role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

October 31, 1995

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L019 - Tue 31 Oct 1995 / Mar 31 Oct 1995

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

YEE HONG COMMUNITY WELLNESS FOUNDATION

NURSING HOMES

HAMILTON CHEFS FIGHTING HUNGER

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

LABOUR LEGISLATION

OKTOBERFEST

HIGHWAY 17

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

CONDOMINIUMS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

NATIONAL UNITY / UNITÉ NATIONALE

ORAL QUESTIONS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

RENT REGULATION

LABOUR LEGISLATION

LONG-TERM CARE

VEHICLE SAFETY

CLOSURE OF FORT FRANCES JAIL

DEVELOPMENT CHARGES

CHILDREN'S NUTRITION

NURSING HOMES

AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

MINISTRY ADVISER

COURT FACILITY

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

HIGHWAY SAFETY

HERITAGE LANGUAGES

MOTIONS

ORDER OF BUSINESS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

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

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

YEE HONG COMMUNITY WELLNESS FOUNDATION

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I rise today to honour the Yee Hong Community Wellness Foundation in Scarborough North.

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

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

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

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

NURSING HOMES

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

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

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

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

HAMILTON CHEFS FIGHTING HUNGER

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

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

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

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

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

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LABOUR LEGISLATION

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

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

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

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

OKTOBERFEST

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

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

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

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

HIGHWAY 17

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

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

I could go on and on about many incidents along this stretch of the highway. The Kenora OPP detachment has informed me that although they patrol this

section of the highway, little enforcement can be done because they are afraid to pull vehicles over to the side of the road, fearing that they will fall off the shoulder.

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

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

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

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

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

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

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

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

CONDOMINIUMS

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

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

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

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

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

NATIONAL UNITY / UNITÉ NATIONALE

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

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

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

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

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

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

I want to tell you where I was touched. I was touched, as were I think a number of other Ontarians, by the comments from Quebeckers, from Montrealers, from those who were living this referendum and getting ready to vote. They reached out, they touched, they wanted to shake hands, they shouted out -- hundreds -- things like, "Thank you for coming; thanks for caring," to me, some of them perhaps because they recognized me, but to any they identified as somebody from outside of Quebec.

It was, "Thank you," some with tears in their eyes, "thanks for coming." One young girl said at the rally, "It's about Canada." She was a girl who looked a little younger, actually, than my son. In the words of that very wise young person yesterday, it was about Canada.

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

Last night Quebeckers, in my view, voted 100% in favour of change. The majority -- a slim one but a majority -- voted for that change within Canada, but all voted, I believe, wanting change. Ontarians, like our neighbours in Quebec, reject the status quo as well. They want change. I've talked to premiers across the country who have told me the same, that the mood in their province is for change in how governments are operating -- federal governments, provincial governments, even through to local governments.

So Ontario is committed to working side by side with the Prime Minister, with the other nine provinces, with two territories, with all Canadians, with all members in this Legislature to bring about real change in the Canadian federation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ORAL QUESTIONS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Minister, during the election campaign and repeatedly since in this House, you and the Premier have talked about helping people on welfare return to the workforce, and you have expressed great confidence that in communities across this province there are community agencies providing the services that are needed to give people that hand up.

But in fact, Minister, according to Family Service Ontario, effective December 31, you are slashing $3.9 million in funding to 40 community agencies that operate job counselling services for people on welfare and for the working poor. Minister, can you confirm the cuts?

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

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

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

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

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

The Speaker: Wrap up your answer, please.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

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

RENT REGULATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interjection.

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

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

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

LABOUR LEGISLATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LONG-TERM CARE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VEHICLE SAFETY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CLOSURE OF FORT FRANCES JAIL

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

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

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

Hon Bob Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I suppose I could say to this member, why are you asking this question, given the fact that I've offered the opportunity to this member and other members of the Legislature for a meeting, this Thursday, to meet with the Provincial Auditor and talk about the 14 jails that he mentioned in his report in 1993 that the government should be taking a look at in terms of continuing to operate? This member spoke to me a few days ago, last week, with respect to his concerns.

I indicated we're going to consult, we're going to give him an opportunity to ask the kinds of questions, get the kinds of answers he's looking for at that meeting. Yet when I sent him out a letter advising him on the date and time of the meeting, I want to say that we had, within a day, copies of his letter that had been sent all over the province.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Speaker: Member for Peterborough.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Come to order, please.

Interjections.

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

DEVELOPMENT CHARGES

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

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

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

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

CHILDREN'S NUTRITION

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

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

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

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

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

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

NURSING HOMES

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

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

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

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

There still remain 37 beds at the Extendicare Cochrane nursing home, and I would be happy to have discussions with the community as to the future of that home.

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

Mr Len Wood: On the front page of the local newspaper they're saying that with 37 beds left in that facility, it's not profitable and it probably will close.

With the number of beds being reduced by 40% and the additional jobs that will be lost in the area creating more unemployment, not being able to take care of their own relatives, friends and neighbours in the community because there are hundreds of miles they have to go to another home in this area, can the minister tell us how many jobs he is planning to reduce in Cochrane as the result of the decision that you've made to take health care out of Cochrane and move it to Stoney Creek? How many jobs are you prepared to sacrifice in Cochrane?

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

AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MINISTRY ADVISER

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

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

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

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

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

COURT FACILITY

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

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

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

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

Applause.

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

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

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

Interjections.

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

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

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

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

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

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

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

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

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

HIGHWAY SAFETY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HERITAGE LANGUAGES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MOTIONS

ORDER OF BUSINESS

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

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

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

It will be a 30-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1507 to 1537.

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

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

Please take your seats.

All those opposed will please rise and remain standing.

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

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

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

Consideration of Bill 7,

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

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

"That, pursuant to standing order 46 and notwithstanding any other standing order of the House relating to Bill 7,

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

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Dispense.

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

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

Interjections.

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

"At the end of that time, those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved and the Chair of the committee of the whole House" --

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

Interjections.

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

Interjection: When?

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

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

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

The First Deputy Chair: Take your seat, please.

Interjections.

The First Deputy Chair: Order.

"That consideration of the third reading stage of the bill be completed on the same day that it is reported from committee of the whole House and that notwithstanding standing order 9(

a) the House be authorized to meet beyond its normal adjournment time until completion of the third reading stage of Bill 7."

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

Interjections.

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

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

Subsection 3(3.1) of the bill; subsection 5(6) of the bill; subsections 6(4), (5) and (6) of the bill;

section 8.1 of the bill; subsection 11(2) of the bill, subsection 1(1.1) of the act;

section 12 of the bill, subsection 1.1(1) of the act;

section 12 of the bill, subsection 1.1(2) of the act;

section 12 of the bill, subsection 1.1(3), paragraphs 12 and 13 of the act;

Subsection 16(3) of the bill, subsections 4(13.1) and (13.2) of the act; subsection 19(1.1) of the bill, subsection 7(2) of the act; subsection 35(2) of the bill;

section 45 of the bill, subsections 42(2.1) and (2.2) of the act;

section 50 of the bill,

section 52 of the act;

section 61.1 of the bill;

Subsections 65(8) and (9) of the bill;

section 65.1 of the bill;

section 69 of the bill, subsection 13.1(2) of the act;

section 69 of the bill, subsection 13.1(4) of the act;

section 69 of the bill, subsections 13.1(7.1) to (7.6) of the act;

section 69 of the bill, subsection 13.1(7.7) of the act; subsection 73(1), clause 58.1(2)(

a) of the act;

section 76 of the bill;

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

section 82 of the bill; subsections 83(1) and (2) of the bill; subsection 83(4) of the bill;

Schedule A, subsection 4(1) of the bill;

schedule A, subsections 7(9) and (10) of the bill;

schedule A, subsection 7(13) of the bill;

schedule A, subsections 8(2) and (3) of the bill;

schedule A, subsection 8(5) of the bill;

schedule A, subsection 10(1) of the bill;

schedule A,

section 16 of the bill;

Schedule A, subsection 37(2) of the bill;

schedule A, subsection 43(8) of the bill;

schedule A,

section 44 of the bill;

schedule A, subsection 48(4.1) of the bill;

schedule A, subsection 48(11) of the bill;

schedule A, subsections 48(12.1) and (12.2) of the bill;

schedule A,

section 53 of the bill;

schedule A,

section 53.1 of the bill;

Schedule A, subsections 62(3) and (4) of the bill;

schedule A, subsection 62(7.1) of the bill;

schedule A, subsection 62(9) of the bill;

schedule A, subsection 62(10.1) of the bill;

schedule A, subsection 62(14.1) of the bill;

schedule A, subsection 78(3) of the bill;

schedule A, subsections 78(5) and (6) of the bill;

schedule A, subsections 95(6) and (7) of the bill;

schedule A, subsection 98(10) of the bill;

Schedule A,

section 101 of the bill;

schedule A, clause 110(2)(

l) of the bill;

schedule A,

section 130 of the bill;

schedule A,

section 144 of the bill;

schedule A, subsection 145(4) of the bill;

schedule A, subsection 160(2) of the bill;

schedule A,

section 164 of the bill; and

schedule A, subsections 166(2) and (3) of the bill.

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

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

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

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed -- You want to discuss

section 1?

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

The First Deputy Chair:

Section 1 only.

Mr Duncan:

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

The First Deputy Chair: On

section 1, if you so wish.

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

section correct?

"1(1) The Labour Relations Act, 1995, as set out in

schedule A, is hereby enacted."

Is that correct?

Hon Mrs Witmer: Yes, that is correct.

The First Deputy Chair: Any further questions on

section 1? Shall

section 1 carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): On a point of privilege, Mr Chair: We do not have copies of these amendments. The minister goes through her litany of subsection and

section numbers. How can we ask questions when they don't provide members of this House with copies of the amendments? She refuses to read them into the record. She has no regard for democracy, no regard for this House, no regard for this Legislature, no regard for the roles and responsibilities and obligations of members of this Parliament. She shows disdain not only for this institution but the public of this province, the voters of this province --

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

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

The First Deputy Chair: Please take your seat.

Shall

section 2 stand part of the bill?

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

The First Deputy Chair: Shall

section 2 stand part of the bill? The question has been asked.

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

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

section 2?

Shall

section 2 --

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

The First Deputy Chair: Please take your seats.

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

The First Deputy Chair: Take your seat, please.

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

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

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

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

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

section 2 stand as part of the bill?

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

section 2?

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): On

section 2. Mr Chair, we're being asked to comment here in regard to

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

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

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

Interjections.

Mr Duncan: Point of privilege.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Duncan: Point of privilege.

The First Deputy Chair: Please take your seat.

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

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

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

Interjections.

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

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

The First Deputy Chair: The question that has been asked was on

section 2. Shall

section 2 stand as part of the bill?

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

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Sections 1 and 2 are carried.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Bisson: Mr Chair, hold it, Monsieur.

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

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

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

Interjections.

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

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

section 3.

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

section 3.

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

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

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

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

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

Minister, the amendment on

section 3.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I move that

section 3 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"

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

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

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

section 3 of this bill, of this very important Bill 7.

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

They were scabs when Jack London called them scabs and they're scabs now in 1995.

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

The First Deputy Chair: I would like to remind the whole House to cooperate with the table. I would ask also the member for Welland-Thorold to debate the amendment on

section 3; nothing else. If you don't, I will interrupt you and bring you back to order. Is that clear? The member for Welland-Thorold, you have the floor on the debate on the amendment on

section 3.

Mr Kormos: I speak to

section 3, Chair, of course I do. In the course of any number of these debates I've discovered that the Chair is adamant and insistent that one address oneself, when one is debating this clause by clause, to the appropriate section. But you have to understand the

section and the context of the bill because, after all, it's a

section that amends the whole bill.

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

Because, you see, as I discuss this section,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interjection.

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

section 3. I just want to remind you.

Mr Kormos: This amendment to

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

A bill, a piece of legislation, has to be taken in its whole context. You know full well, Chair, with your experience as a legislator in this Legislature, that the

interpretation of legislation requires one to look at the whole context. You can't isolate a subsection or a clause and interpret that standing on its own. When we're talking about

section 8.1, the amendment that's contained here in motion 3 by the Minister of Labour -- how dare she call herself that. When we look at this subsection --

The First Deputy Chair: Order.

Section 8.1 I'm not familiar with. I'm familiar with (3.1).

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

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

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

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

The First Deputy Chair: Order.

Mr Kormos: I withdraw that comment.

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

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

You know, Chair. You've sat on both side of this House, and you know how important it is for public hearings to accommodate the views of the public. You know it is only a lack of courage that would preclude a government from letting the public comment on this motion before the House right now,

section 8.1 of the new bill, as amended by this motion. You know how it is unprecedented in this Legislature by any number of governments for there to be a denial of access on the part of the public to public hearings.

What can motivate that? Is it fear? Is it fear on the part of the government that indeed their legislation not only lacks popularity but is an attack on the very heart, the women and men who will be impacted by this subsection and all the other sections of Bill 7 as amended, and amendments as amended? Is it fear?

Or is it because the government would have to illustrate that it indeed has no interest or concern for working people but that its true boss is their rich friends, their rich corporate buddies, the rich guys in the blue suits, the ones who are going to get the big tax breaks on the backs of the poor, on the backs of women, on the backs of children, on the backs of the seniors, on the backs of the sick, and now on the backs of working women and men?

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

The First Deputy Chair: Any further questions or comments?

Mr Duncan: On subsection (3):

"

(3.1) Despite subsection (2), in a proceeding relating to an application for certification of a trade union as a bargaining agent, the presiding person or body shall apply sections 5, 8, 9 and 9.1 of the old act and not sections 7, 8 and 10 of the new act."

Why is it that

section 8, Minister, will not be applied?

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

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

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

Mr Christopherson: I want to concur that with regard to this particular

section and every other

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

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

The First Deputy Chair: The member for Hamilton Centre, we're debating an amendment to

section 3. It has to take place. That is the debate taking place now, nothing else. It's the amendment to

section 3. That was the question I brought to you.

Mr Christopherson: Mr Chair, I am speaking to that point. What I am identifying is my and my colleagues' inability to talk at any great length or with any expertise about what's in front of us. As I speak to this particular

section that's now before us that you're asking me to comment on, like my colleague from Welland-Thorold, I'm extrapolating that to the extent that I can't speak about that

section in isolation. So I am still speaking to that section, Mr Chair.

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

Mr Christopherson: The detailed information on that

section I believe is contained in this document called the clause-by-clause --

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Where?

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

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

This

section in front of us is one of the key sections that denies unions democratic rights they've had for decades.

Section after section, piece by piece, the government is taking away the rights that workers have had for decades, and it has not allowed any public input -- none.

They give us the information, the members of this House, who have certain rights and privileges -- this is not supposed to be a dictatorship; it's supposed to be a democracy. In order to participate, we need the specific information in front of us, Mr Chair. You're going to find, sir, with great respect, that with regard to this

section and every other section, I and my colleagues on this side of the House will continue to make the point that democracy cannot take place without information. We're being denied information about this particular section, about every other section.

Look at this: 649 pages of analysis. Part of this is about the

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

This particular

section is a part of fundamentally changing the way that labour relations existed in this province for decades, as well as the rights that workers have had, not just for their own benefit but for the benefit of employers and the economy and communities. This section, more than most, plays a critical role in denying workers those rights, and the government knows that. That is why, on this

section and every other section, they don't want to take it out to the public: because the public -- employers, labour groups, others who use the Labour Relations Act -- can point out why this is ideology only and not good governance.

This particular

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

section amended it.

Now we know without any doubt that the agenda of the Tory government, with this kind of amendment, is meant to deny workers their rights, Mr Chair. You will hear that from all my colleagues this afternoon as we point out that this is not just a fight about this

section and whether it's right or wrong; this is a fight about democracy and the right of the opposition and the right of the people to comment on this section, not just us, recognizing that even our comments on this

section are not as specific as they should be because the government waited till the last second to give us the analysis.

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

section and every other, because we're being denied that. The people of Ontario are being muzzled.

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

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

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

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

Mr Duncan: It's really saddening, and I think the government members should take notice, because on