance counsellors, all kinds of great stuff. I support all of those. But the government's cutting formula, the formula that the parliamentary assistant was talking about supporting schools and classrooms - I'm really pleased to have the opportunity to follow the gentleman from Middlesex. It's interesting that in elementary schools you get one guidance counsellor for 5,000 students. Can you tell me in any seriousness that one guidance counsellor for 5,000 students is going to achieve the aims and objectives of Bill 30? It's absolute nonsense that the member for Halton Centre or any other members would believe that if you cut the funding and don't provide the resources, you can actually mandate these things and have them happen in the schools.

1130

I'd like to give you a quote from Bryn Davies, principal at General Brock High School in Burlington, referring to Bill 30. He says: "That's absurd. We can't afford a separate classroom. Where's he" - Mr Young - "getting the staffing to do this? Guidance counsellors have many other responsibilities school wide and they are not generally assigned to the classroom."

Interesting. In fact, the government's funding formula, the cutting formula, is eliminating vice-principals in droves. Principals are being twinned between schools. So you don't even necessarily have a principal in the school; you have a principal supervising multiple schools.

The Minister of Education and Training advocated this, if you will believe it: that principals return to working in the classroom, in other words, become part-time principals. They'll have the full-time responsibilities of principals but they'll do some teaching as well to make up for the cuts to funding that this government has imposed on our classrooms in Ontario.

Again, the aims and objectives of the bill might be to control substance abuse, but when you don't have the people, if you don't have the proper resources, the proper time, the support of vice-principals in schools, the guidance counsellors who are required, the psychologists, the support staff, how are you actually going to be able to address any of the concerns in this bill?

I have a quote here from Sheila Flook, a trustee at the Halton District School Board. She says of Bill 30: "The bill has a flavour of dictatorship" - not surprising when you talk about this government. "I like the idea of strengthening school policy, but who is going to monitor the students? Will the board get extra funding?" I think the answer is, we all know, a resounding no. This government is more interested in taking away funding.

This legislation is a repetition of other pieces of legislation which exist: the Food and Drugs Act, the controlled drugs and substances act. In fact, this bill defines "substance" as follows: "a substance, whether or not a restricted drug within the meaning of the Food and Drugs Act...that has an effect on a person's physical or mental functioning if consumed or ingested in any way...." Interesting; a food or substance that's ingested in any way that has a physical or mental impairment on people. I assume the member is talking about a drug like caffeine, found in coffee or Coca-Cola. I assume the member is talking about cholesterol, which has a physical impairment.

Here you've got a kid, he has some lunch, drinks a Coca-Cola, has a hamburger and fries and is in contravention of Bill 30.

Mr Young: That's preposterous.

Mr Caplan: Yes, I know. This bill is preposterous, absolutely preposterous, and the member agrees with me.

Mr Young: You're a disgrace.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Halton Centre. Order. These words become a personal attack to the individual, and you shouldn't do that. You know that.

Mr Caplan: This bill removes the discretion of principals and teachers. In our schools now, principals have discretion whether or not to exclude or suspend students; absolutely they do. I'll quote the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Education, Mr Froese, who says:

"One of the most important roles of the decision-maker, whether it be a president of a company, a judge or a principal, is the ability to exercise discretion when needed. I believe the bill limits the principal from exercising that discretion.... A key function of a principal is the ability to exercise discretion and make appropriate decisions based on circumstances. Exceptional situations occur in many facets of life, and I believe our public policies must reflect that."

That was in regard to Bill 134, the one that was voted on in second reading, the precursor to Bill 30.

I think I've shown that this is an absolutely ridiculous bill, because of the funding cuts of this government, because of the removal of discretionary ability from principals and because of the definition of "substance." This bill deserves ridicule, not support, and I hope all members will vote against it.

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): I'm pleased to rise to speak to this bill this morning. I want to commend my colleague for having the courage to bring this important piece of legislation forward. John Stott, the noted ethicist, said, "There is a dearth of leadership in our society and a set of massive problems," and it's so true. I don't think there is a member of this Legislature who is not daily faced with the many problems that are faced by people in our constituencies.

I'm sure all of us, on a regular basis, have meetings with parents who are trying in some way to support, to meet the needs of their children, whether they have learning disabilities, whether they find themselves in difficulties with the law or whether there is substance abuse. There are many problems in our society today that parents are struggling to deal with. Those of us who have children know there is no problem so massive as the problem that is being faced by our children, because so often we feel powerless in being able to come alongside and provide the necessary assistance.

I believe what this bill does, in its intention and in its reality, is to provide authority for teachers, for principals, as well as parents, to promote an environment of cooperation between those who are in contact with children on a daily basis - and the reality is that many times it's principals, teachers and employees at the school who see more of our children than often parents do. That's a sad commentary, but that is also a reality in today's world. So if a teacher or a principal realizes that a child is in trouble or on the brink of disaster in their lives in terms of making wrong choices, does it not make sense that we, as a Legislature, provide them with the authority to bring that information forward, to bring it to the attention of the parents and, where necessary, in the event of substance abuse, to bring it to the attention of the police as well so these matters can be dealt with?

We just have to pick up the newspaper today, the front page of the Toronto Star, a new report by 77 United States universities, and I quote: "While 13% of grade 8 girls reported smoking in 1991, the report shows, that figures increased to 21% in 1996." It goes on to say this is "a faster increase than that for boys." And it goes on to say, "And nearly 17% of grade 8 girls used marijuana in 1996, compared with just over 5% in 1991." That's today's paper.

Constantly we read in the newspapers or we hear throughout our constituencies that this problem of substance abuse is continuing to grow. It's not on the decline. Contrary to what members opposite, in their debate on this, are suggesting to people, that this is not an important issue - as the member for Cochrane South, I believe, said, "This is killing a fly with a shovel" - I don't believe parents who have lost a child through substance abuse could agree that this is not an important issue.

It's been suggested that this bill goes too far. Is it going too far to give teachers, principals and the police the authority to deal with an issue that will threaten the lives of young people - and we're dealing here with young people in our schools - who are just learning how to make decisions, who are just learning about the reality of the world they will one day have the responsibility to live in and make choices in?

1140

The school is the place where they should be learning that there are limits, that there are responsibilities, that there are consequences to actions. Is it too far for us to go as a Legislature to provide that kind of authority, that kind of responsibility to the teachers and principals to whom we entrust our children? Is it too far to ensure that information about children and their potential problems and the wrong choices they are making is shared with parents? I don't think so. Better to bring the parents alongside early and alert them to the choices their children are making so that those parents who have, first, the parental responsibility, but, more important surely, the parental love for the child can be involved in the decisions that are being made.

Is it going too far to ensure that there are consequences for students who are making those wrong choices? Yes, there is the reality that perhaps they will be separated from their fellow students for a period of time during which they will have the opportunity to contemplate their choices, to contemplate the decisions they are making.

Is it going too far to ensure that through our school system there is in place the appropriate counselling for those students who have made wrong choices and who are experiencing substance abuse? I don't believe so. I don't believe it's going too far. I do believe it is taking the necessary leadership role that we in this Legislature have been given by those who have sent us here. I speak of parents and I speak of siblings and I speak of students, who also want an environment in their schools that is conducive to learning, to friendship, to enjoyment of each other.

I commend my colleague for bringing this bill forward. I will be supporting it. I believe my constituents would want me to support it. I encourage every member of this House to consider seriously what this bill will do for them, for the people in their constituency, for the children of this province.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Let me put on the record first that if I'm talking funny this morning, it's not through substance abuse. I just came from the dentist.

Mr Agostino: That's abuse.

Ms Churley: That's what I call abuse. We should do something about those dentists. Perhaps that could be the member's next villain. I know, Speaker, you went through this yourself a couple of days ago, even worse than I, so I will try my best here.

I will not be supporting this bill. I actually have to confess here that I inadvertently supported the bill that, thank God, died on the order paper. I believe I did support it on first or second reading. I didn't mean to. It's one of those mistakes. It was a mistake, frankly, because -

Mr Young: After five years of your government -

Ms Churley: No, I don't think it had anything to do with the five years in my government. If the member wanted, I could spend these whole six minutes talking about the things I'm proud of that we did as a government, and will be for the rest of my life. I think members from all parties, when they get into government, can and do do things that they are proud of, and to just say because it's New Democrats who once held power in this province and never did anything good is at best arrogant.

Going back to why I inadvertently supported the last bill, I frankly didn't read certain aspects of it and I supported the overall direction. There are certain aspects to it that afterwards - I wasn't in here for the debate. I came in and voted on it and found out after that I was not happy with certain aspects, and this was one of them. Although I'm very concerned about this issue, I don't think this is the right approach, for a variety of reasons. A couple of them have been mentioned by the member for Oriole.

Even if you were to put this measure in place, education has been cut. There are fewer counsellors in the schools. There are going to be fewer of them than there are now. Some of the municipalities that used to have the police budget taken care of by the province are now going to have to pick it up. It is just absurd to think that the police - and there are going to be school counsellors there who are going to be running into a school because the kid was caught with an unlit cigarette. It just isn't realistic.

It may be a public relations bill, because it isn't going to go through. The government isn't going to let it go through. This particular member speaks to a particular constituency, and he's doing that again in the case of this bill. That's okay. His concern for young people is something that I congratulate. We have different approaches to how we deal with some of these problems, but I do want to say that I share some of the same concerns.

I don't like to see young people smoking. I think it's a big problem that so many young people are smoking, the article that the member for York-Mackenzie read earlier about grade 8 students in the United States smoking and the fact that more and more girls are smoking, the fact that lung cancer in women, since women started to smoke as much as or more than men, is going up.

This is a really serious public health problem in not just our province, but indeed our country and across the world. More and more people are smoking. We know that the big cigarette companies, when they start losing a market share in one area, will start marketing to different areas, in developing countries and to kids in sort of underground, careful ways. We know that's happening, and it's a major, major public health problem and a huge expense of billions of dollars to our health care system. It's very sad to see, it seems to me, the age of smokers getting younger and younger every year.

I do think there are two issues being mixed up here, and that is the inference in this bill that if a child or a young person is caught with an unlit cigarette or if you see a bunch of kids smoking or with cigarettes in the school yard, something else is going on.

Certainly there is substance abuse in schools.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): - yes or no?

Ms Churley: I am not supporting the bill. I said that at the outset.

There are two issues here. You have children who do smoke marijuana. We know that. We have children who drink alcohol. Perhaps this is to some Tory members sacrilege to say, but I believe that alcohol in some cases, and studies show this, can be more harmful to people than marijuana. I'm not condoning one over the other, but I'm certainly saying that we see the abuse of alcohol which often leads to domestic violence.

I have a daughter, and I remember she went through a very hard time. A film was made, and she is very embarrassed about it now. I went through an incredible struggle with my daughter, who had a very difficult adolescence. You can imagine the agony and torment I went through over those years. I had the opportunity to witness a troubled teen and her peer group at the time, and what I saw in some cases was not pretty and was very worrisome.

I'm lucky. I feel that I did all the right things when my daughter was little and she had enough grounding and enough love there that when she went through that, she came out the other side perfectly. She is now an absolutely wonderful young woman who has gone back to school and is doing all kinds of things with her life.

I have sympathy for so many other parents out there, because when you're going through that with your child, your biggest fear is they're not going to come back, and sometimes it happens to kids. I believe, frankly, that goes right throughout society, from low- to middle- to high-income, and there is a whole variety, a gamut, of reasons why. Some parents are more equipped in some cases to deal with it than others.

So I am not supporting the bill because I don't believe this is the right approach and it's mixing up two issues. I don't think this is actually going to change anything. I believe these are serious problems that have to be addressed. I support the fact that the member, whose policies I generally don't support at all - we have very different approaches to how we deal with these things, but I do support the concept that there are problems with kids and substance abuse. I think that we do need, once this bill dies, to look at other ways to see as a government how we can deal with that.

1150

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): It's great to follow the member for Riverdale and her reflective remarks on the member for Halton Centre's bill. In my estimation, it's probably the best presentation of her own particular dilemmas in dealing with young people and the problems that we as legislators are facing, focusing on this particular problem.

I think the zero tolerance substance bill the member for Halton Centre has introduced today keys in on those concerns of parents who are extremely worried about what is happening to their children when they are attending school or are on their way to or from school. Unlike the dismissive, ridiculing attitude of the member for Oriole, whom I would probably classify as the perpetual classic denier, that there hardly is any problem in this area, there certainly is a problem.

One could question the methodologies, I suspect. That's why we need to have the bill go to committee, in my estimation, because it's dealing with the issue of authority, it's dealing with the issue of substance abuse, which does not include a definition of "caffeine." I don't know why some of these ridiculous comments get included in the discussion of these items.

In my estimation, this is a values bill. We are trained, as adults, as legislators, as members of society trying to gain some kind of handle to present some kind of alternatives -

Interjections.

Mr Hastings: If the member for Oriole would listen for once, maybe he might learn something.

For example, I know the member for Halton Centre and I tomorrow night - I'm involved in some modest fund-raising for the drug abuse resistance education program that Constable Stu Davidson, who is a community services officer, and the city of Toronto police for the last three years have been dealing with, with direct instructions, in our elementary schools, both Catholic and public, to create a preventive mode for our young people so that they will have a strong values foundation when they're dealing with substance abuse and with violence in their families and in their communities. It is taught directly by police officers and the teaching community is glad to welcome police officers like Stu Davidson into the schools because it reinforces values that are required today to help and guide our young people.

What we're hearing from across the way is basically that the principals and teachers do not want this particular responsibility, do not want anything to do with it. I suggest to those members that they go out and talk to members of the teaching community, to principals, and they will tell you, yes, they do have some concerns with how the authority may be applied, but they recognize that they need additional tools to deal with this very fundamental dilemma.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Halton Centre, you have two minutes.

Mr Young: Just to sum up, the member for Hamilton East obviously hasn't read the bill. He doesn't know what he's talking about. He's misrepresented it very badly. The bill does not kick anyone out of school.

Mr Caplan: On a point of order, Speaker: I believe the member claims that my colleague misrepresented. That is unparliamentary. I ask for that comment to be withdrawn.

Mr Young: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Could you turn the clock back so I can have my two minutes?

The Acting Speaker: Give him his two minutes.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. There is certain language in the House that we don't accept. The word that you mentioned is not acceptable and I would ask you to withdraw it.

Mr Young: Withdrawn, Mr Speaker.

The member for Hamilton East is mistaken about the bill. He talked about the bill kicking our youth out of school. The bill is designed to keep our youth in school, and I changed it from last year after debate in this House because I realized that some students who abuse substances actually want to get kicked out of school. This does the opposite.

The member for Cochrane South says the bill would create a police record. It's not true. There would never be a police record unless a criminal charge were laid and there was a conviction. I say to the member, don't be naïve about substance abuse. One of the members who lives in Ottawa and represents one of the areas around Ottawa just came across to me. He met with student leaders recently, 12 of them, and he asked them, "Have any of you witnessed any substance abuse?" All 12 of them said, "Yes, I have seen students smoking marijuana inside the schools."

Young people today say that substance abuse helps them fit in. They're getting mixed messages from parents and educators who on the one hand say that doing drugs is not cool, but they see their older, cooler peers doing drugs. They see it on television, they see it in movies and they know many of their favourite music groups are substance abusers. I hear that some film stars actually take huge sums of cash to smoke on screen to promote tobacco use.

I leave you with this thought. It is easier to nip substance abuse in the bud than it is to deal with it once it has become an addition.

I heard one 17-year-old recovering addict in Halton tell parents recently at a Parent Watch meeting that it almost killed her. She said that most parents underreact. They think their child would never become an addict.

Here I quote her: "Your future's dying. I see kids doing drugs and drinking every day and society says it's no big deal."

I leave you with one final question, my colleagues in the House: Is this the legacy that we want to leave our children?

The Acting Speaker: The time provided for private members' public business has expired.

ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLES

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will deal first with ballot item number 17, standing in the name of Mr Stewart.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

ZERO TOLERANCE FOR SUBSTANCE ABUSE ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR UNE TOLÉRANCE ZÉRO EN MATIÈRE D'ABUS DE SUBSTANCES

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will now deal with ballot item number 18, standing in the name of Mr Young.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

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

Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre): I request that the bill be referred to the standing committee on justice.

The Acting Speaker: Is it agreed? Agreed.

All matters pertaining to private members' business having been debated, I will now leave the chair and the House will resume at 1:30 of the clock this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1158 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EMERY SCHOOL COUNCIL

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I want to address my comments to the Minister of Education, the education system and the new funding formula. I especially want to readdress to the minister the concern which has been brought to his attention and to my attention by the Emery school council.

In February this year the parent council at Emery Collegiate asked to meet with the minister or someone from his staff, and they are still waiting to hear after three months. The answer they got after the first three months was that his schedule was totally full. They are frustrated because the minister and the Premier and a lot of the other ministers have been asked for consultation, to meet with the people in the various communities. Education has been taken very seriously by the parent-teacher council at Emery and in every other community. They feel frustrated that they cannot get a positive response from the minister to come and meet them in their community, to apprise the Premier and the minister of the concerns they have with the new funding formula, with the cuts to education, with cuts to the various programs.

I would ask the Premier and the minister to let me know and come into our community and hear from those people and not be treated like another special interest group. I hope, Minister, that you will meet with this particular council.

PHYSICIAN SHORTAGE

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): "If you lived in Kapuskasing, what would you do if you're a parent of a child needing an emergency operation when no anaesthetist is available and the air ambulance is already responding to another call?" So begins the letter that is addressed to both Premier Mike Harris and to Prime Minister Jean Chrétien.

Constituents in Cochrane North have organized a letter-writing campaign to draw our attention, as legislators, to the dire shortage of doctors. I want some of these letters delivered to the Premier personally today and urge the Premier to take some time to read these letters and respond. In particular, the Premier should pay attention to the common refrain in these letters, "Why should citizens in the north be treated differently from those in the southern part of the province?" Dr Robert Ng-A. Fook, who practises in Kapuskasing, stated, "There already exists a two-tiered system of medicine in Ontario - one for the south and one for the north." Indeed, why should these citizens from the north be treated differently?

The situation in my riding of Kapuskasing is absolutely critical and getting worse every day. In addition, the letters recognize the dedication and commitment of our five local doctors, who accomplish the workload of 14 doctors. Their efforts are indeed appreciated.

Finally, I want to take the opportunity to congratulate Mariette Guilotte, one of the key organizers of this letter-writing campaign, for her tireless effort in bringing this issue to the fore. You can rest assured that the thousands of letters that I've received over the last couple of weeks will be delivered to the Premier, and hopefully he'll share this with the Minister of Health and resolve this issue between Ontario and Ottawa.

FIESTA WEEK

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): This week the community of Oshawa will kick off its 37th annual cultural festival, known as Fiesta Week, with a parade of floats and marching bands, followed by awards and six days of international pavilion displays. As part of Oshawa's cultural heritage, Fiesta Week brings together the people of Oshawa for a week's celebration of our city's multicultural heritage.

Fiesta provides over 100,000 people with an opportunity to examine our community's diverse culinary, dancing and musical talents from a wide variety of multicultural backgrounds. During the third week of June, various cultural communities in Oshawa will operate pavilions which will feature the food, dance and entertainment of their particular culture.

This year's annual parade on Father's Day, with over 2,000 expected participants, will make its way around Lakeview Park in the south of Oshawa and complement the Oshawa Waterfront Festival occurring this weekend. New this year on Oshawa's beautiful waterfront is the waterfront festival. The festival will feature music, kids' events, fireworks and many other events. This festival will occur this Friday, adding to the week-long celebrations of Fiesta Week.

The numerous dedicated volunteers, along with the Oshawa Folk Arts Council, have worked diligently throughout the year to make Fiesta Week the success it has been each year, and I'm confident that 1998 will be no exception. I would personally like to congratulate all those volunteers for the thousands of hours they contribute in making the waterfront festival and Fiesta Week happen.

I'd like to invite all members of this House and all the people of Ontario to visit Oshawa and participate in one of Ontario's premier summer festivals.

CHILD PROSTITUTION

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): As the House knows, on May 28, Bill 18, my private member's bill entitled the Protection of Children involved in Prostitution Act, was debated at second reading and passed unanimously. It was referred to the standing committee on social development for discussion.

There is an enormous amount of concern all across Ontario with regard to this issue of children being sexually exploited or abused through prostitution. Several social service agencies, various religious denominations, police chiefs across Ontario and cities and regional governments have passed resolutions or sent letters of support, ensuring that this bill gets to committee. Chief Julian Fantino from the London Police Service sent me an Agenda for Action which was the minutes of a conference on the sexual exploitation of children. It states, "Every child is entitled to full protection from all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse."

I concur with the report's findings. I'm sure the members of the House concur with the report's findings. The dilemma we have here is that on Monday I will be asking the social development committee to discuss this at public hearings across Ontario. I believe it is a problem not only in Toronto or in Sudbury, it is a problem all across Ontario. It needs our debate. It needs committee study. I'm asking the social development committee to study it.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a letter from Lyn King of Sault Ste Marie, who says that she has a child with attention deficit. She goes on to say, and I quote:

"My son is nine years old. My son was given Ritalin when he was five and was overdosed...the result was almost fatal for my son. The board of education in Sault Ste Marie provided me support and gave my son a teacher's assistant for his next two years....This year, because of cutbacks, my son has had to struggle without the aid of an assistant. The teacher has 29 students in the classroom. The children sitting in the front row can touch the chalk boards with their hands. At least five children in this classroom pose behavioural difficulties."

She says that parents are "being pressured to medicate their children on Ritalin because teachers cannot cope with the large class sizes and the challenges these students face," and that 29 students in a class is "the norm across our city.... We would not subject animals to this kind of confined and limited space, but this government is doing this to our children....

"Our children have the right to equal opportunity and education in this province. This government is denying them the services they desperately need in order to succeed in education. Studies have indicated that many learning disabled children may end up in conflict with the law because of their academic failures and this government is ensuring their failures. So you save money in education and have to spend the money in the justice system."

Please, the Minister of Education must acknowledge attention deficit -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

AMYOTROPHIC LATERAL SCLEROSIS

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, ALS, is a rapidly progressive neuromuscular disease which is better known to many as Lou Gehrig's disease. ALS is a fatal disease and kills two to three Canadians every day.

ALS victims remain mentally sharp. ALS attacks the motor neurons in the spinal cord and lower brain, which control the voluntary muscles throughout the body. When these motor neurons die as result of ALS, the ability to control muscle movement is lost until its victims are no longer able to move, eat and eventually breathe. There are approximately 600 people with ALS registered with the ALS Society of Ontario and 2,000 to 3,000 Canadians suffering from the disease.

There are many issues individuals with ALS face in their struggle with the disease - waiting for the approval of new drugs on the market, access to assistive technology clinics and access to assistive equipment.

June is ALS Awareness Month. The ALS Society of Canada, the provincial units and the chapters and support groups raise funds in their community during the month of June through the cornflower campaign. The blue cornflower is the official ALS society flower and symbolizes hope for a cure. In the last three years, the ALS society has contributed over $1 million to research. Please support this campaign and offer hope for people with this dreadful disease.

1340

GAMBLING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): The news reports continue to come in about the damaging effect of gambling on our society.

"Niagara Falls residents with low incomes are gambling in commercial casinos with increasing frequency since Casino Niagara opened its doors, a study has concluded.

"Released yesterday by the Addiction Research Foundation, the study found that, one year after the casino opened, residents earning under $30,000 a year had dramatically increased their visits to commercial casinos....

"`I think this is an indicator that we need to put a hold on this and get an idea of what the real cost will be,' said Wayne Olson, a Toronto member of the Ontario Coalition Against Gambling Expansion."

Just a couple of weeks ago another story: "The number of Windsor-area residents seeking help for gambling problems has increased almost 10% over last year...." This study was by the Canadian Foundation on Compulsive Gambling.

In Nova Scotia: "A new study released by the Nova Scotia government on Friday shows gambling is out of control and addicts are not getting the help they need, an anti-gambling group said."

In the New York Times: A story about a new rite of young people becoming involved in gambling.

Look, this is sheer madness that, with all of these reports coming in, with all of these problems piling up, the Mike Harris government would be opening the new Mike Harris gambling halls, the so-called charity casinos.

Stop this sheer madness. Enough is enough.

PAULINE JUNIOR SCHOOL PLAYGROUND

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I was delighted to have the chance to join this morning at Pauline public school in the riding of Dovercourt with a group of grade 4 students in room 6 and their teacher, Martha Davis, as they began the planting of shrubs around the school, which is one big main step in the process that this group of young people has been involved in to get money and attention for the need for a new playground at their school. They have produced a book, a copy of which I have here, which outlines the experiences they've gone through.

It's quite an amazing story, because they certainly have learned a lot as they have gone through this in terms of how you go about designing a playground, how you go about raising the awareness, not just at the political level but through organizations like Friends of the Environment, an organization supported by Canada Trust, and the Evergreen Foundation, groups that they lobbied and from which they then received funding.

They've gone through this. It's been an incredible learning experience for them, for the whole school and for the whole community that they've managed to involve. They have done, quite frankly, their part. They have managed to raise over $10,000, which is being spent on improving the playground with respect to shrubs and trees that will be planted. They have learned a lot about the political process in terms of what they went through and they obviously are looking now to the school board and to the government to also provide the larger amounts of money that are needed for the full playground development that is there.

I just want today to congratulate them for what they have done and for the awareness that they have brought to all of us about what can be done when young people come together like this.

KELLEY ADVERTISING

Mr Toni Skarica (Wentworth North): I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the 85th anniversary of Kelley Advertising in Hamilton. Founded in 1913 by Russell T. Kelley, who also served the province of Ontario as MPP for the riding of Hamilton-Wentworth and Minister of Health from 1946 to 1950. Kelley was Hamilton's Citizen of the Year for 1944 and one of the pioneers of Canadian advertising. His agency, originally called the Hamilton Advertisers' Agency, was the first business of its kind in the area.

For the past 85 years, Kelley Advertising has operated from its Hamilton head office despite the fact that many of its clients do business across the country from Halifax to Vancouver and in many countries around the world. Russell Kelley was a big fan of Hamilton. In fact, when asked one time what he thought Toronto's best attribute was, he replied, "The 5 o'clock train to Hamilton."

Jack McNie, also a great community supporter and co-chair of the Committee for Hamilton Place, former MPP for Hamilton West and Minister of Colleges and Universities, held the reins at Kelley Advertising from the mid-1950s to 1972, upholding Russell Kelley's commitment to Hamilton and our province.

That commitment has lived on as the advertising agency remains not only a cornerstone of the Hamilton business community but an important contributor to a number of causes from the Victorian Order of Nurses to the YMCA, McMaster University, Mohawk College, area hospitals and many other local organizations.

On behalf of the people of Hamilton-Wentworth, I'd like to extend my regards to Kelley Advertising and its staff on 85 years in Hamilton, a milestone for both Kelley Advertising and indeed the community.

DROWNING DEATHS

Mr Peter North (Elgin): It is with sadness that I inform the Legislature of a tragedy that occurred in Elgin county over the past week.

Our community has lost three young men as a result of accidents on the pier in Port Stanley. These young men unfortunately passed away as a result of drowning.

I want to extend condolences on behalf of me and my family and the people of Elgin county to their families and to their friends and schoolmates in east Elgin and in St Thomas. I want to take an opportunity to pay tribute to a number of young people who were present at both of these incidents and risked their own lives to try to save the lives of these young men. I also want to pay tribute to the Port Stanley Fire Department and the OPP in the area for the work they did as well.

I want to take an opportunity to encourage all members to remind people who live in their communities to understand and be aware of water safety and the importance of water safety, whether it's a family pool, a farm pond or a small lake that's in their community. Make sure you take the time to remind people over the coming summer. It's very, very important.

CORRECTION

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I rise to correct my record of yesterday, referring to Hansard, page 1546, where I am quoted as saying, "The member for Scarborough East last night during the show attacked the character and credibility of the principal of this school, and he was not there to be able to defend himself. In fact, he went so far as to call this gentleman a liar...."

The member for Scarborough East has asked me to review the tape and assures me that he did not use the word "liar." He has just provided me with a copy of the tape. I have not had the time to review it, but I accept his word on that, and I apologize for that mistake and retract that, correct that record. However, the remainder of my concerns and my request to the Premier to review his conduct still stand.

MEMBER'S PRIVILEGE

Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph): Mr Speaker, on a point of privilege: Yesterday a question was raised in this House and it questioned my personal integrity and referred to my conduct as minister. The Hansard record must be corrected. I am not nor was I found guilty, as stated in this House, of having broken the law. Charges laid against a private company were dismissed by a justice of the peace based on an argument that the company had committed an officially induced error.

I believe it is important to assure my colleagues here in the House, for the record, that never did I indicate to any individual or organization that they may operate, in defiance of the law, without a permit.

In a recent dispute between two private parties, where I had no formal standing and could not participate, an accused party argued that I had led them to believe the law had been overlooked. That accusation is false. I want my colleagues here in the House to be informed that I was unable to attend a hearing on a certain day because I was right here voting in this House. I was later denied the ability to testify before the justice of the peace. My voice was never heard.

I am an elected member, given the honour and privilege to participate in determining legislation for this province. I take that responsibility very seriously -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you, member for Guelph. I wasn't here yesterday, and I apologize to the members. It's not a point of order. I appreciate the fact that you have brought it forward. I caution members that when we talk about personalities, these are the kinds of things that come into play. To the member for Guelph, it's not in order and I'm going to rule that it's not a point of privilege either.

1350

UNITED EMPIRE LOYALISTS' DAY

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I believe we have unanimous consent for one representative of each recognized party in the House to make a short statement with respect to United Empire Loyalists' Day, and I ask this consent as a very proud descendent of the United Empire Loyalist families.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Do we have agreement on that? Agreed.

Mr Harry Danford (Hastings-Peterborough): It is indeed my pleasure to rise today to recognize the first United Empire Loyalists' Day in Ontario. I want to thank all the members of this House for allowing me the opportunity to pay tribute to Ontario's Loyalist heritage.

Earlier this morning it was my privilege, along with the Speaker and many of our colleagues, to help in raising the Loyalist Grand Union Banner on the courtesy flagpole in front of the Legislative Building. This flag has not flown in an official capacity in Ontario since the early 19th century. Today we fly it in recognition of the role that the Loyalists played and that their descendants continue to play in the development of the province of Ontario.

It was also my pleasure to take part in a presentation by the Archives of Ontario to the Ontario branch of the United Empire Loyalists' Association. In recognition of June 19, the archives, led by Ian Wilson, has made public the Inspector General's register. This register was the official list of all those making claims for either land or privileged status as Loyalists in Upper Canada. Since it was the Inspector General who was responsible for sanctioning privilege in Upper Canada, we can assume that this is the most complete list of United Empire Loyalists in existence, and of enormous historical significance. This document is on display today in the main lobby of this building.

I would like to thank Ian Wilson and his staff at the archives, in particular Fawn Stratford-Devai and John Barton, for all their hard work in putting together today's display and helping make Loyalists' Day significant for so many people. I recommend that all members take in this display.

Loyalists' Day gives us all a chance to reflect on the contribution of the Loyalists to the development of Ontario. It is worth noting that our land tenure system, civil law system and, most important, our system of responsible government were brought to Upper Canada by the Loyalists. These systems are still in place today.

I have said before and I think it bears repeating: The Loyalist heritage led directly to the development of this great country's bilingual, multicultural and regional tradition under the unifying context of a constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy. This makes us very different from our neighbours to the south, and I believe it is a difference that we should all celebrate.

On Saturday night I was honoured to be at the United Empire Loyalists' Association of Canada's annual general meeting, which was held in Kingston. Over 200 Loyalists from across our country gathered together to elect a new executive and to conduct other business of the association. I wish to pay tribute to the outgoing president of the association, Bernice Flett, who is with us today. Bernice was instrumental in helping me with my private member's bill. Her cooperation and dedication as president of the United Empire Loyalists' Association of Canada will inspire all present and future members to contribute their talents to preserving the legacy and history of the Loyalists.

I would also like to thank everyone who helped make today a success. Dennis Clark, our Sergeant at Arms, and his staff were extremely helpful, as were Karyn Leonard and her staff at the interparliamentary and public relations branch. On behalf of everyone involved in organizing today, I want to say a sincere thank you.

I hope tomorrow, June 19, all members of this House will take some time and reflect on the sacrifices made by the Loyalists when they came to Upper Canada, and as well reflect on the contributions that Loyalists made in making this province and indeed our country one of the best places in the world to live.

At this point I would ask that all United Empire Loyalists in the galleries rise and be recognized by this Legislature.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): On behalf of my Liberal colleagues I want to join our friend the member for Hastings-Peterborough in paying tribute to all of those who have come here today to pay tribute to an enormously important part of Ontario's heritage and historical traditional.

I want to in a personal way congratulate my friend and neighbour the member for Hastings-Peterborough for all the work he's done over the last number of months to make Loyalists' Day the reality that it now is.

There is no doubt, as the member has said, that United Empire Loyalism is part of the basic fabric and is very much the foundation of Ontario or Upper Canada, as it was called. There is on all of the insignia in this province an inscription. I won't quote the Latin - my Latin isn't that good any more - but I believe the motto of the province is in English, "Loyal in the beginning, so let us remain." It's a nice phrase and it's an important phrase.

Loyalism and what we celebrate today are not just a pageant, though I want to congratulate these people, as I was unfortunately not able to be with the member and others this morning at the session. It is important at a certain level to highlight the pageantry. Our American friends do it so well that we should not be afraid or ashamed to do our part.

It is really important, I think, for this Legislature and the province we represent to understand what this all means. These Loyalists were refugees and they were counterrevolutionaries. It's hard to remember and hard to believe - and many of us don't want to think about this - but this province of ours was born 210 or 215 years ago by refugees, by counterrevolutionaries, by thousands of people who, as it happened, were to leave behind one of the most successful and dynamic economies and polities the world has ever known, and they headed northward into the rough-hewn bush of what was almost a no-man's land. Voltaire had called it "quelques arpents de neige," a few acres of snow.

These Loyalists left some of the best agricultural lands of North America for some not apparently very attractive country. They did it on principle because they felt very strongly that what their brethren in the 13 colonies were doing was fundamentally wrong and mistaken. So they were refugees, they were counterrevolutionaries. They weren't just all the élite, they weren't just all upscale former Harvard and Yale men. As the member points out, if you look at the documentation that Ian Wilson, the provincial archivist, and others have made available, in the main the Loyalists were everyday people, as we would now call them. If you look at some of that material, you will see, in ways that most of us don't understand, the incredible hardship that these regular folks experienced as they moved northward into this uncharted bush.

I think in the antiseptic, modern world of the late 20th century, it is a useful thing for all of us, particularly those of us who purport to provide some leadership to the community 210 years later, to go back to our roots and to understand the sacrifice that that expression of loyalty involved. It was not a choice without painful consequence.

It is important as well to understand that Joseph Brant and people like Brant were also Loyalists. Aboriginals by the score moved north of the Lakes. So we were refugees, and we walked not just as Europeans, but we walked with people like Joseph Brant and others from the aboriginal community who agreed with our Loyalist fathers and mothers that it was the right thing to do.

I just hope, as we make public policy in the 1990s, and when we look at some of the very contentious issues that face this province and country, we remember some of that. Our beginnings were in rebellion and counterrevolution, and Joseph Brant and people like Brant walked with us north of the Lakes.

When I met Ian Wilson on the steps I said: "Ian, I'm sorry I couldn't go to your presentation; I was with a group of students. As our provincial archivist and a well-known historian, what would you say would be the one lesson you would want these young people from the Beachburg Public School to know about the legacy of Loyalism?" Mr Wilson said, I thought very aptly, "If you remember nothing else, remember that our origins were in that refugee movement." We should never forget that.

We have today the opportunity to understand that there are other rebellions and other revolutions going on across the world, and I hope that this generation is as welcoming today as others were when those Loyalists came north 200-and-some years ago.

A final observation, because the House leader was proud to advertise his loyal roots, as he should be: "Loyal in the beginning, so let us remain." What do you suppose people with names like Cartwright and Macdonell and Brant would want us to be loyal to? I say to the House particularly that I don't think I speak out of turn when I say I think they would want us, like those Loyalist forebears, to be loyal to honour, to duty, to principle and to the notion of loyalty itself.

I would hope, if push comes to shove, that we would have the guts and the fortitude to do as so many of Mr Danford's constituents and some of mine did in those uncertain days 215 years ago, to put everything at risk, to leave it all behind and to walk into an uncertain future because they believed that loyalty to principles like duty and honour were, at the beginning and the end of the day, of fundamental importance.

1400

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): On behalf of our caucus, I want to rise in celebration of Loyalists' Day and to congratulate the member for Hastings-Peterborough and the representatives of the United Empire Loyalists' Association here with us this afternoon.

In celebrating the UE Loyalists, we are celebrating the tradition of their loyalty to the crown, which is celebrated and recognized in the Ontario flag, with the Union flag in the corner, but we also celebrate the desire of those courageous women and men who walked and rode north of the Lakes after the American Revolution, the courage they had in meeting the wilderness and beginning anew, beginning a new life. This is the beginning of the tradition that all of us value in Canada and in Ontario, and that is the welcoming reception of those who are fleeing destruction and war, who are indeed refugees and who are seeking a new life, a new beginning after the loss of almost everything.

Many of the Loyalists who came to Ontario, and indeed also came to the Atlantic provinces, were coming with just the clothes on their backs or what they could carry in a cart, because they had in some cases been run off their own land and had to flee for their lives. So many of us, whether we are descendants of United Empire Loyalists, as the member for Hastings-Peterborough and I can claim to be, or whether we are descendants of other refugees or indeed ourselves are refugees, recognize the tradition of this country of welcoming those from abroad who are fleeing war and destruction to seek a new life on these shores.

I want to also recognize, as my friend from Renfrew North did, that it wasn't just those of British heritage who came forward and came north after the American Revolution to demonstrate their loyalty to the crown. It was also members of the Six Nations, Joseph Brant and the other Iroquoian nations who had remained loyal and fought on the side of the British in the American War of Independence, who came north and were welcomed by the aboriginal inhabitants of this area, of Ontario, with the Grand River land grant. The Ojibways welcomed the Iroquoian peoples to these shores, despite the fact that in some cases in the past they had been on opposite sides of conflicts.

All of us must value our tradition of welcoming those who are fleeing the death and destruction of war. All of us must value the courage it takes to come to a foreign land to make a new beginning. All of us must celebrate that in our heritage, the United Empire Loyalists and all of those refugees who have been welcomed to Ontario and to Canada since the arrival of the United Empire Loyalists.

We must not now succumb to a xenophobia that does not recognize and celebrate the value of the many cultures, the multicultural nature of people who come and make contributions to our society. I know those who celebrate the United Empire Loyalists' Day also celebrate that tradition in Canada and the freedom we owe those courageous people who have made it possible for us to welcome so many other representatives from around the world, to help make ours the cultural mosaic we celebrate in Ontario today.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TEXTBOOKS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): My question is for the Minister of Education. By next Wednesday teachers have to choose about $75 million worth of textbooks from your approved list. Minister, $75 million worth of new textbooks should be a good-news story; in fact, it is turning out to be a nightmare. We are flooded with calls from frustrated and angry teachers and principals who say that your list of books is inadequate and that their choices are being too rushed.

They have found virtually no science textbooks on the list. They have found that they can't buy teachers' manuals to go with the textbooks because you don't allow teachers' manuals to be on the list. You don't seem to understand that textbooks aren't useful without support materials for teachers. There are unanswered questions about kindergarten materials and French immersion textbooks and the prices of the books on the list.

Schools need textbooks. They need the dollars to buy them. But you are forcing through a massive purchase, with too little time to make sure that teachers have books that are right for their students.

Minister, this is an easy problem to fix. Will you suspend your June 23 deadline until the list of texts is more complete and there is time to make wise choices?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): The Liberal Party, for some reason, would wish us to suspend this good-news story so that the students do not have textbooks this fall in the classroom. I can tell you I have no intention of doing that. This government wants to see our students get the textbooks this fall. We want to see these students get the textbooks in time for the full year. The reason is because over the years there has not been enough emphasis, through governments - through the NDP government, through the Liberal government - put on supplying textbooks to our students.

One of the publishers, for example, McGraw Hill, has said, "The terrible lack of learning materials for Ontario students was caused by years of neglect by former governments, which continually ignored the fact that spending on learning materials in Ontario was between 25% and 35% of what is spent in provinces such as Alberta."

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Answer.

Hon David Johnson: We intend to rectify it. We intend to rectify it for this -

The Speaker: Thank you.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, we agree that textbooks are desperately needed in our classrooms. We agree that you need the money to buy them. We believe those textbooks should be the right books for the students, that they should be of the best quality.

You're not imposing these deadlines because you're concerned about the quality of textbooks to go with your new curriculum. There is only one reason to impose the deadline, and you know it: It's because you want a public relations message for September when the kids come back to school.

If you were concerned about quality, Minister, you would allow the teachers the one simple thing they're asking for. They are asking for time to purchase their books when and if they are satisfied that the textbooks they're choosing are the best for their classes.

If you were concerned about quality, you'd give them the time they need to make the right choices. It's so simple. Teachers haven't even had time to see the textbooks themselves, but they have to make thousands of dollars worth of decisions by next Tuesday.

The Speaker: Question.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, will you allow at least half of your textbook bonanza dollars to be spent next fall, when there is time for careful consideration of the textbooks on -

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon David Johnson: The member calls these "textbook bonanza dollars."

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): They are.

Hon David Johnson: Yes, they are, they are indeed, and they're a sound investment in our young people. To suggest that we should stall and delay and put this off, well, that's just like the Liberal Party.

There is a basic, sound reason for proceeding in September. That's when school starts. In case the critic for the Liberal Party doesn't know when school starts, that's when it starts.

These books have been looked at on the English side by a hundred teachers from the curriculum clearinghouse, on the French side by about the same number of teachers in the Centre de leadership. The teachers have picked these books out, over 160 different books, which will go to the benefit of our students this fall. It's unprecedented, I know, in the history of Ontario, but it's badly needed.

1410

Mrs McLeod: Minister, your new science curriculum starts in September too, but there won't be any science textbooks because there's none on the list. Your new kindergarten curriculum starts in September, but there won't be any kindergarten curriculum materials because there's none on the list.

You have created a crisis beyond what anybody could have imagined. You have taken $75 million worth of desperately needed textbook money and you've turned even that bonanza into a problem for teachers and for school boards. But you've created more than a short-term crisis. You are doing more than wastefully spending your $75 million, because you've begun to close the door to Canadian-written textbooks. You've changed the rules so that books no longer have to be written in Canada.

You told our leader Dalton McGuinty that there were no American publishers on the list. In fact, the majority of the approved books come from American-owned publishing companies and at least one is exclusively written by American authors.

Minister, I ask you, will you act now to suspend your shortsighted policy? Will you abort your public relations move and give boards and teachers time to spend $75 million wisely and responsibly on behalf of Ontario's students?

Hon David Johnson: We intend to proceed in a measured fashion, well planned, to have these books available to our young people in time for September when school starts.

The Canadian Publishers' Council has written a letter which says that the suggestion that foreign-owned publishers are supplying foreign texts to the Ontario school system on the Ontario call for curriculum resources is not only a blatant falsehood, it is also an affront to all Canadian authors, educators, editors, illustrators, designers, manufacturers.

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): What date was that letter?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Check the date.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Come to order, please.

Hon David Johnson: The date was yesterday, in case the critic didn't know.

These books are long overdue. These are books that have been looked at by about 200 teachers. They have scrutinized these books carefully. They say these books are good for our children, these books are in line with our new curriculum, and I believe our children should have the opportunity to have them provided in September in their schools.

HEALTH CARE REFORM

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I want to raise another example of this government's bungling, this time with the Minister of Health. I want to ask you about the risky experiment you're doing with hospital funding, with funding to long-term-care facilities, to home care. What you announced yesterday in Toronto is part of a pattern of not giving the public the whole story, in fact the essence of the story.

We have compiled your promises and we have put that into a report, a health chart for the various communities. We found out that your policy of firing nurses and taking away health services is not being compensated for with replacement services.

You should know that in Toronto already, as we stand today, this area has lost $408 million. More has been cut from its hospitals than has been brought back in in replacement services.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Question.

Mr Kennedy: Worse, when you take your grand plan, your historic announcement, they lose $1.5 billion over the eight years of that.

Minister, are you going to stand by this discount health care, or will you stand up today and tell us you're going to protect -

The Speaker: Minister of Health.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): This government prefers to deal in facts. They don't like to deal with anything that may be rumours or anything else. So I will say that yesterday we were certainly very pleased and very proud to be able to announce funding for the Toronto hospitals here in the city of $186.1 million. This complements the $316 million that we had already made available for long-term-care services.

What is extremely important to understand and to recognize is that this government is spending more on health -

The Speaker: Answer, please.

Hon Mrs Witmer: - than at any time in the history of this province. We have actually increased health spending from $17.4 billion to over -

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr Kennedy: Minister, that's exactly the kind of doubletalk that the people of Toronto have become used to, and now they're going to know what it means. You're trying to confuse capital dollars - on the one hand $186 million, you say, for little additions. You're closing 11 hospitals. You're taking away buildings and equipment from the people here. When it comes to operating dollars, the dollars that care for patients, in Toronto you've taken away $408 million. In Willowdale and all kinds of parts of this province, you've removed the services.

In the long-suffering city of Windsor, when it comes to health care promises from you, we hear from people there. We heard from Laura today on our health hotline. She says she has an older friend. She has to go to hospital every day to feed this man because the nurses are too hard-pressed. It's no wonder, because in Windsor you've taken away millions of dollars so far. It's going to take them until 2003 to break even on your government.

Minister, you referred to facts. The only suspect part of this is it's based on your announcements and your statements. Aren't you concerned about the impact on patients when you take millions of dollars more out of communities than you put back in? Will you act to protect them?

Hon Mrs Witmer: As we well know, the amount of money that is being spent on services to people in this province, as I just stated before, is larger than ever before. However, we also need to recognize that health, not only in Ontario but throughout Canada, is changing. One of the realities is that at the present time there isn't a need for the number of beds in hospitals, because 70% of the surgery in this province at the present time is being done on the basis of day surgery.

As a government, we are reforming the health system in order to ensure that people in this province have the appropriate services that they need, whether that service be at home, whether that service be in the doctor's office, whether that service be in a long-term-care facility or whether it be in the hospital. The reality is, we are spending more money than ever before.

Mr Kennedy: You can chant your mantra all you want, but for the people of Hamilton, who lose $194 million under your plan, that doesn't wash. Some $290 million is lost in Windsor, and Kitchener-Waterloo has already lost $32 million. You can't tell them you've put the money back, because you haven't done it.

You've got a policy of transferring funds out of here. Your timing is clearly off. If you look at the graphs that cover these various communities, you're taking the money out. It's taking six years, eight years, 10 years before you put the money back in.

We want to know, are you going to be a health minister to stand up in this House and protect patients? You saw the graphs yesterday in estimates committee; you were told about the data. Produce your own facts. Tell us how you're protecting patients, or admit you're taking money out of communities and using it for the tax cut, using it for other things. Minister, will you stand in the House today and admit that what you're doing is taking money out of Toronto, out of Windsor, out of Ottawa, out of London, out of Hamilton and away from patients?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I hope that whatever data have been collected contain some substantiated facts and are a little different than some of the fact sheets that have been distributed.

Let me say that we made an announcement, June 18, where we indicate that 21 more dialysis patients will receive treatment with the establishment of an independent health facility in Cornwall. I know the member has been asking, and I'm pleased to say today that this is just another example of our government using health money, increased health spending, in order that we can expand the dialysis services and bring them closer to the homes of people in the Cornwall community.

The Speaker: Answer.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I am very pleased to say that our government, since 1995, has invested more than $73 million in dialysis services. All of that money, which may at one time have been in the hospital budget, now has gone -

The Speaker: Thank you.

1420

CHILDREN'S HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Health. Yesterday, we exposed some of your false announcements with respect to funding for long-term care. Today, I want to ask you about some people that you're not even trying to help. I'm talking about children with multiple disabilities, children who suffer from neurological disorders, cerebral palsy, muscular dystrophy, spina bifida and hydrocephalus, among other disorders. These are children who must seek help over 300,000 times a year at children's treatment centres across Ontario.

The funding for the 19 children's treatment centres has been frozen by the Ministry of Health, while the need for those treatment services has increased by over 40% in some places in the province. Waiting lists are now up to a year long. These children need treatment now. They need physiotherapy and occupational therapy services. We know you can afford a $5.5-billion income tax scheme for the most well-off in this province. Why can't you afford to help these children? Will you lift the freeze?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): I'm very pleased the leader referred to the fact that funding was frozen, because it was indeed the NDP in 1993 who froze the funding for these community treatment centres. I want you to know that our government recognizes the special needs of children in this province, of those who receive treatment in the rehabilitation centres through the community treatment centres. We have not reduced any funding to the community treatment team. These budgets are going to remain protected.

In fact, we put additional dollars into children's services. We are now spending $10 million on Healthy Babies, Healthy Children. We are spending $20 million on preschoolers who have speech and language difficulties, children between the ages of two and five. We are focusing and doing everything we can to focus on prevention of health problems and we are investing in children at an early age.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary?

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): There are parents in the gallery today who have children, some who are receiving services from those centres and some who are still waiting. I hope you'll remember that when you answer, because these other announcements you've just talked about don't help their children. They can't understand why after five years, three years of it under your government, the review still hasn't taken place.

They're here because they're upset, because they've been told the reason is that health, education and community and social services won't get into the same room and agree to the terms of reference. Talk about bureaucratic bungling. Let's move this forward.

One of the parents is here to tell you what happens when services aren't integrated. Her daughter, Grace, can't speak. At Lansdowne centre, where she gets full treatment, she gets the help she needs. In school they won't give her a signing intervenor because she's not deaf or blind. But she can't speak. The whole school day she's isolated. She's not able to communicate with anyone. The only way this is going to get fixed is if there is a coordination of services. That will only take place if you do the review. Will you get into the same room? Will you take charge, take responsibility and commit to starting that review this summer?

Hon Mrs Witmer: The review is under way. I just want to again stress the fact that there has been no reduction in the funding. In fact, we have actually increased funding. If you take a look at the Durham community, for children's rehabilitation services we have increased it by $615,000.

Ms Lankin: The minister misspeaks herself. The review has not started. The $615,000 you announced with great fanfare last year and put into Grandview you pulled out six months later. They've just laid off all the physiotherapists they hired under that money.

Minister, there's a parent here from Grandview today who would like to speak to you. Her daughter, Ashley, lost her ability to walk at eight years of age. She has undergone treatment at Grandview. She has undergone treatment at Sick Kids Hospital. She is 12 years old now. Last weekend the whole community celebrated when she rode her bicycle for the first time in four years. She commenced that treatment at Grandview, and credits it for why her daughter is walking again today. But she doesn't know if next month she's going to have that intensive pool therapy because you've cut that money out.

Minister, three demands: Lift the freeze, give them an immediate infusion of money from that long-term-care funding you announced, not a penny of which you've given to them, and get this review started this summer and involve those parents.

Hon Mrs Witmer: As I've indicated, we recognize there are children in this province who have special needs, and we are certainly endeavouring to put money into the budget to ensure that these children do have the services they need. We will continue to work with these families, we will continue to work with all of the other families to ensure that these children have the services that are required to respond to their needs. As I say, this review is getting under way and we hope we will be able to complete it as quickly as possible.

TEXTBOOKS / MANUELS SCOLAIRES

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My next question is for the Minister of Education and Training. I want to take the minister back to May 4 of this year when he made an announcement about Education Week in Ontario. He said an Ontario education must prepare students for the future. "It must provide them with the skills and knowledge" - and confidence - "they will need to succeed" in the new millennium. That's what he said then.

Now we find that you are the minister who is giving away job opportunities in Ontario. Earlier this year you gave a contract for secondary school curriculum development to an American company, for the first time ever in the history of this province. Now we find out that your process for selecting elementary textbooks has widened the door even further for American companies. Now books only have to be written by Canadians or printed in Canada, not both.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Question.

Mr Hampton: In other words, you're prepared to give away the jobs of editors, typesetters, printers, bookbinders and textbook writers. Minister, why are you so willing to give away the hope, the opportunity -

The Speaker: Minister?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): Of course, that's complete nonsense. All of the publishers who are involved in providing textbooks for this call for resources, each and every one of them are on circular 14, the same circular 14 that was in existence when the NDP was in power. These are exactly the same publishers that provided textbooks all across Ontario during the term of the leader of the third party. If he has such great opposition to these very same publishers today, why didn't he have that same objection to circular 14 under his jurisdiction when the NDP was in power?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): He asks the questions.

Hon David Johnson: Well, I'd like to hear him answer that.

The point is to get the best product in the hands of our students. There has been an inadequate supply of textbooks to our students for many years. This government is intent on addressing that situation.

The Speaker: Supplementary.

1430

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): The minister is pushing forward with his $100-million taxpayers' expenditure for books and other materials when he hasn't yet received the completed curriculum. The teams working on the secondary school curriculum begin in September 1999. We've only just completed the elementary curriculum and we're still waiting for the arts, social sciences and physical education curricula. What will the minister do when he has his photo opportunities for his backbench colleagues next September, when the teachers and parents tell him that the textbooks don't match the new Ontario Curriculum when it's completed? What's the purpose of buying the textbooks in advance of completing the curriculum?

Hon David Johnson: The member opposite may have forgotten that the mathematics curriculum was introduced in September last year, the language in the province of Ontario was introduced last year. The review of these books was conducted through the Ontario Curriculum Clearinghouse by about 100 teachers in the province. Those 100 teachers have ensured that these books are in compliance with the new curriculum in mathematics and language. On the French side, in the Centre de leadership another 100 teachers are involved.

You're taking a slam at teachers. This is what you're doing. You're saying that teachers are not able to determine what is compatible with the curriculum in Ontario. The teachers have looked at these books and they've said, "We have here about 160 books which match the curriculum and which will benefit our students and we want to go ahead with those."

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

M. Gilles Bisson (Cochrane-Sud) : Au même ministre : monsieur le ministre, c'est intéressant que vous parlez des livres pour les jeunes francophones, parce que justement on a appris que votre liste des livres appropriés que vous avez annoncés avec toute la fanfare d'une annonce n'inclut pas les livres de mathématiques. Il n'y a pas de livres de mathématiques ou de sciences pour les septième et huitième années. Les élèves dans les programmes d'immersion n'ont pas de choix du tout de n'importe lequel des livres. Est-ce que c'est un oubli, cette affaire-là, je vous demande ?

Quand on demande si votre gouvernement va corriger cet oubli que vous avez fait, on s'est fait dire : «Pas de problème. Vous autres, les francophones, vous êtes capables d'acheter des livres avec votre argent, avec vos budgets scolaires, et non avec les 100 $ millions que le gouvernement a mis en place.»

Monsieur le ministre, est-ce juste que les francophones n'ont pas le droit d'acheter les livres sur cette liste, qu'on a besoin de payer avec notre propre argent ?

Hon David Johnson: The member opposite actually does raise a good point in this particular case. This is the first good point I've heard in this whole discussion today.

In general I would say that the number of books and the selections are excellent. But on the French side, particularly in grades 5 to 8, there is a problem. I can assure you that we're not going to force any board to make a selection that's inappropriate. We are working with the French board and undoubtedly there will be special provisions to recognize, in those grades, the inadequacy. My guess is that we will probably diminish the proportion that the French board is allowed to purchase in the first phase and increase the proportion in the second phase so that no student will lose out and to ensure that they have the best possible product.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): My question is to the Minister of Health. You're apparently not able to respond to the things you're doing to various communities. Maybe you'll respond to some of the people you're affecting. Today we have here from Collingwood Murray Doupe, Denise Doupe, Pamela Bélanger, who's an RN at the local hospital, Shirley Geddes, who's an RPN. They're here on behalf of 9,426 people in Collingwood who have signed petitions saying they don't accept your reckless cuts to their hospital and their secondary health care.

Minister, you cut their hospital by $830,000 last year, by 7%, on a reckless basis. Here's what we heard from another registered nurse. She's caring for six to eight patients in the emergency department. She says: "The noise, the lack of privacy make it an unpleasant experience for all who are ill and their families. It is disturbing to watch a dying patient and their family in sorrow in such a public environment."

You are subjecting Ontario, and Collingwood, to a reckless experiment. Will you undertake to review the funding to the hospital in Collingwood, and will you do that here today for the people of Collingwood?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): First of all, I think it's necessary that we put it into perspective and note that Collingwood General and Marine Hospital is currently undergoing a redevelopment/construction project of $18 million, for which this government has provided $11 million for the hospital's three years.

Following completion of the first two years of this project, the hospital has now submitted a balanced budget for 1998. We're very pleased that as a result of this reconstruction we're going to have a modern facility that will enable the health care providers and patients in that community to have access to services such as a new ICU, labour/delivery unit, ambulatory care clinic and patient unit.

Our ministry is continuing to work with that hospital to review their operating plans and the changes in order that we can ensure the highest-quality patient care for the people of Collingwood and the surrounding community.

Mr Kennedy: It's a shame that people had to come all the way from Collingwood to hear such a poor answer, because what they know is this: They know that your predecessor across the aisle approved that expansion of the hospital and right now, even as we speak, they're building 74 beds there. Do you know the problem with that? You're only funding 40. Right now there are 34 beds being built that there are no nurses for, that the patients can't use. That's Mike Harris's health plan in Ontario, and apparently it's Elizabeth Witmer's too.

Minister, I want to give you another opportunity. Because you're only funding these 40 beds, they tell us -

Interjection.

Mr Kennedy: You need to get up to date, Minister. They're going to have a $200,000 deficit because of the salary increases this year, because you're not responsive to hospitals all across the province.

You heard what the nurse in emergency said. You could hear more afterwards if you like. They are here to talk to you. Will you sit down and talk to the people from Collingwood? Will you review the situation that sends people into substandard, discount health care that you're providing? Will you review that for Collingwood and will you make an undertaking to us today so 34 beds don't have to be empty when they're not even built yet?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I would be pleased to meet with these nurses or any other nurses, as I have said on many occasions. I have now met with nurses over 10 times in this province, and we certainly appreciate when they do bring to our attention some of the concerns and issues that they have as they serve people on the front lines throughout this province. We certainly value the role that nurses play in this province.

But I also know that there is a survey being done in the community at this time, and if there are recommendations that indicate there is a need for additional beds once the community survey has been completed, then obviously we will sit down again with the hospital and we will make sure that we have the appropriate space for people.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have a question for the Deputy Premier. Today your government is cutting off debate on your latest anti-worker legislation, Bill 31, which strikes very hard at the construction industry. It's another example of how little your government is prepared to listen to people. Since you have changed the rules of this Legislature, you can ram this anti-worker piece of legislation through the House in three or four days without a single minute for public hearings and no time for public scrutiny.

Your Minister of Labour yesterday told us that the building trades supported this legislation, but it's pretty clear now they don't, because today workers at two Sarnia building projects have left the job to set up informational pickets to tell people how wrong you are. That's just the beginning. Your anti-democratic attitude and your heavy-handed tactics here are going to destabilize the whole construction industry.

The Sarnia workers want public hearings. We want public hearings. What is so bad about this legislation that you can't let people look at it?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): This bill, if passed, will ensure that the province will be better positioned to attract economically significant construction jobs to this province.

I would like to remind the leader of the third party that in 1997, 92% of all construction jobs created in Canada were created right here in the province of Ontario. What does he have against people having a job?

1440

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): Minister, if that's the case, why are you ramming through all these massive changes? The fact of the matter is that this is just one more example of the undemocratic track record your government has. Let's not forget the omnibus bully-bill 26, where opposition parliamentarians were forced to hijack this Legislature in order to get some decent public hearings; Bill 7, where OPSEU workers were forced to go out on strike, that led to blood being spilled just outside this building; Bill 160, your attack on the education system, where you forced 120,000 teachers to take direct action; and now Bill 31, a bill you said it was okay to ram through because you had the unions on side. Well, you don't have the unions on side. You've got no hearings, no amendments, no support.

Minister, how can you justify continuing to ram through a bill that's definitely going to cause chaos across Ontario in the construction industry?

Hon Mr Eves: That was quite a speech. Non-construction employers are presently bound by province-wide agreements over which they have virtually no control. Bill 31, if passed, will free those employers from the situation they are caught in that's beyond their control and will make them competitive in the marketplace. Coming from a government that lost 10,000 jobs, I know they find it very difficult to support a government that has created 371,000 jobs, and we will meet our target of 725,000.

COMPENSATION FOR HEPATITIS C PATIENTS

Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): My question is for the Minister of Health. You were recently asked a question in the Legislature about the use of interferon as a treatment for victims of hepatitis C. I've been reading in media reports that the Ministry of Health takes six months in excessive red tape to approve treatment for individuals with hepatitis C for whom interferon would be effective. Could you please advise us of the process that is used to decide whether or not interferon would be effective for a victim of hepatitis C?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): Yes, the Ministry of Health follows the professional guidelines that are established by the Canadian Association for the Study of the Liver, hepatitis consensus group. As we all know, this is a group of leading hepatologists in Canada.

Their expert medical opinion is that to determine whether interferon would be an effective treatment for chronic hepatitis C, enzyme levels in patients must be tested for four to six months in order to ensure that the levels are high enough for the drug to be effective. It is not red tape that holds up the use of interferon; it is a clinical test that is used and that is recommended by the hepatitis consensus group.

Once the treatment of interferon has been recommended, it only takes the Ministry of Health about three weeks to process the applications. This of course applies to anybody using the Trillium drug plan or the Ontario drug benefit plan. So it's much less than six months.

Mr Carroll: Thanks, Minister, for setting the record straight. We've had a lot of conversation lately in the province about the federal government dragging its feet on full compensation for victims of hepatitis C. I know there are ongoing discussions happening between the Minister of Health and the federal government. Could you please give us an update today as to the status of the federal government and fair treatment for victims of hepatitis C?

Hon Mrs Witmer: Yes. As you know, the province of Ontario supports the agreement that was reached. However, we also support the need to provide financial assistance to those individuals who contracted hepatitis C prior to 1986. Yesterday there was a conversation with health ministers across Canada. It is certainly becoming apparent that health ministers across Canada recognize the need to act with compassion. They are supporting the Ontario position. The only position we are not aware of at the present time is the federal government's position. They have not indicated whether they are prepared to show similar compassion.

Hon David Turnbull (Minister without Portfolio): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I seek unanimous consent for the member for York South to ask a supplementary question on the hepatitis C issue.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Agreed? Agreed.

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): Minister, I wonder if you can tell us why it is that for hepatitis C victims in this province, where you reversed your stand, where you told us first of all that you stood by the deal - you told us that the day before the Premier changed. But right now there are hepatitis C victims in this province who can't get treatment. Right now you haven't done a look-back program; you haven't looked into how many hepatitis C victims we've got. Other provinces have done that, Minister. Why haven't you, and will do that and will you put before this House a package of the services and what you've done to make them available, to make provincial responsibility work so it can somehow be consistent with the position you think you're taking right now?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I'm very pleased that the health critic of the opposition party asked the question, because we support the package of assistance that was agreed to by all the provincial ministers.

We did listen to people in this province, and in response to what we heard, it was obvious that people wanted us to take another look; they wanted us to look at this issue based on compassion and caring. We have indicated that we are prepared to provide additional financial assistance to people who were infected prior to 1986. I'm very pleased to say today that it appears the other health ministers and the other provinces are prepared to do similar. They recognize the need for compassion.

I'm also pleased to say that today we met with the hepatitis C group and we met with the haemophiliac group and they are very supportive of the direction this province is taking.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. A crucial issue for the whole greater Toronto area is your decision on the Greater Toronto Services Board. I think it's fair to say that every municipality is anxiously awaiting it. I think it's fair to say a lot of energy is being expended on it.

I know that in 1996 you appointed Libby Burnham to head up a task force, and we expected something then. Then in 1997, you appointed Milt Farrow with a task force, and we expected something there. Then you appointed Alan Tonks, who has reported.

My question is this. Will you tell the Legislature and the public of Ontario, are you intending to introduce your legislation to establish a Greater Toronto Services Board before we adjourn for a two- to three-month break at the end of next week?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I think we all agree that the Greater Toronto Services Board is something that's extremely important and necessary for the greater Toronto area. We had Libby Burnham go out and do an in-depth study of the GTA, come back with a report and recommendations. We had those recommendations followed up by Milt Farrow, who came back with his report. We took both those reports and developed draft legislation. We took the extra step of taking that draft legislation and putting it out across the entire GTA so every municipality and every stakeholder would have the opportunity of reviewing that information in depth.

Alan Tonks has done an excellent job of building consensus and getting input from the regional people, the lower-tier municipalities, to make sure we've got legislation that will provide the best coordinating services for the entire GTA

I believe that the Greater Toronto Services Board is important and we're going to act on it as quickly as we possibly can.

1450

Mr Phillips: Next Thursday, I gather, the House will break for God knows how long, because we were off from the middle of December till the end of April. On something this important, I think we need some assurance from the minister that you are planning to act on it. I think it's fair to say that our municipalities across the greater Toronto area are absolutely anxious that you get on with it.

It's a very simple question, Minister: Can you assure the House that you will introduce the legislation next week so that the public, the municipalities and the opposition can understand where in the world you're heading with this?

Hon Mr Leach: I'm very pleased that the opposition parties agree that the Greater Toronto Services Board is extremely important to ensure that the coordination of services is conducted in a very efficient manner across the GTA. We recognize that it's important, and that's why we've taken the time to make sure that every stakeholder in the GTA has had ample opportunity to have input into that process. Every municipality, all the businesses, the development agencies have all had opportunities to make sure that the legislation we bring forward will serve the people of the greater Toronto area to the very best.

We have one week to go in the House. The member of the opposition only has another three or four days to wait, to see whether that legislation comes in next week. I understand that the House leaders have indicated that it probably will. I have great faith in my House leader to get in the legislation that's necessary.

AIRCRAFT PLANT CLOSURE

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism. Virtually every country in the world wants a piece of the aircraft manufacturing industry. Virtually every country in the world understands that the manufacture of civilian and commercial aircraft carries with it tens of thousands of high-tech, high-productivity spinoff jobs. So the workers at McDonnell Douglas were concerned, to say the least, when they read in the newspaper that your government is not prepared to invest to help reposition that very productive factory and help reposition the at least 2,000 direct, highly productive, high-technology jobs that exist there.

Minister, the people at McDonnell Douglas want your government to make a commitment. They want your government to make a commitment that you will invest to ensure that that factory is repositioned and that vital part of the aircraft manufacturing industry stays in Ontario, along with the thousands of jobs.

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism): The honourable member knows exactly that this government is very committed to job creation. The honourable member has hit on something that's very important. We do have a very qualified workforce in the aerospace sector. I've said that in this House and I've also said it everywhere I've been in promoting the aerospace sector in Ontario.

It speaks very well for that sector because of what the honourable member said earlier. Canada, the province of Ontario, generates a lot of jobs in the aerospace sector even though it does not have that much military equipment. When you take a look at how the aerospace industry works, I believe that builders of the aerospace industry want to invest in areas where they know they're going to get some business, but they're still investing in Ontario because of the quality of the workforce and also because of the positive economic environment that Ontario finally really has.

Mr Hampton: Minister, you don't seem to get the picture. This is an industry of the future. This is an industry that carries with it tens of thousands of good-paying, highly productive spinoff jobs. I want to give you an example.

Your Premier was very pleased to go stand in front of the de Havilland factory in Downsview and say that this is a wonderful success story, but need I remind you that five short years ago there were only 1,500 people working at the de Havilland factory. I was there earlier today and there are now over 5,000, and they are producing four different aircraft and components for another aircraft. It's been a huge success story. Why? Because the Rae government, the NDP government, was willing to invest in those jobs, willing to invest in that industry.

I've also been to the McDonnell Douglas factory, and you ought to go, because the workers there want to know, are you prepared to invest in them? Are you prepared to invest to make sure that this vital industry of the future stays here in Ontario, grows here in Ontario and provides more jobs in Ontario?

Hon Mr Palladini: The honourable member is echoing the same words that I've been echoing for the past three years and that this government has been echoing for the past three years, and these are the same words that we echoed during the campaign of the Common Sense Revolution to bring prosperity back in Ontario. So I want to commend the honourable member for reminding Ontarians of what this government is doing.

We've been saying all along that we want to protect those jobs. I am ready to go to Seattle to see what can be done. I have met with Minister Manley, the Minister of Industry for Canada, and he is on side, because we want to do whatever it takes to make sure that we don't lose one job. Whatever we have to do, we will make that effort in doing it. But most important, we are doing it. We are creating a very positive economic environment so that businesses are going to look at Ontario as an investment opportunity.

MUNICIPAL LEGISLATION

Mr Frank Sheehan (Lincoln): My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. The current Municipal Act is outdated, overly prescriptive and it causes a lot of confusion. It's difficult to understand. In February you released for consultation draft legislation for a proposed new Municipal Act. The lengthy consultation period was over on May 8. Can you report to the House what's happening?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I would like to thank the member for Lincoln for that question. As I think the members realize, the Municipal Act was written about 150 years ago and is severely out of date. It's a very cumbersome document that actually is very restrictive to municipalities. It gives them very little autonomy. They have to come to the Legislature for almost every little change that is needed. Little issues like dealing with barbed-wire fences, for example, require legislation to change, and we think the municipalities should have the autonomy to make decisions like that themselves.

Again, we've done a great deal of consultation. We've received 250 submissions from various stakeholders across the province as to how the Municipal Act should be revised. It's not surprising that the municipal governments want more autonomy than we're proposing to give -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Answer.

Hon Mr Leach: - while the other business stakeholders feel that we've gone too far.

We want to take those 250 submissions and analyse them completely -

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr Sheehan: Clearly there appear to be a variety of concerns to municipalities, the general public and the business sector in general. There seems to be a consensus that this act must be rewritten and yet the stakeholders seem to think there might be a need for some further consultation. Is that possible and do you plan to have it?

Hon Mr Leach: Again I thank the member for Lincoln for that question. As I mentioned, we received 250 different submissions from municipalities and various stakeholders across the province such as the Urban Development Institute and the law society, all giving extremely good input into the legislation.

But there isn't any doubt about it that the Municipal Act is complex. The municipalities want more autonomy. The business sector and the development industry would like to see more restrictions on the municipalities. We're going to work to find that compromise, that consensus between the various stakeholders, and for that reason we will redraft the legislation, put it out for further consultation over the summer and bring it back to this House in the fall.

1500

CANCER TREATMENT

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): My question is to the Minister of Health. In Graham Scott's report to your ministry regarding the realigned cancer care direction for Ontario, he stated that more financial resources must be directed in several areas, prevention and supportive care being two of them.

We have seen mountains of papers outlining what you plan to do but the people of Ontario have yet to see any real dollars directed in the area of supportive care services. When are you going to not only talk the talk but also walk the walk and listen to what Dr Margaret Fitch, who is coordinator of supportive care services, said: "Supportive care looks after patients' physical, informational, emotional, psychological, social and spiritual needs and can be just as important as treatment"?

Minister, my question is very simple: What do I tell Cancer Care Ontario's annual meeting in Sudbury tomorrow about your commitment to supportive services? How many dollars are you going to commit today towards supportive care services?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): Our government has been looking at reforming health care in order that we can provide the appropriate level of care, and certainly supportive services are very necessary. That's why we are reforming the health system. If people have needs, whether they're primary care needs, hospital needs, long-term-care needs or community service needs, we are ensuring that the money is being provided and we are putting every dollar into patient and people care.

Mr Bartolucci: That's hardly walking the walk. They want a commitment not of words but of dollars - a real commitment.

Prevention is also a major concern for everyone involved in cancer care. Cancer Care Ontario's interim report card stated that you have to direct far more fiscal/financial resources towards prevention.

Industrial causes of cancer are a major concern for everyone but in particular for people living in areas such as Windsor, Sault Ste Marie, Sarnia, Sudbury and Hamilton. These people want to know what you're going to do with regard to the report in Cancer Care Ontario's interim report card that stated that 9% of all workers die as a direct result of cancer. In other words, Minister, they want to know, when are you going to appoint a panel to look at the industrial factors which influence cancer in the workplace?

Hon Mrs Witmer: We certainly share the concerns of the member. We also share the concerns of the people in those communities which have been impacted. As you know, priority issues are extremely important for our government, and certainly the issue of cancer - the prevention of cancer, the treatment of cancer - is very important. In fact, that's why our government set up Cancer Care Ontario, in order that we could ensure that as a result of the work that was being done across this province, Cancer Care Ontario would be able to make recommendations to the government that would ensure that people, no matter where they lived, would have equal access to preventive programs and treatment. The recent information that we have received from Cancer Care Ontario is now being reviewed with them and we will be providing the appropriate resources.

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): To the Deputy Premier: Yesterday Ottawa finally acknowledged the claim of the Kettle and Stony Point people to the land that was formerly Camp Ipperwash. That land was seized, as you know, some 50 years ago by the federal government. The acknowledgement doesn't include the property, the land that is currently Ipperwash Provincial Park.

The government has known for years, and your government has been in possession of documents, specifically the 1937 letter, for the last three years, indicating that there's a burial ground in existence on what is now Ipperwash Provincial Park.

In view of the validation of the claims by the Kettle and Stony Point peoples, by virtue of the federal government's acknowledgement of their claims to Camp Ipperwash, will this government now commit to respecting the sacred ground of first nations people and return to them their land at Ipperwash Provincial Park?

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Attorney General? I apologize, I thought you said the Attorney General. Did you say Deputy Premier?

Mr Kormos: No. You read Mr Eves's mind, though.

The Speaker: Deputy Premier. My fault.

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): Mr Speaker, I would like to refer this question to the minister responsible for native affairs.

The Speaker: I've got to tell you that it was my fault, so there will be a supplementary, because there wasn't enough time left. Attorney General.

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): To date, no land claim has been submitted to Ontario with respect to the lands encompassed by Ipperwash Provincial Park, but as I have said in this Legislature before, certainly if there is a burial ground at Ipperwash Provincial Park, the government will do whatever it has to do to ensure that burial ground is respected and protected.

Mr Kormos: The fact that those people were occupying that park in 1995 addresses very much their claim over land that includes, among other things, a historical burying ground. That's why they were there. Rather than looking into it and rather than utilizing the normal protocol and procedure that has been adopted by the OPP historically, this government took a very different tack.

You know, Attorney General, that on the night of September 6, 1995, the OPP suddenly changed their long-time policy, their long-time protocol. That protocol went out the window, and they moved into the park and shot Dudley George.

There were meetings on September 5 and 6 with the Premier's aide, Deb Hutton, where remarks were made to the effect of, "Get the Indians out of the park." That was a major shift in policy. This government played a very distinctive role.

We have asked you time after time to clear the air and call a public inquiry. For two years you have stalled, delayed and postponed. What exactly is it that the government is hiding? Will you acknowledge the claims of the Kettle and Stoney Point people and will you call an inquiry into this matter?

Hon Mr Harnick: As I have indicated before, there are a number of lawsuits, be they civil or criminal, that continue. It would be inappropriate to deal with the issue of any kind of inquiry.

Let me say further that our government has been clear and consistent on this issue. We will not discuss issues pertaining to Ipperwash Provincial Park until the occupation has ended. Certainly once the occupation has ended, we can talk about the issue of the burial ground. We can talk about the issue of a land claim if a land claim is indeed ultimately submitted. Those are all things that the province is prepared to do.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I seek unanimous consent to revert to introduction of bills.

The Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA CITÉ DE TORONTO

Ms Lankin moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 44, An Act to amend the City of Toronto Act, 1997 / Projet de loi 44, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1997 sur la cité de Toronto.

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

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): My fourth bill. I dare not say much, Mr Speaker, only to assure the minister that these bills are not cumulative.

VICTIMS OF VIOLENT CRIME WEEK ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA SEMAINE DES VICTIMES DE CRIMES DE VIOLENCE

Mr Baird moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 45, An Act proclaiming Victims of Violent Crime Week / Projet de loi 45, Loi proclamant la Semaine des victimes de crimes de violence.

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

PETITIONS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): It's with great pleasure that I rise in the Legislature today to read a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the government of Ontario has cut the budget of Collingwood Marine and General Hospital by an unreasonable amount given our growth in population and high percentage of seniors;

"Whereas this has led the board of the hospital to contemplate cutting beds below the level needed to serve the community, while the nearest alternative service is at least 45 minutes away; and

"Whereas such cuts may also lead to the loss of qualified doctors and other health services; and

"Whereas Jim Wilson, MPP, has chosen not to represent our community's need for good health care, in contradiction to his statement and commitment made in 1994;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, request the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to restore the reckless cut to the Collingwood General and Marine Hospital and to adopt a real rural health policy that will protect communities such as ours from such threats in the future."

It is indeed my pleasure to present, on behalf of 9,426 citizens of Collingwood, this petition, to which I add my signature. My thanks to its organizer, Mr Murray Doupe.

1510

COMPENSATION FOR HEPATITIS C PATIENTS

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

"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.

ALTERNATIVE FUELS

Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): I have a petition signed by several people in my riding.

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to pass legislation under the Environmental Protection Act requiring that all gasoline offered for sale to motor vehicles in the province should contain a minimum oxygen content by weight as a result of a blended fuel mixture, which may include ethanol."

I proudly affix my signature.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which I'd like to read. It's says, "Say no to the privatization of health care."

"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 concur with the petitioners and I will affix my signature to it.

BOTTLE RECYCLING

Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph): I am delighted to present a petition this afternoon from 94 students at Shelldale Crescent Public School. They indicate to us that refillable PET bottles can be reused more than 25 times, that they can be recycled and that they use less resources and cause less pollution. I am pleased to offer this petition on their behalf. They request that the Legislature indicate that plastic pop bottles should be reused and that a deposit-return system should be enforced in Ontario.

ELECTORAL REFORM

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition which reads as follows:

"To the government of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I affix my signature because I am in full agreement.

HEALTH CARE

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): For the benefit of the House, I attended the annual general meeting of the Memorial Hospital in Bowmanville. It was their last general meeting because they are forming the East Durham Hospital Corp. I met with members Victoria Girling, Anna Strike and Patti Stephenson. They are very concerned about health care, and I have a petition here to present from some of my constituents.

"To Premier Harris, Minister of Health Elizabeth Witmer and members of the Ontario Legislature:

"Whereas the Ministry of Health has recently strengthened its position as the number one ministry, obvious by its $1.7-billion three-year agreement with the Ontario Medical Association, and by increasing health care spending from $17.4 billion to some $18.5 billion;

"Furthermore, its $1.2-billion long-term care funding and its recently announced $186-million capital for hospitals in Toronto; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government is committed to fair, equitable funding for all Ontarians; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Health has met with the GTA/905 Health Care Alliance and recognizes that the GTA, especially Durham, is underfunded, less than the provincial average;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately commit to the growth funding to the GTA and Durham and to make this funding announcement as soon as possible."

I am pleased to sign my name to this petition for Durham East. Mr Klees for York-Mackenzie, Julia Munro for Durham-York all sign -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I have another petition addressed 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; and

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will affix my signature to it.

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition presented to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. In summary, it says:

It is signed by a significant number of my constituents and I will affix my signature to it as well.

1520

ELECTORAL REFORM

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario similar to one previously given but signed by a significant number of other people.

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

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

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

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

In full support of this, I add my signature.

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): Madam Speaker, pursuant to your directions in the past and the rulings of Speaker Morin, I won't take the time of this assembly to read the whole petition. Instead, I'll paraphrase according to standing order 38(b).

It's a petition signed by a number of constituents in my riding and outside who are concerned about the need to enact legislation that will recognize the freedom of conscience of health care workers.

I'm pleased to sign this petition to make it an official record of the Legislature.

RENT REGULATION

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario on rent control.

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has brought forth Bill 96, legislation which will effectively kill rent control in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris campaign literature during the York South by-election stated, `Rent control will continue'; and

"Whereas tenant groups, students and seniors have pointed out that this legislation will hurt those who can least afford it, as it will cause higher rents across most markets in Ontario; and

"Whereas this Mike Harris proposal will make it easier for residents to be evicted from retirement care homes; and

"Whereas the opposition continues to believe that all tenants, and particularly the vulnerable in our society who live on fixed incomes, deserve the assurance of a maximum rent cap;

"We, the undersigned, demand that the Mike Harris government scrap its proposal to abandon and eliminate rent control and introduce legislation which will protect tenants in the province of Ontario."

I affix my signature, as I'm in full agreement.

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): This is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas there is an urgent need to amend the Young Offenders Act; and

"Whereas the province of Ontario continues to show inordinate levels of youth crime in the province with unsatisfactory outcomes; and

"Whereas is it clear that the Young Offenders Act does not go far enough in dealing effectively with the most serious and violent young offenders, particularly repeat offenders; and

"Whereas the time has come to take measures to ensure that these offenders are held accountable for their actions;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, respectfully petition the province of Ontario as follows:

"That the government of Ontario pursue with the government of Canada to:

"(1) redefine young offender so that youths 16 and older are prosecuted as adults under the Criminal Code;

"(2) provide for the prosecution of youths under the age of 12 for serious or violent offences;

"(3) require youths transferred to adult court to have the same parole eligibility requirements as adult offenders;

"(4) restrict access to free legal counsel to ensure parents meet provincial legal aid eligibility requirements;

"(5) permit the publication of the names of youths convicted of serious violent crimes;

"(6) apply the victim surcharge to young offenders; and

"(7) provide for mandatory custody dispositions for youths convicted of an offence involving the use of weapons."

I affix my signature with pride to this petition.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): Point of order, Madam Speaker: I'd like to ask unanimous consent to have one more go-around of petitions.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Is there unanimous consent? No.

PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: As has just been proved by my colleague from Nepean obviously having failed to have an opportunity to present a petition again, I'm going to ask you again to direct your attention to standing order 38(d). Throughout this afternoon's proceedings, as is quite frequently the case, members opposite presented a number of petitions by what can only be described as speechifying, taking positions against government policies, and in almost every case the petition was returned by the Clerk.

Standing order 38(d) says, "Every member presenting a petition shall ensure that the petition conforms with the standing orders." If this was the first month, particularly for the new members in this assembly, it would be understandable if people did not know the rules. But when the member for St Catharines day after day - and many others, but twice today the member for St Catharines - submitted petitions that were immediately rejected - he knows full well the standards that petitions must meet. I would ask for your direction on what the Clerk can do to notify you when members consistently abuse this standing order.

At the same time, pursuant to standing order 38(b), and I appreciate that you have counselled members in this chamber that there is a need to abbreviate their statements, I believe it is incumbent upon you to put some kind of specific standard. Perhaps, if I may be so bold, 30 seconds could be offered to anyone to read an abbreviation and outline the number of people who have signed.

I would ask you to rule on those two, and in particular to direct those members who are continually taking up time and denying those with legitimate petitions that there will be a penalty if they do this in the future.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): To the member for Scarborough East, you actually did raise this point of order with me when I was in the chair, and I believe with the Speaker and one of the other deputy Speakers. My ruling at that time is the same as today. The standing orders say that you may summarize the petition or read the petition, but not both and that -

Mr Gilchrist: That's 38(b).

The Deputy Speaker: Do you want to listen to my ruling? Okay.

People have the opportunity to do one of those. That's what people have been doing.

Your other point, about the Clerk having some way to demonstrate to me that a petition may not be a valid one, there's no way within the existing rules that this can be done.

Your third point would mean a rule change. That is up to the Legislature. If you want to propose that there be a rule change, that there be a time limit on petitions, then so be it. You can do that, and then there can be a legislative change to the rules. That's my ruling.

Mr Gilchrist: Madam Speaker, I would ask you to clarify -

The Deputy Speaker: Just take your seat for one more moment.

I would remind members once again, as I did before when this point was raised, that there are a lot of members trying to get on for petitions. We have 15 minutes, and I would ask members to try to summarize their petitions. It's up to them to bear in mind that there are many people trying to get their petitions read within 15 minutes.

Mr Gilchrist: Madam Speaker, if I may ask your indulgence, you clarified that. I appreciate your position. Standing order 38(d), on the other hand, is not at all tenuous or nebulous in its demands. It says that "every member...shall ensure." Surely it flows from that that there is a consequence if a member does not ensure, particularly when it's a repeated abuse in this chamber.

This is not a case where a typographical error or something caused the rejection. There are no signatures or it's photocopied or there are erasures or insertions. These things are being rejected for obvious reasons that any member with more than a week's experience in this chamber would know make them invalid. There must be a consequence if people continually violate one of the standing orders. I would ask your explanation why the standing orders would not -

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Take your seat, please. There are many standing orders that have no sanctions. This is one of them. All I can do is say to the members that they should be aware of the standing order and adhere to it. It is not my responsibility to decide whether the petition is in order or not. That is determined by the Clerk. There are no penalties. Again, if you want to suggest that there should be a rule change and penalties attached, that's up to you. I have no power as the Chair to make that determination beforehand.

1530

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I hope that no member in this House rises to curtail our rights to represent the voice of our people. Often we do speak on behalf of our people here even when we read petitions submitted to us not in the proper form. But it is my duty, my responsibility, and I believe it is the member's responsibility to read whatever we receive in this House as petitions under any form. For the member to rise -

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you, member for Yorkview. I've already ruled on this, and I would again ask the members who may be abusing the rules as they exist to bear that in mind. But again I would say it is not my responsibility to make that determination before the clerks check the petitions. I do not have the responsibility to do that.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Hon David Turnbull (Minister without Portfolio): I move that pursuant to standing order 46 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House relating to 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, when Bill 31 is next called as a government order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill, without further debate or amendment, and at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading;

That the order for third reading of the bill shall then immediately be called and that two hours shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill;

That at the end of that time, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill without further debate or amendment;

That, in the case of any division relating to any proceeding on the bill, the division bells shall be limited to five minutes; and

That there shall be no deferral of the vote pursuant to standing order 28(h).

I believe we have unanimous consent to equally divide the time between the three parties this afternoon.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Is it agreed that the time will be divided among the three parties equally? Agreed.

Member for Niagara Falls.

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): It's amazing how quickly we got unanimous consent. I thought we weren't going to get it for the rest of the session. But I understand that some of these things are arranged before we get here and I know the House leaders need to cooperate on several of these things. So I'm delighted that we've got unanimous consent to split the time equally among the three parties, and I'll be the first speaker for my party, to be followed by two others.

I just want to speak briefly on the principles of Bill 31, the Economic Development and Workplace Democracy Act. This legislation is about three things: It is about jobs, it is about fairness, and it is about the basic democratic rights of employees.

The opposition says: "Stop. Wait." Well, this government believes that we should not wait, that it is wrong to wait and even worse to stop. We must not wait for jobs. We must not wait for fairness. We must not wait for basic democratic rights.

This legislation is about jobs, thousands of high-skilled, good-paying, unionized construction jobs and industrial jobs at the end of those construction projects. It's about thousands of high-skilled, good-paying industrial jobs, in fact. It's about thousands of spinoff jobs that build the communities that we live in.

This legislation is about fairness, the fairness that all construction companies in the province should have the right to bid on projects paid for by taxpayers' dollars. It's about fairness that treats construction companies as construction companies and those that are not construction companies as non-construction companies.

This legislation is about basic democratic rights: the right to a fair, secret ballot vote; the right that votes should count, always; the right that majority rules; and the right that some misconduct by a third party, union or management, should not take away that right to choose.

I'd like to speak about project agreements that are in this bill. This legislation is about building a future for this province, a future the Liberals would like to put on hold, a future the NDP would like to kill altogether. The future doesn't wait. The future is now. Ontario is losing out on jobs now.

While we have had a huge job creation success in the past three years because of the actions of this government, there are thousands more just waiting to go ahead.

One company, Bayer, after we brought forward this act, had this to say in indicating that it would indeed go forward with some more construction projects which will bring forward long-term industrial jobs to the province of Ontario:

"It is necessary for us to continuously improve our existing businesses in order to be competitive. We are counting on the provincial government to provide a leadership role in a pro-growth, pro-job environment. Today's announcement by the Minister of Labour regarding the labour legislation is welcome news for us. This removes the final impediment that would help us attract more international investments to this area."

This has been echoed by other petrochemical companies that want to invest in Ontario. In fact, the Canadian Chemical Producers Association had this to say:

"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.

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

We couldn't agree more. We want those 42,000 jobs to happen as soon as possible and that's what today's motion is about.

This legislation would put in place a framework for negotiation, a framework that would allow unions and companies to come together and work out a specific deal for a specific project, the terms and conditions of which are their choosing and theirs alone.

If 60% of the unions approve that deal, then the project goes ahead. Right now, if one union disagrees with the deal, then it dies and the project is lost, the construction jobs are lost, the investment jobs are lost and the resulting long-term industrial jobs are lost.

Project agreements, as proposed in this legislation, build a framework so that projects, jobs and investment will not be lost because one group won't play. It builds a simple framework of majority rule.

Already there have been several myths that have cropped up about this bill. Let me just address a few of those.

The myth that project agreements take away a union's right to strike: The reality is that unions negotiate all the terms and conditions of any project agreement, including no-strike, no-lockout provisions.

The myth that project agreements force unions to cut wages: Project agreements can only be entered into with 60% of the union's approval and do not require any adjustment to wages.

Construction unions never agreed to project agreements: The reality is that construction unions and employers have agreed in principle on project agreements for almost a year.

Finally, the myth that there have been no meaningful discussions on the construction provisions of this bill: The reality is that discussions around making Ontario's construction industry competitive, including who should or should not be covered by provincial bargaining, have been ongoing for over a year.

1540

It appears that the opposition doesn't really care about the jobs that the project agreements could bring. The opposition doesn't seem to care about the investment that project agreements could bring. The opposition doesn't seem to care about the standard of living of the communities that would get this new investment, that would get these jobs, that would see these communities grow and prosper with new wealth and new opportunities.

The NDP forget about regular local union members and what they really want. I can tell you, Madam Speaker, they want jobs. When those construction jobs are over and those projects are complete and that investment is in place, they want another job, they want another project.

Project agreements, as proposed in this legislation, would give a better chance - a much better chance - at winning investment and bringing projects to Ontario and keeping construction workers working. That's what construction workers want. They want to work. They want to provide for their families. They want security for their future. That's what they want and that's what this legislation will do.

I'd like to ask the opposition if regular union members - for instance, those from the Sarnia area - want jobs to secure their future. I'd like to ask them if good hardworking union people in this province want this government to work hard to help bring good unionized construction jobs to the province.

I'd say that the opposition is out of touch with hardworking people in Ontario and I'd say that some union bosses are out of touch with their local members if they think anything else.

I'd like the opposition to ask the construction worker without a job if he or she wants one. I'd like them to ask the spouse of that construction worker if he or she wants their spouse to have a job. I'd like them to ask their children too.

I know the members from Sarnia, Mr Boushy and Mr Beaubien, have asked the question to thousands of people in their communities and I know that the answer came back loud and clear to them: that they were anxious for those jobs, that they were anxious for this government to move on project agreements so that those jobs might become a reality.

The Liberals would like this government to sit back and rest on our laurels. We've got good laurels to rest on: 370,000 jobs in the past three years. They say that the construction sector is competitive enough, that we don't need to continue competing for major industrial projects and all those jobs and all the prosperity that goes with it. Why then have the trade unions and contractors been discussing construction competitiveness issues for over a year? Why then have all parties agreed something must be done?

I briefly said that there was some agreement from construction unions about project agreements and I know that the members opposite will stand up and read letters to me later on today that say that's not the case, letters - I have copies of the same - which came out after this legislation was introduced saying just that, that some of the building trades didn't agree with project agreements.

The signatories of this letter, though - many of the exact same people, definitely all of the exact same unions - back on July 18, 1997, in a final proposal to the Minister of Labour, agreed with project agreements for Ontario. So for them now to say that they don't agree with project agreements - never have - is a little difficult for us on this side of the House to abide by.

Some of the people who signed the agreement in July, who have signed the letter of the trades council recently, probably at the behest of one of the opposite parties, include the Ontario Provincial Conference of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsworkers; the International Association of Bridge, Structural, and Ornamental Iron Workers and Rod Workers; Millwrights District Council; International Brotherhood of Boilermakers; Sprinklerfitters local; International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers; and it goes on and on.

So there has been a great deal of work on these agreements; there has been a great deal of consensus, as I mentioned, with this agreement back in July.

I know that politics plays a part, but we can't always let politics stay in the way of new jobs for Ontario citizens.

The Canadian Chemical Producers, as I have said, worry that we'll miss out on a potential $5 billion in investment from the petrochemical sector alone if Ontario doesn't get its construction sector more competitive. That's a potential, they have told us, of 42,000 jobs.

This government is looking out at the future, because we can never plan for too many jobs and because planning for the future is what good government is all about. Members opposite may not understand this, given their record in government, but this government knows that if we don't plan for the future, we will lose out on jobs, we will lose out on investment, we will lose out on growth, and our standard of living will slide just like it did in the years from 1990 to 1995.

Remember those times, the despair that soaked through our communities, the fear of the future for ourselves and our children, the despair that plunged almost an entire generation of young people into hopelessness? I remember, from 1990 to 1995, the closures of plants in my own riding and don't ever want to see that come Ontario's way again. Why did it happen? It happened because there was no plan to make jobs the number one priority. There was no course set for a future of prosperity.

This legislation is part - only part - of the government's plan for the future, a plan that would keep the jobs coming to Ontario, that would keep new investment coming to Ontario. This legislation is part of the plan for a strong and prosperous Ontario, an Ontario built by a competitive construction industry.

It's important that this legislation move forward now. This legislation is about jobs, it's about fairness and it's about the basic democratic rights of employees. This legislation is about thousands of high-skilled, good-paying, unionized construction jobs, high-skilled, good-paying industrial jobs, and it's about thousands of spinoff jobs and prosperity for the communities of Ontario.

This legislation is about the fairness that all construction companies in the province should have the right to bid on projects paid for by taxpayers' dollars. It's about fairness that treats construction companies as construction companies, and those that are not construction companies will not be treated as construction companies. It is about basic democratic rights: the right to a fair secret ballot vote, the right that votes should always count, the right that majority rules and the right that misconduct by a third party, union or management, should not take away an employee's right to choose.

We must not wait for jobs. We must not wait for fairness. We must not wait to bring basic democratic rights to the workers of Ontario. The time to build a future is now.

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): I am pleased to join with my colleague in debate on the bill before us, an important bill indeed. I would like to start my remarks by referring to an internationally published paper entitled "A Mid-term Review of the Harris Government." Specifically with regard to labour issues, the paper states the following:

"Both theory and evidence suggest that economies with less rigid labour markets produce more jobs and experience greater productivity gains than economies with more rigid labour markets. The Ontario government must be applauded for taking steps to reduce job-destroying labour market rigidities."

I thought that might be a good way to begin the discussion on this legislation before us. Much has been said to date in debate around this bill by members of the opposition about how this legislation supposedly is an attack on marketplace democracy, on workplace democracy. The member for Hamilton Centre waxes eloquent, particularly with galleries behind him on occasion, about how this will destroy jobs, about how this will interfere with workplace democracy. Quite to the contrary. In fact, we believe very strongly that this legislation takes one additional step forward towards entrenching workplace democracy here in Ontario, which in turn will lead to more jobs, and more confidence on the part of employers, on the part of those who are going to invest in this province, on the part of international investors as they consider the labour market here in Ontario and the environment in which businesses can invest for future job growth.

1550

Section 11 of the previous act, prior to amendment, "allowed trade unions to be certified in certain circumstances despite," and I'm reading from the preface to this bill, "the results of the representation vote. Section 11 also allowed applications for certification to be dismissed in certain circumstances despite the results of a representation vote."

I find it difficult - and we have people here with us today observing these proceedings and it must be confusing to them as well - to hear members of this Legislature refer to a bill that takes away the ability of the labour relations board to override the expressed will of individuals who participated in a vote regarding certification and construe that as being in the interests of democracy.

My understanding of the democratic process of the rights of individuals in our society to express themselves over an issue is, yes, we have a vote, and in order for that vote to truly be effective it should be a secret ballot vote. Then, when the votes are counted, the majority should rule. I believe that is how we in this province, in this country, understand the democratic process.

What we are proposing, if this legislation comes into effect, and we trust that it will, and perhaps even members opposite after they have a chance to seriously consider the facts of this legislation - unfortunately, we heard today from a member of one of the opposition parties, and I cannot imagine that this would have happened, but the member actually admitted that she'd voted on a bill and hadn't read it. She was changing her mind about this in her heart and had an opportunity to express that today.

I can't imagine that that would ever happen in this House. However, perhaps some members who have expressed their opposition to this particular piece of legislation have done so also because they really haven't read it. It's our hope that over the next number of hours members of the opposition parties would take the time and really read this legislation, read it in a spirit of contemplation and consider what is best for the people back home in their ridings; for, yes, the unions members, who will be depending on this legislation for jobs.

We have a report. This comes out of a paper that I'm sure you read daily, the Toronto Sun. This is Christina Blizzard's column, if I may quote her. I know you admire her as well. "The bottom line is this: Estimates are Flaherty's legislation" - which by the way can become all of our legislation if we come together and vote for this - "will save 42,500 jobs in the petrochemical industry alone."

What is in the best interests of the workers of Ontario? Is it that we create an artificial debate about this legislation and what may in its worst-case scenario take place? I don't think so. When we settle down and consider the true principles, as my colleague referenced them earlier in debate, we can all agree that it is in fact in the best interests of all workers in this province, unionized or non-unionized, that we pass this legislation, that we create an environment in the workplace that is truly democratic and that truly works in the interests of employers, workers and the economy overall.

What is the direction this bill will take us? It will ensure that when there is a vote it's clear, decisive in terms of its result, the vote of the majority of the people who have cast a vote; that if there is to be certification, it will be as a result of that vote. Likewise, if it is to the contrary, that too will be honoured.

There are members of this House who have an inherent distrust of employers. Apparently those individuals and those companies in this province who risk their capital, who go out of their way to create opportunities for employment, somehow they are the evil ones in this province. Are there occasions in this province where perhaps an employer has intimidated? Is that possible? It is possible. We're not living in a perfect world. Clearly, we have to ensure as well that there is protection for workers in those circumstances.

But contrary again to the contentions of members opposite who say that this legislation strips protection from workers in the event of that kind of intimidation, I point to subsection 11(5) of the proposed legislation, which I would like to read into the record. It states as follows: "Without restricting its powers under section 96, the board may do anything to ensure that a new representation vote ordered under this section reflects the true wishes of the employees in the bargaining unit."

The board retains the right that if for any reason whatsoever it determines that perhaps there has been an interference with the right of the workers or with that voting process, that vote can be ordered again and the appropriate mechanism be put in place to determine the will of the workers under the circumstance.

It's important that we understand, that the workers in our province understand, what the true intent of this legislation is and what it is not; that there are some myths being perpetuated across the province. Quite frankly, if I was in the shoes of workers who did not have access directly to this legislation, I would not appreciate having that kind of misinformation perpetuated to me, because I rely on the leaders, whether or not they be union leaders, I rely on those to whom I'm paying my union dues to give me the goods about what the circumstances are that I'm facing. This is one opportunity we have in this House to set the record straight.

My colleague has already referenced some of those myths that have been discussed. Another one of those myths is that under this proposed legislation employees of non-construction employers can't be unionized. That's absolutely false. The fact of the matter is that no employees will be denied bargaining rights. These employers are subject to the same rules as all other employers outside the construction industry.

A second myth is that non-construction employer provisions are only in the bill to cater to big business. Lots of small employers and their associations - for example, the CFIB and the OGCA - have asked that non-construction employers such as retailers, schools and municipalities not be treated like big construction companies.

Another myth is that the repeal of the OLRB's automatic certification or non-certification power invites employer and union misconduct. I just read into the record the section of the act that clearly dispels that.

1600

Another myth is that the repeal of the OLRB's automatic certification or non-certification power is undemocratic. Guaranteeing that the results of a fair, secret ballot vote are respected is not undemocratic. In fact, as I've indicated before, it's at the basis of democracy.

Yes, there are those in this House who are probably going to argue again this afternoon that there are circumstances under which the democratic will should be overruled. Well, we're going to agree to disagree. We're going to agree, that is, those of us who respect democracy, that we must ensure that the will of the majority on these votes prevails and that kind of workplace democracy is continued.

Why do we do that? At the end of the day, philosophically, individuals may win and have their way, but let me point out that we have come through a number of years in this province where the kind of philosophical thought that's being put forward by the member for Hamilton Centre resulted in a tremendous outflow of jobs from this province; resulted in employers no longer willing to invest in this province because they were unsure of what the environment would be into which they were investing their dollars.

We're bringing this legislation forward because we believe that it will encourage job growth. It will encourage investment not only within the province but internationally. We believe that at the end of the day it will be in the best interests of unions -

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): Oh, please.

Mr Klees: - because it will restore credibly to an organization that is there to serve their membership and to serve the best interests of their membership.

The member for Hamilton Centre expresses his obvious disagreement with that very statement. Let me suggest to you that every union member whom I have spoken to in my constituency office, and I speak to many, is frankly fed up with the fact that their expressed will is many times overruled because of organizational structures. This is a bill that will strengthen the rights of individual unionized workers. It will give them hope that the organization to which they're paying dues will be managed in accordance with their will, that they will have a say.

What is the effect? The effect, we believe, is job growth. The effect is a much more stable workplace. The effect will be a workplace that has at its core democratic principles and, at the end of the day, much more hope for the people of Ontario, much more hope for young people looking at the workplace, coming into the workforce, because jobs will be there.

As my colleague mentioned earlier, 370,000-plus net new jobs have been created in this province over the last three years. We have a long way to go because there are still unemployed people in this province. There are still young people who are looking ahead and questioning whether in fact there will be an opportunity for them. The message that we have for those people is, yes, there will be, because through legislation like this we're setting the framework; we're laying the groundwork for them to continue to have hope, to ensure that those jobs will be there.

I am pleased to have been able to take part in this debate. I pass on to my colleague the opportunity to make his remarks.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): It is certainly my pleasure to add some comments with respect to Bill 31. Bill 31, as all the speakers today have outlined, 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.

I was just reading, as an interesting segue to start, the Canadian Parliamentary Review of summer 1998. I'm sure each member has one of these and has read with great interest the comments and questions raised in that issue. There are questions being put to some rather famous or important people in politics. Mr Conway from the Liberal Party was in there. I think he is a well-recognized and important speaker and commentator on today's issues. Here he says that the economy has always dominated the issues in Ontario. Really what he's saying is that this very debate is about the economy in Ontario. This piece of legislation is about providing some harmony and balance in the workplace while respecting the rights of employers and employees. The balance you're always looking for, as legislators, is to not in any way put aside traditions but to try to reach some sort of consensus. In many cases it's difficult to reach that consensus that we wish to reach.

Everything this government is doing is all about creating jobs, and I suspect, as Mr Conway said, every government deals with this in some different way. I would refer to the government before ours. It might be suggested that government was defeated on that very issue. They ran into the fundamentals of the economy, were on bedrock, revenues were declining immensely, jobs were falling off - in fact, from the comments today in the House I think there was a loss over that period of government of some 10,000 jobs.

If I were to point to a single event that crystallized this underlying economic debate, I'd have to point to the social contract. What did the social contract do for them? The social contract was the government of the day - government is always going to be criticized - opening up every public sector contract in the province without one single debate. That government was eventually rewarded appropriately.

Every government walks with some trepidation into the field of labour relations. Every single day in labour relations is a challenge to find the balance of jobs and opportunity, which is the agenda of this government, the balance of opportunities for contracts, and unions and union representatives to save face, if they can, in the challenge of competition.

We could look at the globalized world, but you don't have to look very far. If you look at the playing field today of new construction coming into Ontario - competition, if you will, not under the same mandate or regulation of the old rulings in the construction industry - they're not playing by the same rules.

Much of the opportunity for Ontario workers is at risk. Without some important change and without the leadership of Minister Flaherty and indeed the government's policies, these changes could not take place.

Why are we doing it? As the member for Hamilton Centre later this afternoon I'm sure will suggest - he will rant and he will rave, but I really think any government would come to the same conclusion that ultimately all governments, including the Liberal government, would want to do the right thing for the workers of Ontario to save jobs. After all, if you look back at the social contract, that's what they said: "We're doing this darned thing here but we're saving jobs." They justified it. We're going to use the same argument, justifying jobs.

What kind of jobs are we talking about here this afternoon? The member for Niagara Falls was very quick to point out that we're talking about high-skilled, mainly unionized, high-paying construction jobs. These are very critical jobs for creating infrastructure, but they're also highly skilled, professionalized groups who have knowledge-based jobs. Those are the jobs of the future. Those are the jobs we're currently talking about. These are important partners in this debate, and for any government to ignore that would be a mistake. A partnership is mutually respectful, recognizing the rights and important opportunities for both groups to move forward.

Mr Christopherson: What do you know about partners?

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Hamilton Centre, come to order.

Mr O'Toole: But deadlock and rudeness certainly isn't one of the solutions.

Mr Christopherson: Neither is stupidity.

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Hamilton Centre.

1610

Mr O'Toole: The bill itself amends important legislation. It amends the Labour Relations Act, 1995, the Employment Standards Act and portions of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

Some of the changes include:

Amendments relating to certification: It's very sensitive; I recognize that. Those partners involved in the debate, the union and the employer, have to find some solution in that process, there's no question about it. The province-wide situation has left them uncompetitive and inflexible in terms of finding a new way of doing business.

Amendments relating to construction: This specifically pertains to that particular sector of the economy, an important sector. In fact, it's rumoured that there's a plethora of opportunity waiting right now, not just in the chemical sector but in a number of project sectors. We're looking towards projects like the Olympics. We're looking to a lot of projects. Ontario is open for business. Get the message. With that we need the infrastructure and we need the jobs in Ontario for Ontario workers. There's no one in this House who will disagree with that, and the issue then is, how do we get there without the big fight?

If fighting is the solution, you'll end up with what they've got at General Motors in Detroit right now: nobody doing anything and meanwhile the imports are coming in at a lower price and the jobs go with them. So let's get with it. You can use the old style ranting and raving, but the underlying fundamentals - I go back to what Mr Conway said - are the reason we're all here. Once we've recognized that, you're then looking for democracy and balance.

The simple suggestion of providing a secret ballot: Who could disagree with that process? It may have worked in the old days at the union hall, with "Raise your hand" and this kind of stuff, and half the people were there and half weren't, but today it's far too important to ignore. The rights of the individual are absolutely paramount and have to be respected in this House and in any House where the process of fairness is in place.

I'm not going to take the time to break into much of the detail, but there are some steps in the project agreements that I do want to cover. It's a very complicated process and, for the members and for those watching today, I've tried to understand it, not as being a knowledgeable participant, essentially.

I have the greatest respect for unions. I learned to work with them. I've worked with unions, because they have been around for longer than I have and they must have been created for some reason. I suspect you've got to learn to work together.

The times are changing. We must protect the jobs in Ontario. The unions know that, the employers know that and I know that, and certainly Mike Harris knows that. We're trying to create that new climate. I'm surprised, quite honestly, when I think of Mr Phillips, a very respected financial, economic, fundamental type of person. I'm just waiting for how he's going to vote. He knows how important that is. Sean Conway knows how important that is. I'm not surprised that perhaps Mr Christopherson may not agree. How can he? All his checkoff dues will be cancelled.

Project agreements must be industrial projects in the ICI sector or designated by regulation. For instance, the owner of land or entity with interest in land, or an agent who owns the land, who believes there's a project which is of economic significance - a huge project; let's say a new SkyDome - creates a list of bargaining agents. He lists all the people who will be used, the skills and subtrades to do that project, and the project site within a geographic jurisdiction, and which are bound by provincial construction agreements.

All of those partners, first the person who has all the money and land but needs the skills and expertise of those high-skilled union or non-unionized people to help them complete the project - there's a natural partnership there, but he hasn't got to deal with the whole province. He wants to deal with Sarnia or Sudbury or Ottawa or Kingston or indeed Oshawa, part of my riding. We've got the parties, and I would agree they're all part of that agreement, and without that you never have an agreement and I respect that as well.

Step 2 is here: The proponent gives each bargaining agent on the list a notice that it wants to have a project agreement, together with copies of lists, general descriptions of the project and estimated costs. How big? A billion? It talks about $45 billion waiting in this province for project agreements. Imagine the jobs that we could lose if we don't get on this. The industry itself knows this is an important thing. Proponents give copies of the material to the affected employers and employee bargaining agents, and also to the Ontario Labour Relations Board, together with evidence of the service. Okay? We've got the Ontario Labour Relations Board acting as the mediator between all these various parties.

Step 3: Bargaining agents on the list have 14 days after receiving notice to apply to the labour relations board for an order that the project may not be subject to the project agreement. So they can back out right off the front. The OLRB shall dismiss applications if the project is in the ICI sector or designated by regulation. Otherwise the OLRB shall grant the application. So they've got this thing. Now they've got to get an agreement.

The agreement isn't provincial. That's the change here. The agreement is a project agreement, or in fact it could be a geographical region, I think. That's up to the parties to decide, I believe. I think they're going to find that where there are high unemployment areas in this province there's probably a lot of families that are under a lot of strain, because those skilled welders, electricians, whatever, have to travel all over the province for work. That's really difficult, yet there is no work that could be created in their own place, like Sarnia. We're all referring to that example of the member from Sarnia and the petroleum industry and we all, every person in here, including the member for Hamilton Centre - I'm sure he would love to be able to agree with this, but he can't. They won't let him, I'm telling you. He's hostage.

If 40% or more of the bargaining agents on the list agree in writing to giving a notice of project agreement, the proponent gives such notice by sending a copy of the proposed project agreement, together with the names of the bargaining agents that have agreed to the giving of the notice, to each bargaining unit, and a copy is again sent to the OLRB. Remember this project is very simple: democracy. One union, one vote. It's very simple, not that complicated.

Mr Maves: The unions support that.

Mr O'Toole: The unions certainly support it. I wouldn't like to leave the impression that they're anti-democratic. They certainly aren't. They're not. They're very guarded to the procedures and bylaws, and I believe they stick to them. I don't think there was great disruption when they introduced that compulsory secret ballot stuff. That was all kind of optics. They wanted that. It's there, they're doing it, it's not a problem.

Each individual employee or member of that union now has a significant responsibility. Don't complain to that leadership if the project agreement doesn't suit you. You'd better become involved and make your leadership aware of your concerns. That's what we do here. That's the job of the members in opposition and in the third party, to listen to the concerns of the membership.

Mr Christopherson: Where are the public hearings then? This debate is about shutting down debate.

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Hamilton Centre, come to order.

Mr O'Toole: Step 5: Bargaining agents may give notice of approval or disapproval of a proposed agreement to proponents within 30 days of receiving notice, giving a copy again to the labour relations board.

At this point we have the agreement that there is going to possibly be a sectoral agreement here. So at this point if we have at least 60% of the bargaining agents giving notice to a proponent approving the agreement, the agreement is approved. It's majority; that's the way democracy works. At the end of the day there will be a vote here on this very bill and there will be members who don't agree, but it's democracy and it has worked and served us well and it will continue to serve us well. Again, a copy goes to the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

Now, everybody is covered by that agreement, but it's a proportional thing, remember. Each of the particular skilled trades doesn't earn the same amount, but whatever is enclosed is proportionately shared among each of the different unions or skilled trade groups.

A bargaining agent that did not give notice of approval may challenge by giving notice to the Ontario Labour Relations Board within 10 days after receiving the material as specified in step 6 if proposed agreement would result in reduction in the rate of total wage and benefit for members of challengers that is greater in proportion than that that was reduced by the new contract -

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): What does that all mean?

Mr O'Toole: What happens is, if one of the groups is implied to receive a disproportionate reduction, the OLRB can override that and insist that there be no less than any other group would have agreed to. So there's no penalty.

If, for instance, they have not notified, Mr Bradley, for your information - I want you to listen because it's clear to me you haven't read it, and what you need to understand is, if I haven't consulted with one of the specific trades that I need to finish the project, that trade does not come under the conditions of the project.

1620

It's very technical, and that's why I've gone to the pains of outlining, for the member from Hamilton, so that they understand the first principle was democracy - one union, one vote - and the next principle was that all persons would not be treated any less fairly than the other members of that agreement, and members excluded from debating the agreement would not be affected by the agreement. That's a fair and reasonable solution. I believe the minister and his parliamentary assistant, Mr Maves, have worked tirelessly on this bill.

There would be those who would say to me that there are some questions that have been raised, and they are justifiable. I have personally asked the minister, "Give me some of the answers to these questions," and I'm satisfied that the reasonable answers have emerged. I'm going to share this with the member for Hamilton Centre. It may even be considered to be caucus material, but in the interest of moving forward and creating and saving jobs for Ontario, I'm going to ask one of the pages to share this information with Mr Christopherson. It may help him in his comments and he may not quite as vehemently discharge his duty.

What surprised me when this bill that we're talking about here was introduced on June 4 was that for the first seven days after first reading there wasn't one question raised by either the Liberals or the NDP. I'm surprised; not one question. I think what happened, when that discussion paper got out and the trade unions agreed, they finally started to get the questions from their supporters.

Mr Bradley: I'll give a more balanced view of this legislation, if you don't mind, than was given by the government member.

First of all, I want to say you have handled this the same way you handled the textbook distribution. You are so interested in that case in having photo opportunities for Conservative members at various schools that you're bungling what could be a good idea. The same situation exists with Bill 31. You know, some initial negotiations took place over this legislation which were quite successful, and there was almost a consensus reached. I believe that many of the people who were involved in discussions thought there was a consensus that had been reached. Then, all of a sudden, the minister - we don't know why, but I suspect I know why - had some people influence him to make changes to the legislation, to make inclusions to the legislation which broke that consensus. But that is typical of the Harris style of handling these matters as opposed to Bill Davis.

I can remember. I sat in this House with Bill Davis on the other side and I didn't always agree with him, but I'll tell you, he knew how to reach a consensus, because he had a sense of balance, a sense of where middle Ontario was, and he wasn't interested only in filling the coffers of the Progressive Conservative Party with money from developers and huge corporations. Rather, he was interested in some balance in this province.

I know that the changes contained in Bill 31, the kinds of changes which broke that consensus, will no doubt result in even greater contributions coming from developers in this province to the Progressive Conservative Party. In fact, that's why under Bill 36 you have increased the limits on the amount of money that corporations and individuals may contribute to individual candidates and contribute to political parties during election campaigns and other times. I suspect there may be just a component of that in this legislation.

What we have to know this afternoon is that we're not even debating this legislation; we're debating yet another motion on the part of the Harris government to choke off debate, to close down debate on an important piece of legislation, which should have much more extensive debate so the public can become acquainted with the various issues that are a part of Bill 31, the construction trades legislation.

That is typical of this government. Almost weekly now we have two or three motions of closure. You call it time allocation. These are motions which are designed to end debate, to cut off debate, to limit debate, to exclude the opportunity for the placing of amendments, to exclude the opportunity for the public to have input. It reminds me of Bill 160, where you're only interested in ramming that through the Legislature, using the brand-new rules that were imposed by Mike Harris in this Legislature, written by some of the neo-cons, the 20-somethings, who come into this Legislature to the right of Attila the Hun in their views.

The member for Etobicoke-Humber, in my view, is a moderate compared to some of the younger people, the whiz kids or the former whiz kids - I don't want him to get angry when I say this - who used to work for Mulroney, the member for Nepean, who was given charge of rewriting the rules so that only the government would benefit by the changes to the rules.

The best thing that can happen with this legislation is that there is extensive debate that takes place on this legislation.

Generally speaking, you can change the labour laws of this province, the collective agreement laws of this province, so that they're the lowest common denominator. You can make them like Indonesia or like Mississippi or Tennessee or some state like that and, following your logic, you would say, "Then Ontario will be open for business." I think what people want to see is labour peace in the province. I'm not convinced that by breaking the consensus - and indeed it's rather miraculous that there was a consensus that was reached - by including other provisions in this bill, that in fact you're going to create more labour unrest than you are labour peace. It's not as though you have to buy the peace. It's simply a matter of sitting down and having that consensus developed.

Now you won't even send this to committee. This logically should go out to a committee, at least even during the last weeks of this session, so that we can have some public input. Members of the government have read certain letters into the record, members of the opposition have read other letters into the record, sometimes by similar groups or the same people, expressing different points of view. I think once they had a look at the legislation many of the people who initially said, "You know, we think we can buy into this," said, "But we didn't know these other provisions were contained in the bill." That's where the consensus broke down.

I think you had a pretty unique opportunity here to come up with an agreement that was going to be acceptable to all and I would have applauded that. I think that is the wave of the future, trying to find that kind of consensus. If you had done that, if you had stuck with the original agreement that you had instead of trying to poison the agreement with some new provisions, then I think we would have achieved what you wanted to achieve in the province and all of us would have been delighted to see that happen. But you didn't do it, because there's always somebody - I don't know whether the people in the Premier's office or the extreme right wing of the caucus - who starts insisting that their views prevail rather than the more moderate members of caucus or the more moderate members of the advisory group to the Premier and to the Progressive Conservative government.

As a result, I'm afraid what you're going to see is more confrontation instead of people working together, which I think would have been good for the province and was possible when the negotiations took place, because Ontario construction workers in fact had been working with the Minister of Labour and with the contractors in this province towards everyone's common goal, which is fairness and competitiveness in Ontario's construction industry.

The people who work in the construction industry themselves, as workers, don't want to see it uncompetitive, because they know that will work against their best interests. So they want to find something that's fair and competitive at the same time. I thought you had the agreement. I really did. I was quite amazed, I must say, and I was quite delighted to see the possibility that that agreement had been achieved. But then it got torpedoed by some elements within the government - I don't know who they are - because you went from a win-win situation to at least a win-lose and maybe a lose-lose situation if we start seeing the kind of labour disruptions that I hope don't happen in the province, because I hope the government will modify this bill, though I haven't seen an indication that they're going to do it.

We will need to hear the concerns of construction workers. I want to hear the concerns of contractors, I want to hear the concerns of employers across Ontario, and that's why we believe there should be public hearings after second reading of this bill. And you will get second reading because you're imposing a closure motion to shut off debate on the bill. You're going to get second reading, without a doubt.

What I think would be progressive on your part, what I think would be enlightened on the part of the government, is to then allow for public hearings. Maybe you would hear from people on both sides: the contractors and the employers and the workers themselves, the representatives of the unions. You might hear something that would make you make a couple of changes to the legislation. It would make it more acceptable, which would ensure that we would have relative peace in the construction industry in this province and would indeed allow us to be competitive.

I think that opportunity is there. I don't know who advises on this, but time and again, they seem to want to push these things through and force them on people and force a confrontation. That's most unfortunate in this case and in so many other cases.

1630

This bill assigns a number of new powers to the labour relations board, yet I think people who know the business know that you have severely cut the board's funding and staff. We have to ask the question: Are they going to have the resources to assume these new responsibilities?

That reminds me - and I think all members would know this - of the significant cutbacks we've seen in the Ministry of Labour offices in our communities. Sometimes they've closed them right down, sometimes they've regionalized them, sometimes they've just cut the staff drastically.

Both employers and employees who are looking to resolve matters with the assistance of the local office of the Ministry of Labour are unable to do so. When a person phones and says, "I haven't been paid by my employer for six months and I'm looking for some redress" - most employers pay their employees. It's not a problem with most employees out there. They don't have to object because they're going to get paid. They're going to be treated fairly. There may be some employers who don't do that, so people are phoning our constituency offices and they're saying, "I phoned the local office of the Ministry of Labour and they said, `It will take eight months before we can even delve into this matter, let alone come to a resolution.'"

I know it looks good to cut these numbers of people off the staff. You can go around, particularly the right-wing people, and say, "Look, we've chopped government way down." I am talking of the ideologues in this case, not just small-c conservative people, but the real ideologues who say, "Look, we've cut all this government way back." In some cases, people generally are going to agree with you.

I think where both employers and employees need these services on a timely basis to resolve these kinds of problems, they're going to say, "I think it's a good investment to have those employees in a local office of the Ministry of Labour to deal with these matters."

It's the same as consumer relations. Once again, an overwhelming number of companies and small businesses that I know of deal on a very fair basis with their customers. They're good to them, they're fair-minded, they're up front. But there are people out there who are not, and that's why we need the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, for instance, just as we need the Ministry of Labour, to help those people who are being dealt with in an unscrupulous manner by certain people in business, who give a bad reputation to their entire sector when that shouldn't be the case.

You hear people talk about one sector of the economy or another; the paving business, for instance. You often hear a lot of complaints about the paving business. I can tell you there are a lot of good people in the paving business out there. They're honest with their customers, they do a good job, they come back to see that the product they have provided and the service they have provided is satisfactory to the customer. But there are some fly-by-night operators who give a bad name to the business, and I think governments have a responsibility to protect the consumers, the residents of this province against those people, and also to protect good business people in that business from unfair competition from those who try to cut corners and fool people with contracts which are less than desirable, contracts which may not even be legal.

I want to touch on something the member for Durham East said. I heard him get up and denounce the former NDP government in this province for bringing in the social contract. He was busy telling everybody in the province that the NDP brought in a bill which abrogated every collective agreement in this province in the public sector. He tried to suggest that he cared about the sanctity of the collective agreement. Then I find out that, of course, he voted for it. His government voted for it. You can't criticize it if you voted for it, and that's what happened. The Conservative Party voted with the NDP government on the social contract legislation. Every time I hear Conservatives get up to criticize the NDP for implementing the social contract in this province, I ask, why did they vote for it if they thought the social contract was so unfair? They obviously agreed with the NDP government at that time.

Our party did not vote for it, which is why I don't get up and compliment it, but I know the Conservative Party voted for it. I think they're being - you can't use the word "hypocritical" in this House? I don't think you can.

Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): No, you can't.

Mr Bradley: No, I'm just asking if you can. There's a certain phraseology, I say to my friend from Humber, you can use that's okay and one that isn't. But I won't use it. I'll just say I can't use it. But anyway, it's odd - I can say that - that they would be critical of that.

I again look at public hearings as being good for a lot of bills. I wish the government, for instance, would put Bill 36 as well out to public hearings and entertain meaningful amendments.

If you do that, people at least feel they've had their say, particularly if you incorporate some of the views that were expressed in the legislation. You can't do it, I understand, in all cases. If the amendments offered or the suggestions offered for amendments totally obliterate the bill, I understand why a government's not going to implement that. But sometimes it simply improves the bill. It seeks to clarify in some cases, it seeks to improve in some way or another the bill. If you don't go out to public hearings, you can't get that input and all members of the Legislature can't be exposed to it.

I think members of all parties have to have available to them the information provided by contractors, by employers, by unions, by employees themselves on this bill to be able to better understand the implications of it. It's hard to do that simply on paper or to listen to the government side or the opposition side because there tends to be a rigidity in this House on positions: a suspicion which is natural on the part of the opposition about the government and the government being dismissive of the opposition. That's why I believe public hearings would be very valuable in this legislation, and I say similarly in Bill 36, which allows huge increases in the amount of money that corporations and individuals can contribute to candidates and political parties and allows massive increases in the spending during election campaigns, thereby Americanizing our system of elections in the province of Ontario.

These are two bills where I think public hearings would be useful. There's another public hearing out there, I don't know why they're even having it. It's a one-page bill. I shouldn't say I don't know why. I think it's because they want to block anything else from going to the justice committee. I think that's the reason, because the member for Welland-Thorold had a motion to have the matter of Ipperwash before the justice committee and the Conservative government decided it would send out for hearings some other bill that has one page in it. Here's a bill that's pretty thick, here's a bill that has a lot of implications, here's a bill that has considerable opposition and a bill that has some good suggestions to be made about it by others. In fact, that will not happen.

I want to allow an opportunity for my colleagues from Renfrew North and Essex South to participate in this debate as well, a debate, which I remind those who are watching, to close off debate on an important bill in this province. In wrapping up my remarks on this, I think that governments benefit, as well as the public and certainly the opposition, by having public hearings on bills of this kind, by having serious entertainment of amendments, serious consideration of amendments by government to make the bill acceptable. I think this is a chance that was a great opportunity for government to bring representatives of labour and business together, the employees and employers, and come up with a reasonable consensus. I thought the consensus was there and I'm sorry that the government broke that consensus.

I note to the public that, once again, a record number of time allocation motions or motions closing off debate have been implemented by the Harris government under the new procedural rules imposed in this Legislature, which seriously erode the power of the individual member of this House and of course the opportunity of the opposition to influence government legislation or to slow down the process of the government implementing its bills. I don't agree with most of what the government does, but even those out there in the public who do agree with the government believe the government moves too quickly, too drastically and without taking into consideration the consequences of its actions.

1640

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): It's a pleasure for me today to have the opportunity to speak for a few moments on government motion number 22, which is of course a time allocation motion.

If anybody were to misunderstand the fact that there is a great deal of opposition to Bill 31, to which the time allocation motion refers, they only need to have been travelling, I understand, on the Gardiner this morning when there was a large sign that was hung that said, "Bill 31 hurts construction families." It was at the Dufferin Street bridge over the Gardiner, or perhaps it's the Don Valley, but in any event, traffic was made aware of the opposition to this bill.

The member for Niagara Falls said that the opposition would get up and read some letters. Well, we certainly will because I think the letters he was referring to may have been written prior to the introduction of Bill 31 when, as my colleague from St Catharines had pointed out, there was some consensus on some ways that the construction industry and construction companies and others in this province could have a view towards a better understanding of each other's position and make some progress.

I have a letter that's dated today, "Area Building Trades Stage Protest over Bill 31." Sarnia was mentioned to no end as being the example of where this bill would be of benefit.

"Sarnia: Sarnia area building trades engaged in a lawful protest near local construction sites today in response to the Harris government's undemocratic decision to shut down debate on Bill 31. `Members showed that they will not let their democratic labour rights be trampled on by this government without a fight,' said Bob Humphreys, business manager of UA Local 663."

It goes on to say, "`The government is showing its disrespect for workers and democratic principles through its refusal to hold public hearings or entertain amendments to the legislation,' said Jim Bradshaw, business manager of Sheet Metal Workers' Local 539. `If the government does not make changes to this legislation, it will destabilize labour relations throughout Ontario.'"

We are debating today this closure motion, this limit of debate, this undemocratic process, and certainly this construction association believes that to be the case.

Bill 31 makes changes to the Labour Relations Act, the Employment Standards Act, the Occupational Health and Safety Act, and therefore certainly should receive its appropriate amount of debate. As well, we feel it should go to committee and should also go to public hearings.

The members for Niagara Falls and I think it was York-Mackenzie used the words "democratic rights," "respect for democracy," "workplace democracy," "fairness and balance." They used those words in the context, I suspect, of Bill 31. I use them in the context of this resolution. To me, the resolution today to limit debate on this bill, to make sure that it doesn't go out for public hearings, to have absolutely no debate at third reading, is certainly undemocratic, has no respect for democracy, is not fair and certainly isn't balanced.

If the government thought this bill were so important, they could have called the bill back in that time period when we normally would have been here from the second or third week in March through April, May and June. For whatever reason, the government chose not to call us back at the normal date on the legislative calendar. We were away from this Legislature a full month. Now they come along and say: "But it's important that we get at this bill. We have to get this into law. It means a lot to Ontario."

I'm not debating that. In fact, I'll debate little about the bill itself today because others have, and others who may follow me will have comments about the bill. Even though we're debating a resolution to shut down democracy in this Legislature, you will hear about the bill itself because it's the only chance that's left to speak about it. After today, as you know, Speaker, there will be a vote taken around the 6 o'clock mark and this bill will be history, because when it's called next, as it says in the resolution, "when Bill 31 is next called as a government order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill, without further debate or amendment; and at such time, the bill shall be ordered for third reading." Then on the very same day, Speaker, as you well know, there will be two hours for third reading debate.

There aren't any amendments. Most of the members of this Legislature will not have had their democratic opportunity to speak to the bill, and we'll be left with two hours of debate. Big deal. That won't leave much time to make any impression on the government.

Bill 31 has had it. Bill 31 is going to be law and it will pass third reading on the very day the bill is called. Then what happens, of course, is it goes for royal assent and then will be enacted when the government chooses.

I'll be interested actually to see how quickly the bill is enacted after it receives royal assent. I suspect there shouldn't be any delay whatsoever, because what we've had this month alone - the bill was first introduced for first reading on June 4, so two weeks have passed of this very critical time where the government says, "We can't wait another minute; we can't have another day's debate; we can't take it to committee; we can't have any public hearings; we can't let anybody comment on it; we can't give anybody an opportunity to at least propose amendments." We don't have time for that, but it sat around somewhere on a government desk for two weeks and here we are today ready to shut down debate.

It may be that if the government rams this bill through, like it's going to do, there are some who would suggest that it may backfire on them. I read from a recent article in the Toronto Star, Monday, June 15. The writer of this article says it's puzzling. "It" - this bill - "may prove to be the work of a gang that can't shoot straight." I certainly agree with that; in fact, I think many times this government's been characterized as "fire, ready, aim."

It says, of a gang that can't shoot straight: "The purpose seems to be anti-union. It is to allow no-strike contracts on major industrial projects, such as refineries and chemical complexes - or Olympic facilities, if we need them.

"But the effect may well be perverse." The writer of this goes on to remind us: "The BC government of W.A.C. Bennett decreed such no-strike contracts on the huge Peace and Columbia River power projects in the 1960s.

"Workers on the dams - guaranteed whatever their unions won elsewhere - raked in double and triple time and poured cash into union strike funds.

"Flush with cash to finance strikes amid a mega-project boom, the unions had a virtually free ride to higher wages. Employers paid whatever was needed to get a deal, any deal. BC's wage structure hasn't come down since."

Whether you agree with this or not, whether that's what will happen as a result of this bill or not, they're merely pointing out that historically, when you take this kind of action, when you don't take the time to get it right - and God knows we've seen a number of cases where they haven't taken the time to get it right; I think we have five property tax bills that we've dealt with.

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): And counting.

Mr Crozier: "And counting," as my colleague says. That's right. we may have even more because it isn't right yet. If you don't take time to get it right the first time, the consequences can be severe, costly.

It was pointed out by my colleague from St Catharines that there was some agreement on this bill, that there was a concerted effort by the construction trade unions, by the employers, by government, to put something in place that would bring some additional stability to the workplace in Ontario. What they don't like, and nobody likes, is when you get blindsided, when you get a deal and you shake on it, and then somehow between that and the printing of the bill the deal has changed. I don't argue at all that these trade unions shouldn't be upset. If that wasn't part of the original deal, then I think they have the right, and we have that same right in here, to demand that there be further debate on it and that at the very least it go to committee and public hearings.

1650

Maybe the government feels there's been enough second reading debate. That's fine. Then do the right thing, do the democratic thing, do the fair thing: Send it to committee. Let us review the bill clause by clause. Let us hear from the public. Let's hear where your deal was the right one the first time but how you botched it. And let's get back to the table and make it right so that we don't find ourselves somewhere down the road, later this summer, next fall, whenever it might be, in a position where we have to deal with another piece of legislation just to fix this up.

I refer to another article that points out where this original agreement may have gone wrong. It's suggested that it's because it also included as a clause taking away the power of the Ontario Labour Relations Board to give automatic certification to unions whose organizing drives have been thwarted by unfair labour practices. I don't think any of us wants anything unfair in labour-business relations today. I think everybody wants to be fair with each other. But there are those times when someone isn't fair, when somebody doesn't play by the rules, when somebody doesn't use, as was said by the member for York-Mackenzie, fairness and balance. That's one of the things they're saying should be in this legislation so that we can get it right.

But it says Bill 31 doesn't end there: "Buried in the legislation is a section dealing with non-construction employers. These employers who are not in the construction business have or used to have unionized carpenters, electricians and other tradesmen on their payrolls. Under current law, such employers are required, when contracting out construction work, to use unionized builders." These are agreements that have been long standing, that have, in the words of some of the government members, and I would agree, helped make Ontario what it is today.

Employers have fought this law at the Ontario Labour Relations Board and in the courts, but in most cases have lost. Now they're getting their way through legislation. I would have thought that the government would have used the courts as a sounding board for what this legislation should or should not include, and that they wouldn't just go bull-headed ahead and simply legislate it out of existence.

This article goes on to say that the unions were consulted about the project agreement section, not the rest. I suggest that some of this should be taken into consideration and that we should take that time that we need, we should take some time in committee, we should take some time in public hearings to get it right, and not just stand here and say, "I have had some sort of agreement that's fallen apart, and notwithstanding that, we're going to go boldly ahead."

In concluding, I want to get back to that part of the standing orders that's been used today and just very briefly my own personal feeling on this. I thought that when elected I would come to this Legislature and have the opportunity to speak to those issues that affected my riding. I have lost track of the number of times that this government has brought in time allocation. You know, I think it's just as much mismanagement of the legislative agenda as it is anybody else's fault. Somehow this government, when it can't manage the legislative agenda, when it can't bring things before the Legislature in a timely fashion, solves the problem by bringing in time allocation. I think that's undemocratic, it's not fair and it doesn't have any balance to it.

I believe these remarks will now be concluded by my colleague the member for Oakwood.

Mr Colle: As my colleague the member for Essex South pointed out, one of the certain signatures of this government has been its continual shutting down of debate and closure. He we have another example of closing off debate, cutting off debate. You could see this perhaps happening with one or two bills for certain reasons, perhaps a government has to respond to an emergency situation or an unprecedented situation, but this has become a pattern, a deliberate pattern of this government which has already curtailed and changed the rules of the debate. Since we've been here, they've essentially cut down the amount of debate time, question time, for the opposition almost in half.

The public out there might say, "What difference does it make whether or not there's closure or debate has been cut down and the bill goes through under closure?" The thing we should remind the public of is that one of the reasons we're here is basically to try to give the public time to understand what's in a bill because, as you know, the public has little opportunity to get a copy of the bill unless they're directly affected. In this case, certainly if you're involved in the trades or labour, you may be a member of a union or a workplace situation, you may want to get a copy of the bill.

So there are probably very few members of the public who know what's actually in this bill. That's why, if you give the bill some time and it goes through proper hearings etc, the public has the time to find out, perhaps, what's in the bill. Their members of provincial Parliament can get them some information, they could ask questions, there's some debate in the public press and that's healthy. That's good democracy. I know it's not the rush-rush, reckless democracy the Reform-a-Tories of this government believe in but it works, and it has worked well.

As you know, we had the Loyalists here today to tell us how important it is to recognize and appreciate and reinforce our traditions. But this government is a revolutionary government. It's a revolutionary, Reform-a-Tory government that believes in changing any rules that it can. If it can get away with changing rules of debate, it will change them to suit its purpose.

They may think it's to their advantage today, but in the long run the people of Ontario will suffer the consequences because they won't have the time to digest, be informed and to partake in this debate. That's what the opposition does: It tries to get information out to people. This is our way of doing it.

I heard the government member for Scarborough East today try to change the rules so we can't even have petitions any more. He is now saying there are too many petitions, that we've got to restrict the number of petitions. This is what it's coming to. They just do not want any type of intervention from the public or the opposition. They just want to railroad everything through.

Interjections.

1700

Mr Colle: They're laughing now because they think democracy is a joke; they think it's something they can play with. But the public is not with them. The public is very cognizant of their attempt to change the traditions of this Legislature. They're here to essentially close debate, cut off debate in continual attempts to ensure they're the only ones who have a say in legislation.

That is not good because in this area, in terms of how it affects the building trades, construction trades and unions and how they organize, there should be good, honest debate, give and take, so that we can find out what we can do as legislators to make this a better bill. That input makes these bills better, because you know that what this government does is rush headlong into things and make drastic mistakes. On the property tax fiasco they have now passed four, five, six bills and counting, because they still can't get it straight. They've made a horrible mess, as the Minister of Municipal Affairs admitted. The whole property tax situation and the assessment system are in chaos in this province. The clerks and treasurers of the province, those officials who are the administrators of the tax system, said this government just does things recklessly, without looking at the detail, without looking at the impact on people.

In Bill 31, this government is doing the same thing again. It doesn't want debate on this bill. You wonder why they don't want debate. Is it because they're trying to hide something? Is it because they don't want the public to know what's in a bill? Why else would you ram bills through? This government even went to the point of changing the legislative calendar so they can get two legislative days in one day. You get two days in one here because they're in such a reckless, mad hurry to ram bill after bill through.

I don't think they really want the public to question them. In fact, when you question them they get very irate. How dare the members of the opposition debate and question a bill like this one on labour changes? This is the attitude they have, rather than an attitude of saying, "Debate will make this bill better." The public knowing and being able to write, fax, phone, talk to their MPPs about such bills makes better law. But this government believes that fewer questions, less debate, less scrutiny is better for them. That is not a very good trend that this government has embarked on.

They seem to think this is how you govern now in Ontario: You govern by basically shutting down debate and hiding what's in these bills; hiding away from public hearings, because they detest public hearings too. There are very few public hearings taking place, because this government knows that in public hearings there is more scrutiny, there are more questions. They don't want it because the pattern has been that many of these bills are concocted in some back room by one of the whiz kids. It's the whiz kids and all their hired hands who write up this legislation. They give the marching orders to the members of the government, who follow orders. They don't dare question the whiz kids, because they're told by the Premier's office, "Whatever's in the bill has to be adhered to," and if the whiz kids say -

Interjection.

Mr Colle: The member for Etobicoke-Rexdale doesn't like me questioning the whiz kids because the whiz kids are his bosses. The whiz kids may be the bosses of the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale, they may pull his chain, but they don't control the opposition. I know it gets touchy around here.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): Who wrote this speech?

Mr Colle: The member for Nepean also gets very touchy if you mention the whiz kids. They rise up to defend the whiz kids in the back room, but the whiz kids do not control the opposition. There are just too many apologists for whatever the whiz kids do: "It's right; it came from the whiz kids."

Here's another bill which I'm sure was concocted by the whiz kids in the back room, where they don't want the public to ask questions. When the public doesn't ask questions, the public basically has no input, it has no opportunity to find out what's in this legislation.

Bill 31, like most pieces of legislation, is quite complex for ordinary citizens. That's why you want to have good, temperate debate. You want ordinary citizens to get involved in the process. This government wants to exclude ordinary citizens. This government has, as I said, a set agenda, ramming things through so the ordinary working person doesn't have time to find out what this government is doing until after the fact. Then they find out their hospitals are closed, they find out roads have been downloaded, they find out that they have these huge new government responsibilities moved into the back rooms where ministers have control, because this government is into government by regulation, not legislation.

They believe it's basically government by decree. So what do they do with Bill 31? They have a decree today. The decree says: "You can't debate it. We've got to close down debate." That's what they do. They feel that there isn't that give and take of legislative responsibility. It's essentially a formula which says, "We, the government, on the orders of the whiz kids, decree that this should become law and the public has no right and the opposition has no right to debate, question or get into the bill."

That's the pattern of this government. For three years that's what they've done. It started with Bill 26, when they basically took powers from the Legislature, from the legislative branch, and they brought it to the executive branch. But this government has even gone further. It's not even the executive branch any more, because many of the cabinet ministers don't know what's in these bills because they've taken it one step back to the whiz kids' branch, so it's the whiz kids who basically are doing a lot of the things cabinet ministers used to do.

That is the pattern of this motion that we are debating about closing down debate on Bill 31, because there is an urgency here to ram this bill through and change some things which are going to affect how workers organize; how workers are able to participate in their unions. This affects, again, millions of Ontarians who are going to see these labour laws changed, and some of these impacts are going to change how they make a living.

The people of Ontario have a right to know what's in these bills and they have a right to have the process orderly so they can question this government. That is what the real debate here is about: Does the public have a right to find out what's in bills? Does the public have the right whereby they can have input? Does the public have a right to question the whiz kids, perhaps?

We'd like to see a picture of these whiz kids who control this province. Let's have a picture of them on the back walls here. We have the Speakers, we have former Premiers; let's put the pictures of the whiz kids, their names, phone numbers, their fax numbers. Who are they? Who are these whiz kids who are making this kind of legislation? They're setting up the way this government operates, how it affects people, so the members of the government should make these people public. That's why we want to have their pictures, their phone numbers and faxes -

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Halton Centre.

Mr Colle: We want to have them in the public domain so we can question them but, as you know, they are never in the public domain. They are lurking in the shadows of this government. They are unaccountable, unelected people who essentially tell this government when to do it, how to do it and to ram through bills like Bill 31 for some agenda that they've concocted because it fits part of this grand formula they have about changing the face of government in this province.

It's shameful today that while we're here honouring the great United Empire Loyalists, who are really the founding backbone of this province, who went against the revolutionary, radical United States and came to Canada to make a choice for the basic tenets of parliamentary democracy - they made that brave stand and came here to set up in a very challenging land, Ontario and Canada. They came here and made that decision because they went against something that was against their traditions and principles. Yet this government, on the day the Loyalists were here, basically says: "We are changing those traditions. We are doing away with the traditions of debate, of parliamentary, legislative accountability." That's why I say it's shameful that today of all days, when we honour these great Canadian patriots, they dare to ram another bill through under closure. That's what they think of tradition. That's what they thing of parliamentary democracy.

They are basically making a government by decree. They are making a government that is not accountable, a government that just railroads bills recklessly through this House without any appreciation of the sacrifices and the contribution that Ontarians have made for the last 200 years to make this a province that people are proud of. But if they continue with this closure and shutting down of debate, if they keep going down this reckless road of cutting off debate, it will no longer be a province we can be proud of.

1710

Mr Christopherson: I appreciate the opportunity, as limited as it is, to enter into the debate. I think it is important, as colleagues of mine have already mentioned, to remember that the main point of what we're debating right now is the fact that you're muzzling democracy on this motion. You're shutting down any kind of debate beyond a couple of hours, probably on Monday, which will constitute all that Ontarians and opposition members will get in terms of input.

It's so galling to listen especially to the backbenchers stand up and carp about democracy and fairness and listening, and this motion is about the opposite. This motion is about shutting down debate. The motion guarantees there are no public hearings. The motion guarantees there's no opportunity to put amendments. One almost begs the question, why bother?

I'm sure they probably had that debate in their caucus: "Why do we bother going into the Legislature? We've taken out of the rules so much of any real opportunity for the opposition to talk anyway and we don't let the public speak, so maybe we could save ourselves a whole lot of time and just not bother." I'm sure Tories ask themselves that. Tragically, if they could get away with an omnibus bill that would do that and revert everything that requires a decision into the cabinet room, the secrecy of cabinet decisions, into regulatory powers, that would be the end of this place.

There are literally hundreds of letters pouring in from local unions of construction trades from all across the province who are beside themselves with frustration, anger and shock that this is happening. They can't believe this is happening to them.

Let me say that it has been the record of this government that every time they've gone after a segment of the population, they've been fairly successful, unfortunately, at isolating that part of the society, and the rest of the population sort of looks the other way and says, "Oh well, that's not me." I really believe we're getting to the point, some kind of critical mass, where people are now realizing that if they didn't get hit yesterday, and you're not a construction worker so you're not getting hit today, by God, you will get hit tomorrow. How can you not believe that they're going to come after you?

That's what the construction workers are going through right now, for those who haven't paid much attention to going after public sector workers, going after teachers, going after nurses, going after the poor, going after virtually every segment of society. For some reason, there were construction workers who thought, "This really doesn't affect me." By God, I'm sure you're realizing now that it does affect you. If you haven't been hit yet, you will. No one is safe.

I want to bring to the attention of this House that while we're debating this closure motion, this shutting down of democracy, I've just been informed that the government has tabled exactly the same motion as it relates to Bill 36, which is the election finances changes to how we're going to run the next election and how the next election is going to be paid for and who gets to make contributions. So we'll go through this same debate likely on Monday. The House is set to rise on Thursday. It doesn't take a political scientist to see what's going on. It's got nothing to do with democracy; it's the opposite. That's what is so infuriating about listening to the members stand up and give the mantra about, "We care about democracy and we care about fairness." Bull.

Your game plan is real clear. Even though the wheels fell off your wagon in terms of Bill 31 - your minister introduced it saying, "We've got support from everybody." It's in the Hansard. "Talk to the employers, talk to the unions. We've got everybody on side." No, you don't. But even though the wheels are falling off that wagon, this government has decided that no matter what anybody says, they're going to make this the law, probably as early as Monday, and that's it. Nobody gets a say. How, by any definition that one can imagine, is that democracy?

I realize everybody splits hairs and we all dance on technicalities sometimes, depending on the nature of the debate and what's going on in here, but I've got to tell you, this is so blatant in terms of it being undemocratic. A majority government introduces a bill, the people whom it affects go absolutely wild because of the damage you're doing to them and their livelihood and their quality of life, and the government's response is to shut down debate.

It's the same thing on election finances. Think about it a minute. The government introduces sweeping changes to the way we're going to run the next election, they change rules to allow their corporate friends to contribute twice as much, shorten the election, raise the amount of money they can spend - and they're the ones who have access to the most money - make a number of these huge changes that are not part of the all-party commission agreement, notwithstanding we have difficulty with that, but outside and apart from that, they're making incredible changes to the way we run elections.

What could possibly go more to the heart of democracy than the rules for running the election? They didn't follow the usual tradition of all-party agreement before they introduced it, and when we started to raise a whole lot of questions, and yes, a whole lot of anger, their response? A few minutes ago they tabled the same closure motion on that issue as we're having now. I defy any member of the government to stand up and explain to the people of Ontario how that in any way resembles, let alone promotes, democracy, where nobody else gets a say in the rules of how the next election is going to be run. But that's exactly what's going on in Ontario right now.

As I said, this doesn't require a whole lot of university degrees to figure out. The game plan is they're just going to hunker down, pray that the media don't make too big a deal about these things, and just get to next Thursday. If they can get to next Thursday, the House rises and then we get into the summer, and traditionally in Ontario during the summer months there's not a whole lot of political activity, either in Ottawa or in our provincial capital here.

That's what you're doing, that's what this is all about, and this measly few minutes we get today constitutes our opportunity to respond to this undemocratic process. Then there's a quickie little discussion, one more day, with an ordered vote, with no amendments, no public hearings, no opportunity for input, and you use your majority to ram through the legislation.

Today you have advised the table and the rest of us that you're going to do the same thing with the election finances changes. God help us all if you get away with this. For some of us sitting here, it's hard to fathom. Why isn't this the lead story? Why isn't this headlines? It ought to be.

I want to put on the record - not that anybody over there is listening or, for that matter, gives a damn - what the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council has been saying about this over the last couple of days. Yes, it has taken a while for them to gear up, but I can tell you, it took a lot of time for the lawyers to analyse the bill that you have presented because of the complexities involved in it and the complexities in the construction industry. Certainly I've felt it, and I've been going through this for over three years, but I've got to believe there are people out there in the construction industry who've said to themselves, "This thing is just so preposterous in terms of what Bill 31 says that surely to God there will be an opportunity for us to point out how unfair this is and, for that matter, that it won't work." The process itself contained in the bill won't work.

1720

I think people began to be aware over the last few days that, yes, indeed, once again you're prepared to stand up and say one thing, "Salute the flag; God bless country, Queen, God and democracy," and all those speeches you make about democracy and fairness, and then you introduce a motion that shuts down democracy and allows nobody an opportunity to have a say. And on the day that we're debating that, you table another motion that does exactly the same thing to the rules of the next election. Honestly, if it were any other country and one of you were asked about what's going on, you'd say: "God, that's undemocratic. We've got to do something. Somebody call the UN. Somebody do something."

It always amazes me; they always laugh at that line and roll their eyes. Where do you think these notions of freedoms and rights come from? Why do you think they're in place? Do you think we don't count? Do you think what happens in here doesn't matter? Quite the contrary. We are pointed to as a model of democracy because we don't let those with the greatest power and influence buy their way into power and abuse the power that a majority government is given.

Let's face it, as long as a Premier has the support of the caucus, it is virtually a dictatorship. I'm not blaming you on that; that is all democracies. As long as you've got a majority government, where you control the majority of seats, if the Premier continually has the support of the caucus, which generates the majority vote, that individual can virtually dictate what the laws of the province are going to be. So there is a concept called the "tyranny of the majority," and a recognition historically in our country that you offer an opportunity for the minority to voice their opinion, to express their disagreement, to offer up changes, to offer up improvements.

That's the way this place is supposed to work, but you've ratcheted down the rules so tight that it now is an exception whenever there is a controversial bill. Oh yeah, we've got a couple of bills going out for public hearings. One of them is the condo act. Now, to those people who live in condominiums and want to see some of these changes, I grant you, that's important, I'm not trying to trivialize that, but for the government to suggest that they believe in the concept of public input when they send out a bill on condos but say no to the bills that are going to change the election laws of the province and how elections are paid for and who pays for them - for a bill that affects hundreds of thousands of workers and the rights they already have, you say: "No. No input. We don't want to hear from you. You've got nothing to say to us. We will rule by edict." That's what you're doing. Your edict takes a few days to put in place, but as the result of your changes, you can introduce a bill on Monday morning and that sucker's law by Thursday night.

That's what is happening right here, right now, at this moment. You're shutting down democracy and denying the democratic rights that are inherent in being a citizen of this province to everybody who's affected by Bill 31, and we are talking hundreds of thousands of people. You're affecting and denying the legitimate democratic rights of every citizen when you ram through Bill 36, which changes the rules for the next election. Shameful. Disgusting.

The Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario issued a news release on the 17th. The context for this is that the Minister of Labour said he felt he had the moral right to introduce and ram through Bill 31 because he had the support, as the member from Durham-whatever said about partnerships, of all the partners.

You don't. You do not have their support. Every one of them is clamouring for an opportunity to express their democratic viewpoint. This debate is about you shutting it down.

Pat Dillon, who is the head the provincial building trades, said:

"As a result of a lack of consultation with the industry, Bill 31 is an ill-conceived piece of legislation that will have far-reaching negative impacts on the construction industry. The government's bullying of Bill 31 through the Legislature without public hearings has forced our hand to take responsive actions."

John Cartwright, who is the head of the Toronto-Central Ontario Building and Construction Trades Council, said this, "Bill 31 is a gift to some of Ontario's largest and most powerful corporations." By the way, the very same corporations that under the changes to the election laws can double the amount of contributions they can make to your re-election war chest. What a coincidence.

Mr Cartwright goes on to say, "Allowing a billion-dollar bank to rip up its union agreements has nothing to do with fairness or economic development."

That's exactly what's happening under Bill 31. They're one of the partners. If you say they're wrong, why don't you have the guts to let them have a public hearing to put their case forward? You can respond to it and show where they're wrong. That's all it takes.

If that's all we are, obstructionist and knee-jerk reactionaries and whatever you do we oppose and everybody out there, the whole world, is against you, it's a big conspiracy, everybody's against you, then straighten us all out. Go on, straighten us all out. Let us go out to public hearings where we have rules and we have procedures, where people get an opportunity to have their say and introduce their arguments. Then you can respond and you can have your people come forward and put their arguments in the public arena.

At the end of the day the public, who own this democracy, by the way - they only let you run it for a while; that applies to all of us, whoever wins the election - the people who own this democracy can make up their own minds. I'll tell you, I'll stand by that. If the majority of the phone calls that come into my office afterwards were to say, "That was just a whole lot of bunk; the government was absolutely right on that," then I'd have to accept that, and it sure wouldn't be the leading issue I'd use in the next election, would it?

But that's not going to happen. You know that. The issues that are being raised by the construction industry are legitimate and they deserve to be respected.

This PC Party used to care a lot about respect and tradition. You're so good at making speeches about it, but when it comes time to put democracy on the line, you choose unilateral action, élitism, exclusionary methods every time.

It really is unbelievable. It's almost surreal to think that I'm standing here in the Ontario Legislature at a time when a bill of this significance is being rammed through and we're debating the motion that shuts down debate.

You've just tabled the motion that would do the same thing to your bill which changes the election laws of the province of Ontario and allows your friends to give you even more money to affect the outcome of the next election. This House rises next Thursday and there's nobody in the world who gets a say. It's amazing.

1730

Mr Dillon goes on to say in the letter he forwarded to the Minister of Labour on June 16 - I want to again remind members, because it's crucial to this debate, that the government tried to legitimize their right to both introduce this bill and ram it through based on having the support of all the players, the partners, that are affected. That was the premise. Mr Dillon, whose council represents, I believe, well over 100,000 unionized workers in the construction industry, says this:

"Dear Mr Flaherty:

"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 have been misrepresenting our position.

"The building trades oppose Bill 31 in its entirety."

He then goes on to analyse the various clauses and ends his letter this way:

"We have consistently demonstrated that we are willing to work with government and management to build a better Ontario." They sound like reasonable folks. "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."

I want to stop there for a second. The government keeps saying that this is so good for construction workers and it's going to be so good for decent-paying jobs and it's so good for all the people who are represented by this government, and you can't understand why they're not on side. If it did all those things, they would be on side. Their first priority - I've been there; I was an elected labour leader - the first responsibility you have, is to your membership. Their responsibility isn't to my political party or the Liberals or the PCs. God, it's certainly not the PCs. That's not where their allegiance needs to be. That's not what they were elected to do. They were elected to represent their members, just like a mayor is elected to represent her or his city. That's their priority. If they've got other priorities, they should either resign or be turfed out.

If this was good for the construction workers, at the very least, even if for political reasons, the union would stay quiet. If they didn't like you in terms of other things you've done, which they don't, but this was good for their members, it doesn't take a genius to figure out they would do as little as possible to give you political ammunition, but they wouldn't do anything to stop it from happening, would they?

If you could find one or two people who were off the mark in terms of their responsibilities, that still doesn't explain why virtually every local union that's involved in the construction industry is screaming, "Don't do this."

But you won't listen. You all look away, you work on your books, you talk to one another. You'll dutifully stand up and support this anti-democratic motion, and you'll walk out, and I suspect - I really don't know what some of you think; I'm not even going to go there.

Mr Dillon goes on to say:

"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."

The minister told us that this bill was meant to encourage partnerships, bring stability, bring investment. How are you going to do that when you have alienated one of the partners to the point where they're not going to sit down with you? And they're not going to sit down with the employers, because obviously the employers are supporting this or we'd be getting copies of their faxes. Do you know what? I support them and applaud them.

At some point somebody, somewhere, has to draw a line in the sand. We all used to think that would come when the election happened, but now you're changing the rules of the election and you're not going to let anybody have anything to say about it.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): Oh, come on. Try a little accuracy.

Mr Christopherson: What is inaccurate, Minister? You're shutting down debate on this bill and you've just tabled a motion that's shutting down debate on your changes to the election rules. What have I said that's inaccurate? She says nothing.

Mr Dillon goes on to say, "By introducing a bill that is viciously anti-union, you have decided that there will not be stability in the construction industry."

Guess what happened this morning? This government has pointed to the situation in Sarnia as being sort of a flashpoint of why it was necessary, in its opinion, to bring in Bill 31. That's what they've said. They've pointed to it in every one - at least in their early speeches. I don't imagine we'll hear too much about it now. Of course there won't be any more debate, so there goes that problem for you.

What happened in Sarnia this morning? Five hundred skilled trades workers dropped their tools and set up information picket lines. You know, they're not angry with their employers, other than - I don't want to speak for them, but I suspect there's probably some concern about the fact that their employers aren't publicly saying something too. If they joined in on this, maybe then you'd have to stop and listen, but because they're being silent you get to try to isolate big union bosses, as you like to label them.

Their main problem is not their employer; it's you. You're attacking their livelihood. You're attacking their ability to have a decent standard of living. You're attacking their ability to decide whether they want a union or not. They've been left with no choice. Doesn't this sound familiar? When did we last look at a situation like that? How about 120,000 teachers? Arguably the most non-militant image in terms of -

Interjections.

Mr Christopherson: They scoff and they laugh. That's because in hindsight you finally see what teachers can do when they decide to stick together. They recognized they were next in the crosshairs of your rifle. That's what you believed. Now of course you want to write them off as being like everybody else: just more of those union types. You're running out of the population. You're starting to run out of folks, because there are a lot of teachers and a lot of other people in our communities who supported those teachers.

You can say what you want. You can cast aspersions against them all you want and try to label them as special interest all you want, but the reality is that 120,000 teachers on the streets of Ontario in protest of Ontario government legislation is both unprecedented and significant, because it points to the polarization you're creating in this society, the kind of polarization where it's us and them.

In Sarnia, 500 people this morning, 500 workers who otherwise, without your Bill 31 and your intent to ram it through, would have gone to work like any other day. Is it going to end there? I don't know, but I know that you can't guarantee that it won't. I think there was enough legitimacy in why they did it that you ought to be worried about it.

1740

I travel around this province a lot, speaking to an awful lot of different people, and at some point you're just going to push too far. You're going to push too hard. You're going to show just too much arrogance, too much disdain for the average citizens and their real democratic rights; not the ones you talk about in here, the ones that you're trampling on.

I tell you, you'd have a huge problem if every single person who's been wronged by your government decided, unplanned but spontaneously, they were going to do something about this. You'd have a real problem. But as long as you're successful in pointing out that you're a bully who can win every fight, I guess there's a better chance that people won't.

Eventually bullies get payback, which is, I would think, why you've changed the election laws. You saw that coming, you were worried about it and you realized you're already tagged as being undemocratic. Why not go for it? Why stop short now? Why not go whole hog?

Hon Mrs Ecker: Nothing interferes with the democratic right to vote.

Mr Christopherson: "Nothing interferes with the democratic right to vote," says the Minister of Community and Social Services. Let me tell you, the changes you're making under what's called the Wal-Mart provision does exactly that. It does exactly that because there's a clause in Bill 31 and it disallows the ability of the board - let's have this debate, Minister - where the employer has poisoned the workplace -

Hon Mrs Ecker: Or the union.

Mr Christopherson: Or the union - I'm talking about the laws that exist, so you might want to think about what you're saying. The law as it exists now allows that if either does something that affects the ability of people to have a free vote, they can order an automatic certification, which is exactly what happened in Wal-Mart. That's not something we dreamed up. In fact, it was a Tory government that brought it in.

It's been upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada as being fair, and their rationale is that when you poison the workplace by threatening people with their jobs or the security of their jobs, you cannot guarantee a democratic outcome of the vote. The Supreme Court of Canada has supported that. Your Bill 31, Minister, is going to take that away.

Hon Mrs Ecker: No, it's not.

Mr Christopherson: Yes, it is. You don't know what you're saying, Minister. It does take it away.

I'll save you the trouble, Speaker. I'll refocus on what I was doing here because she doesn't want to have a debate. I'd love to have a debate with her or any one of them. I'd love to have a debate, just an open debate on any of this stuff. But that's what this is all about today, isn't it? You're making sure there isn't a debate. That's what this is about. There is no debate. Nobody gets a say. You decide what's going to happen everywhere. All of you sitting up there on Mount Olympus, you'll decide what's going to happen with all the poor, unwashed masses and God help them if they don't follow it.

In closing, Mr Dillon's letter says:

"You have decided that Ontario will not be open for business." You keep talking about business. You want to attract investment. How do you think this is going to do that? How do you think stories like Sarnia and the other protests that are happening are going to bring in investment?

Stability is a key part of that. The unions that are affected by your legislation have said, "Government, you will not have stability if you do this, especially if you don't even give us a say." You expect people to believe that after all this things are going to be better? Dream on.

I have only a few remaining moments. I have already outlined our specific concerns during the second reading debate, but there are a few key things that I want to reinforce because I think they're important. One of them relates to the exchange I just had with the Minister of Community and Social Services and I would ask her, if not to pay attention now maybe at least to ask somebody, because I'm telling you that's exactly what you're doing. You're taking away from the board one of the remedies they now have in law when the employer poisons the workplace.

You have to understand - some of you obviously just don't get it - that when someone is thinking about joining a union, it's a very big decision for them, and they are entitled to make a decision in an environment that's free from intimidation. They are entitled to that, and this law that currently exists allows a remedy for the board when the employer denies those workers that free environment.

Hon Mrs Ecker: There are still remedies there, Dave.

Mr Christopherson: The remedies that are there, Minister, are now going to be financial only. You know what that means? That means, "Here's your licence fee, employer, for keeping the union out." That's what the fines mean.

Interjection.

Mr Christopherson: It's not just me. Let's just see what the board said in 1994:

"Once the well is poisoned in this manner" - meaning intimidating people about their jobs and the security of their jobs - "it becomes impossible to ascertain the true wishes of the employees as a group, and the legislative remedy...(certification without a vote) may be applied by the board. To conclude otherwise" - Minister - "would be to award an employer for its commission of unfair labour practices."

That's the part you're taking out. Pretty soon they're going to say, "Majority vote rules," but the majority of people in Ontario voted against them. That's the way it turned out. I appreciate there are three parties and maybe there were four in some ridings, and there are exceptional circumstances, but then that would be my point, wouldn't it? That would be my point, that there are exceptional circumstances wherein a pure thought of "majority rules," full stop, does not always serve the best interests of democracy.

Until I see you pull up in the limo and say, "I'm done with this and I'm done with sitting on that side of the House, and I'm not going to be a minister of the crown again until I get over 50% of the vote," then I suggest that you have accepted the concept that there are times when a majority decision does not serve the best interests of democracy.

What else has the board said? The board has also said - this is in the Wal-Mart case: "This case is a classic example of a situation in which the conduct of the employer changes the question in the minds of the employees at the vote on May 9th from one of union representation to one of `do you want to retain your employment.'"

They go on to say: "Section 11(1)(3)" - that's the clause that you're removing; that's the one that you say is so undemocratic, the one supported by the Supreme Court of Canada - "requires us to consider whether any other remedy short of automatic certification, including the taking of a second representation vote, is sufficient to counter the effect of the employer's contraventions of the act."

That means the part where they intimidated him, which is not allowed under law. They go on to say: "We are of the view that a second representation vote in this case would be equally meaningless." That's what the Ontario Labour Relations Board has sustained since, I believe, the mid-1970s when this was introduced into law by a former Tory government.

1750

They go on to say: "The board has repeatedly recognized that threats to an employee's job security will undermine the ability of the employees to freely express their views with regard to union representation. Therefore a second vote in this case is not appropriate."

You're going to remove the ability of the board to counteract the effect of the employer breaking the law. You're going to put in place financial costs, fines. That just becomes a licence fee.

This clause has also prevented a lot of employers from violating the law, because they know there's a good chance, if it can be proven they did that, then there would be an automatic certification. It allowed the board to correct the situation where the employer has broken the law, and it's an incentive for the employer not to break the law.

The board and the Supreme Court of Canada have ruled that in these kinds of instances you cannot have a free vote, that a second vote would be meaningless, and therefore the board provides automatic certification. As I've said in the past, it's usually for a relatively short period of time, usually about a year. If it's that bad an arrangement, the employees at that time have the legal, democratic right to vote the union out, but at least the employees had an opportunity to have their democratic view expressed.

My leader, Howard Hampton, and I raised today, and I raised yesterday, the situation of one of the Premier's senior staff people, Mr Giorno. We talked about the fact that he happened to be with the law firm that represented the TD Bank when the TD Bank tried to weasel out of their collective agreement. They had him represent them at the board and at all the court cases.

Mr Baird: He represented you when you were at the Ministry of the Attorney General.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order.

Mr Christopherson: If it will help the member for Nepean regain his composure, I would point out to him that my point in raising it is not to question how good he is or isn't or who he may or may not have worked for. I wouldn't do that. I don't know the gentleman. But I am raising the point of how interesting it is that he was part of the law firm that represented the TD Bank when they did indeed try to weasel out of their responsibilities and get rid of the union. They lost at the board and they appealed to the court a number of times over the last few years, and lost every time.

Isn't it interesting that under Bill 31 the TD Bank, after this bill is law, which will likely happen as early as Monday, can now legally rip up the collective agreement they tried to get rid of in front of the boards and courts, and the person who was one of the lawyers on the case just happens to work in the Premier's office? Isn't it further interesting that the government never, during the course of discussions with the construction trade unions, discussed the fact that they were looking at this. It came as a total shock.

I want to add, in the three minutes that are left, the fact that there were a number of other cases that had the same fate as the TD Bank and that will also benefit at the end of the day. That's what this is about: Who does it benefit? Who benefits from this bill? We know it's not the workers or they wouldn't be saying and doing what they're doing. So it's got to be the employers. Who wins? Well, the Hudson's Bay Co. They're a non-construction employer. They were ruled against by the ORLB. Hicks Morley, where Mr Giorno worked, was involved in that case. The same applies to Alcan Aluminum, Kidd Creek Mines and Wal-Mart. Isn't that an interesting coincidence?

It's amazing what happens when there's a little time to look at things. But there won't be a lot more time to look at anything, because today's debate is about this government shutting down debate and the opportunity to find out what the facts are and put them on the record, and let people decide for themselves who's right and who's wrong.

As for your project agreements, the fact of the matter is that yes, there were some discussions about it. I read a letter where they were angry and they still pointed out the fact that they are prepared to work with government and employers, as should any union that's trying to represent its members. As long as there's negotiation about really improving things, they ought to do that. But that's not what happened here. What you have tabled under project agreements bears absolutely no resemblance to anything that was talked about or that the unions had said they were prepared to consider - nothing. That's why they put it on the record that they're opposed to every part.

There's something else that needs to go on the record here too. I, like a lot of people, initially assumed that the Wal-Mart decision really would apply more to the non-construction industry and workplaces than it would to construction. But you know, I've now been apprised of the fact - I didn't work on construction sites, so I don't know these things personally; I need to be briefed on them and talk to people and learn from their experience - that on a construction site, because people are laid off all the time, sometimes a couple of times a day as they move through different sites, workers are moving around constantly. That's the nature of the work they do. It's so much easier for an employer to arrange for a layoff that looks like it has nothing to do with Bill 31, but the reality is that once those workers are laid off, they can make an application to the Ontario Labour Relations Board and the union is gone because they're not considered a construction employer. That's the significance of that clause.

In closing let me read a letter from Ken Scott, business manager of Local 586, IBEW. He says to the government:

"If you and your government pass Bill 31 as a legislation, I give you my solemn promise to do everything in my power to have your collective asses bounced from office in the next election." Amen to that.

The Speaker: Mr Turnbull has moved government notice of motion number 22. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1758 to 1803.

The Speaker: All those in favour, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Beaubien, Marcel

Boushy, Dave

Brown, Jim

Carroll, Jack

Chudleigh, Ted

Clement, Tony

Ecker, Janet

Eves, Ernie L.

Ford, Douglas B.

Froese, Tom

Gilchrist, Steve

Hardeman, Ernie

Hastings, John

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Ron

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Marland, Margaret

Maves, Bart

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Palladini, Al

Parker, John L.

Preston, Peter

Ross, Lillian

Sampson, Rob

Saunderson, William

Shea, Derwyn

Skarica, Toni

Smith, Bruce

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Tascona, Joseph N.

Turnbull, David

Wood, Bob

Young, Terence H.

The Speaker: All those opposed, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Bisson, Gilles

Boyd, Marion

Christopherson, David

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Crozier, Bruce

Kormos, Peter

Lankin, Frances

Lessard, Wayne

Marchese, Rosario

Martin, Tony

Sergio, Mario

Silipo, Tony

Wood, Len

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 40; the nays are 14.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

It now being just after 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 6:30 of the clock.

The House adjourned at 1805.

Evening meeting reported in volume B.

18 juin 1998