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

June 12, 1986

33rd Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L031 - Thu 12 Jun 1986 / Jeu 12 Jun 1986

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

SEARCH AND RESCUE OPERATIONS

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

SEARCH AND RESCUE OPERATIONS

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

AFTERNOON SITTING

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

BURLINGTON NEWSPAPERS

FOOD DISTRIBUTION

EXTRA BILLING

APPOINTMENTS IN PUBLIC SECTOR

DISASTER RELIEF

DEVELOPMENTALLY HANDICAPPED

SPECIAL EDUCATION

FISHING TOURNAMENT

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

PHILIPPINE INDEPENDENCE DAY

TOURISM

CANADIAN OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY WEEK

GO TRANSIT

ORAL QUESTIONS

EXTRA BILLING

IDEA CORP.

EXTRA BILLING

IDEA CORP.

PAPER MILL

IDEA CORP

SOUTH AFRICAN INVESTMENTS

SPECIAL EDUCATION

URBAN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORP.

EXTRA BILLING

USE OF TIME IN QUESTION PERIOD

PETITIONS

NATUROPATHY

PUBLIC SCHOOL

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

MOTIONS

ESTIMATES

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ROYAL ASSENT

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

SEARCH AND RESCUE OPERATIONS

Mr. D. R. Cooke moved resolution 41:

That in the opinion of this House, recognizing that many lives are needlessly lost on Ontario's lakes through boating incidents and that existing search and rescue procedures often prove to be insufficient due to the elements and the physical size of search areas, the governments should require all small craft on Ontario's Great Lakes to be equipped with two-way radios to allow boaters, when in distress, to communicate with rescuers and facilitate prompt and thorough search proceedings.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: It may seem a little unusual that, coming from a land-locked riding, I would bring a motion such as this before the House, but it is the case that my riding is often all but deserted on Saturdays and Sundays during the summer months when my constituents flee to the Great Lakes for respite. Many of them may be less knowledgeable in boating than are those who live closer to the lake.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to address the Legislature on this important issue. It is customary when presenting one's resolution to the Legislature to state what a pleasure it is to speak on the issue, but in my case it is not, particularly because two of my constituents died during this past year because of an unsuccessful search and rescue bid. The deficiency of such procedures was graphically and dramatically brought to my attention at that time and I rise to bring it to the attention of the Legislature and the people of the province.

On November 4, 1985, I was called from a meeting to be informed that the family of a Kitchener couple missing on Lake Huron had contacted my constituency office asking for assistance in restarting a search which had been called off the day before by the Department of National Defence. The couple, Arthur Simmons and Julie Schneider, had last been seen fishing near Douglas Point on Saturday, November 1. After two days of a futile search of the waters of Lake Huron, search and rescue proceedings were called off, much to the despair of family and friends who begged Canadian Coast Guard personnel, local MPs and the Minister of National Defence, the Honourable Erik Nielsen, to resume the search.

On November 6, thanks to the co-operation of Deputy Solicitor General John Takach and Commissioner Ferguson of the Ontario Provincial Police, the coast guard resumed searching the lake on humanitarian grounds. The coastguard search lasted only one day and, although the OPP helicopter continued to search for two more days, all efforts to locate the couple proved fruitless.

Had it not been for the recovery of the couple's 14-foot aluminum boat on a rocky beach near Oliphant last month, this sad episode may well have been a minor incident in a long list of such deaths on the Great Lakes. On the red dashboard of the boat was scrawled a chilling diary, testimony to nine days spent on Lake Huron waiting for rescuers who never came.

The question must be asked, why did the rescuers not arrive? Why did the Canadian Coast Guard, which calls itself the best search and rescue unit in the world, with all its rescue resources and expertise, fail to save the couple? We hope the inquest which was called by my colleague the Solicitor General (Mr. Keyes) for September will answer this question. In the meantime, boaters will continue to go missing on our lakes and lives will continue to be lost needlessly. It is our duty as legislators to do all we can to prevent such tragedies from taking place in the future. It is for this reason that I ask members to support this resolution.

The number of pleasure boats in Ontario boggles the mind. It is estimated that 1.5 million are in the Trenton area of the Canadian Coast Guard, which extends from Quebec City to the east, to Thunder Bay to the west, and as far north as Hudson Bay. The Canadian Forces Base Trenton receives about 2,500 to 2,800 cases annually, and last weekend alone it handled 40 distress calls from boaters. This figure is even more astounding when one considers the number of calls handled by other rescue agencies, such as the Metropolitan Toronto Police force, which may deal with as many as 70 calls a day on a busy weekend. It is little wonder that so many lives are lost annually.

The growing popularity of water derbies, such as the Toronto Star's Salmon Hunt and the Toronto Sun's Fishing Challenge, to mention only two, only exacerbates the problem. This Sunday, as many as 6,000 small vessels will be on Lake Ontario. Many fishermen, caught up in the enthusiasm of the event, will be lured out beyond the limits of their boats and experience.

It has been pointed out to me on a number of occasions that one cannot legislate common sense. We can, however, give common sense some help. It is because of the dramatic growth of recreational boating and a corresponding decline in respect for the elements that I propose this resolution.

At this point I would like to clarify some of the technical aspects of my proposal. The coast guard has recently developed an Emergency Positional Indicator Radio Beacon, which is what I am referring to in my resolution as a two-way radio. The EPIRB, as it has been dubbed, is similar to the emergency locator transmitter which is carried by all aircraft. The EPIRB would transmit a digitally coded, one-second signal every 50 seconds on the 406 frequency, and it would be picked up by SARSAT, the satellite used for locating aircraft and ships in distress.

The coded message would be relayed to the nearest Canadian Forces Rescue Co-ordination Centre, and search and rescue proceedings would commence immediately.

The coast guard would then not only pinpoint the location of the transmission to within a kilometre, but it could also identify the owner, the type of boat, the marina it departed from and any other relevant data. This information would be entered into a computer when the transmitter was purchased; it would be similar to the process one goes through when purchasing licence plates.

This system would cut down on the number of false alarms and it would allow the coast guard to decentralize its operations, making it more efficient and more cost-effective. By contacting the Ontario Provincial Police, commercial aircraft or "vessels of opportunity" in the vicinity of the missing boat, searches could then be commenced within an hour rather than in hours. This is especially important in the spring and fall of the year when Ontario's lakes are so cold. I learned to my surprise that hypothermia, not drowning, was the main threat to boaters during these times.

It has been pointed out that when the body temperature drops to 32 degrees Celsius, unconsciousness occurs, and at 29 degrees Celsius, one is dead.

10:10 a.m.

On the unpredictable waters of the Great Lakes, the odds of a search proving successful decline by the hour. This was graphically illustrated in the Simmons-Schneider incident last fall. Logistical problems resulted in the start of the search being delayed until the day after the couple went missing. Winds of 18 to 26 knots and deteriorating visibility contributed to the inevitable taking place. I hazard to suggest that had the couple been required to carry an emergency transmitter, they might well have been at home watching the six o'clock news instead of being on it. The events speak for themselves.

Although it seems somewhat inappropriate to discuss the financial aspects of such procedures when lives are at stake, this is often an unmentioned factor. Budgetary constraints have limited the resources available to even the best-trained personnel. One search day is estimated to cost more than $250,000. It costs $75,000 to keep a Buffalo aircraft in the air for a three-hour search. The growing number of vessels will no doubt stretch existing resources to the limit in the years to come.

Our search and rescue services have a mandate to provide universal coverage to a sparse population spread over the second-largest country in the world. They will have to be innovative to carry out their job effectively. I believe the concept set out in my resolution will aid search and rescue agencies immeasurably and, I hope, save lives.

As I stated earlier, one cannot legislate common sense. This proposal would require a great deal of common sense on the part of boaters. At present, all vessels up to 5.5 metres in length are required to carry the following items: one approved lifejacket for each person on board; two oars with oarlocks or two paddles; one hand-held bailer or one manual pump; one class B-1 fire extinguisher if the vessel has an inboard motor or a cooking or heating appliance; permanently fitted lights in compliance with collision regulations; and finally, some type of sound-signalling device.

This list of commonsense items is far too frequently ignored by boaters who either neglect to carry such articles or fail to maintain them properly. Lifejackets, for example, are often relegated to protecting one's seat rather than saving one's life.

It may be argued that with the inability of the Ontario Provincial Police to enforce effectively the laws we currently have in place, why should we place another statute on the books? Although there is some merit in this argument, I submit that carrying an emergency transmitter would serve as a constant reminder of the dangers of boating.

At present, the Department of Transport includes sailing-plan forms with its boating-safety brochures. It is recommended that boaters complete the vessel information portion of the form and, when going on a trip, list the route, and departure and arrival times, and indicate at what time they wish search and rescue to be called in the event they go missing. The sailing plan is to be left at a marina or with a friend or relative who would call the toll-free number on the form in the event of a mishap. Sailing plans, like other safety measures, are ignored more often than not.

Should vessels on Ontario's Great Lakes be required to carry a locating transmitter, it would have to be mandatory that a sailing plan be filed to ensure effective operation of the search and rescue system. The Canadian Coast Guard, as it does now, would have to verify all requests for assistance before commencing search and rescue operations. With tens of thousands of transmitters on the lakes, the potential for false alarms becomes great and even the best system could easily become paralyzed. Again, the onus would be on the boater to make the system work.

The message I have received repeatedly when investigating this issue is that boaters are their own worst enemies. Poorly maintained equipment and a general lack of respect for the waters of the Great Lakes are repeatedly brought to my attention as causes of boating fatalities.

It has been suggested that the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) undertake a major safety awareness program. This suggestion was put forward by my colleague the member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan) in 1983. In a statement to the Legislature he called on the then Minister of Natural Resources, the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope), to call a conference on boating safety on the Great Lakes and safety awareness programs. The minister's response at that time was that an interministerial committee would examine the issue.

To date, I am not aware of the results of such a committee or whether the issue was examined at all. The growing number of boating fatalities is no doubt a tribute to its inaction.

I call on my colleagues here this morning to support this lifesaving resolution. Harsh laws to restrict where boats can travel would be impossible to police and would not work. Education programs should be continued and given increasing emphasis. It is a sad reality, however, that safety programs are heeded by the conscientious and ignored by the careless. The unpredictability of the elements and an attitude of "It cannot happen to me," stack the odds against those boaters who fail to respect the Great Lakes. Common sense cannot be legislated. I recognize this fact.

The resolution before the House today acknowledges carelessness. However, it is an attempt to deal in a constructive manner with an occurrence which has become far too frequent in this province.

I recognize there are inherent problems in the system I propose. Batteries, for example, would have to be replaced every two years. It is likely that many of them would be poorly maintained. The EPIRB proposed by the Canadian Coast Guard would be expensive initially. It is estimated that the basic unit would cost approximately $350. There are other systems on the market which could be marketed for as little as $70. I suspect that if this system became widely used, the cost could be reduced dramatically. Wide acceptance and economies of scale would no doubt bring it down.

This figure pales when compared to the millions of dollars spent on each and every search. It also begs the question: how much is human life worth? The families of people who have perished in the past few months would no doubt agree that such an item would be a wise investment.

It is sad that it takes a tragedy to illustrate the deficiency in our system. I ask members to put themselves in Al Simmons's shoes. He is the brother of Arthur Simmons, the gentleman who perished this past November. He spent weeks in total frustration this past fall, frustrated with a system that did not work, waiting for results that never came. It is only human nature to question the methods and efficiency of search and rescue personnel in such a situation. It is safe to say, however, that they did the best job they could with the resources they had. This is the central point.

The resources they had at their disposal were limited by conflicting priorities and hampered by strong winds, rain and limited visibility. The system I propose in this resolution would facilitate prompt and thorough rescue proceedings. It will help rescue personnel to do what they want: their job well.

In conclusion, I call upon my colleagues to support and endorse this resolution unanimously. This resolution, if successful, will be forwarded to the federal government for its consideration. A strong vote will send a strong message. I ask members to help me send that strong message.

The Deputy Speaker: Does the member wish to reserve the remaining three minutes and 20 seconds?

Mr. D. R. Cooke: Yes. I do.

10:20 a.m.

Mr. Partington: I am pleased to join in the debate on this motion with respect to two-way radios in boats on the Great Lakes. As the member has indicated, the Great Lakes are of immense size; 95 per cent of North America's fresh water is contained within them. They also make up the greatest surface area of fresh water in the world. Therein lies part of the problem. The use of the Great Lakes has tremendously increased during the past years because of increased recreation, sport fishing and, generally, the lure of this beautiful resource. As the member for Kitchener (Mr. D. R.

Cooke) mentioned earlier, there are many fishing derbies. There is the Golden Horseshoe derby and the Toronto Sun Fishing Challenge currently going on; the St. Catharines Game and Fish derby ended just recently. Perhaps I should mention some statistics which prove the point of increased use.

Ron Penfound, the 1985 president of the St. Catharines Game and Fish Association, who was the president of the Ontario Charter Boats Association from 1980 to 1983, and the founder of the St. Catharines Game and Fish derby, advises me that in 1976 their first derby had 400 entrants. This year's derby that has just ended had 9,000 entrants. Unfortunately, there was a drowning. Two fishermen set out in a 12-foot boat which capsized. An hour later, one survivor was picked up but, unfortunately, one fisherman perished.

This raises another issue which was mentioned by the member for Kitchener. Lake Ontario is a very cold lake. With these fishing derbies, the season extends from early in the spring to late in the fall. Unfortunately, the lake becomes much more treacherous and hazardous during those times because of its coldness and because of the increased frequency of rough water and storms.

In addition to the question of placing two-way radios in boats, certainly in boats 18 feet and longer and perhaps in all boats that venture out into the Great Lakes, there should be flares on board as a safety device. With respect to those boats, particularly of 18 feet and longer, perhaps they need a VHF marine radio because these are the types of boats that might venture from Port Dalhousie or Niagara-on-the-Lake to Toronto and so forth. When the lake looks calm, it can be a very pleasant trip but, as with all waters, the conditions can change suddenly. When one might be 20 miles from the shoreline, it is important that a boat be equipped with all the safety features.

There are then the different smaller boats. For example, in the Niagara area, one can rent a rowboat in Jordan Harbour and row into Lake Ontario to fish. The question then arises, should a boat of that nature be required to have a two-way radio? Perhaps it should be required to have a citizens' band radio, which I understand runs in the vicinity of $50 to $150. You can get into the situation where the cost of the radio exceeds the cost of the boat. I am not suggesting we should not have that equipment, but the equipment may determine whether boating at that small-boat level will occur.

Perhaps boats of less than a certain size -- 18-feet has been suggested by my friend Mr. Penfound -- should not be permitted on the Great Lakes. Perhaps all motorized boats on the Great Lakes should be required to have a radio of one sort or another, whether it is a citizens' band radio or a VHF radio. A boat of any size, whether it has a seven-horsepower motor or a 50-horsepower motor, can get a few miles offshore.

For a boat that is in difficulties, the lake is so gigantic. It is a great resource. It should be developed further and better for the interests of our citizens, and we should use it, but we should also be careful and recognize that, as the member has said, regardless of the regulations or the requirements imposed on boaters, there will always be people who take a boat out when they should not. Also, unexpected storms always will occur.

In a situation of a few years ago, a couple went canoeing on Lake Ontario in March. Any ordinary person would not even contemplate it, but two people did and the results were fatal.

With the increasing use of the Great Lakes by the boating public, and an increase which we should encourage, it is necessary to provide the best possible protection. That should include some form of radio on any boat that ventures on to the Great Lakes, be it a citizens' band radio or other radio. There should be a requirement for flares, which could be used. For those using the Great Lakes, perhaps there should also be better education as to the potential hazards and the necessity for safety, which could best be done through the various yacht clubs and game and fish associations throughout the lakes.

As the member has indicated, no matter how many regulations we impose, there is no guarantee of freedom from danger for anyone who uses the waters of our Great Lakes.

I am pleased to support in principle the motion of the member for Kitchener and I will be pleased to discuss with him the matter of its implementation and how it would be adapted to the various craft that make use of our Great Lakes.

Mr. Swart: Like the member for Kitchener, I do not live in a riding that has any Great Lakes frontage. However, as in his case, in my riding there are numerous people who own boats. Although I have no statistics to back this up, I suggest that because of the location there is probably a higher percentage of people who own boats of one kind or another in the Niagara Peninsula than in anyplace else in Ontario. From that point of view and from my concern for safety, I am pleased to take

part in this debate.

I regret that I did not hear all the comments of the member for Kitchener; I had to go out to welcome students from Gordon Public School. Perhaps he gave some explanations that it would have been beneficial for me to have heard.

In any event, on this issue of whether we in this House should require, as the resolution says, "all small craft on Ontario's Great Lakes to be equipped with two-way radios to allow boaters, when in distress, to communicate with rescuers and facilitate prompt and thorough search proceedings," we have to consider, as with everything else in life, the cost benefits.

We consider them in everything that we do. We do it all the time. We do it here in this House. Although none of us likes to admit it, we consider cost benefits in the matter of human life. This Legislature, and especially the government that is in power, constantly has to make decisions on such things as whether we spend money on highways to make them safer and whether we force everyone to have smoke detectors in their houses, as we do not do now. There are such matters as policing our highways.

We know that if we doubled the amount of money we spend on policing, it would probably prevent some of the accidents that take place at present, whether by picking up people who are somewhat inebriated or picking up speeders.

On the matter of human life, we constantly make decisions on what we can afford and whether we want to take the measures of compulsion that are sometimes necessary to enforce safety.

10:30 a.m.

This enters into our considerations today. The member for Kitchener mentioned the cost that would be involved if we forced all the boats and small craft to have transceivers, especially of an adequate size and capacity to transmit over the required distances if we were to have them monitored by stations, whether of the coast guard or some other emergency group.

There is the cost involved of monitoring and of setting up the shore stations that would receive these calls of distress and of ensuring that somebody is always monitoring in those stations and somebody is available with the emergency units to be dispatched to those who may be in distress in their boats out on the Great Lakes. I am told that if one wants to have a permanent installation of a transceiver in one's boat of the size and wattage necessary, it would probably cost in the neighbourhood of $500. I am also told that if one wants a portable unit, which would be the kind many people would want, the cost would probably be in the neighbourhood of $1,000.

However, having said that, there is no denying that this could and would save some lives on the Great Lakes. We had an example of that given here today by the member for Kitchener. I point out this applies only to the Great Lakes. Statistics show that most lives are lost on other lakes in central and northern Ontario. There are far more deaths there than on the Great Lakes. Let me admit immediately that those drownings are more often from different causes; not because one cannot get a rescue team there but for a variety of reasons.

Nevertheless, the majority of deaths in boating accidents or of people out in boats on the lakes do take place on the other lakes, not on the Great Lakes. They are on the inland sport lakes in this province.

I am told, and I believe the member for Kitchener did deal with this when he was speaking, that there is at present a distress frequency, channel 16, which is monitored constantly by the coast guard in this nation. I am also told the number of coast-guard centres is such that, unless one has a very powerful radio wattage output, it will not reach those coast-guard stations. For instance, in the eastern Niagara Peninsula, there is no coast-guard station on Lake Erie in the vicinity of the Niagara region. I am not sure where the first one is to the west, but I am sure it is not closer than Port Dover.

If somebody were at the eastern end of Lake Erie, that would not be of a great deal of help unless he had an exceedingly powerful radio. I am told there is a citizens' band, channel 9, but it is not constantly monitored by anyone. Therefore, it would be necessary to set up a monitoring and dispatch service if this were going to be successful.

I wonder also about the question of jurisdiction. Perhaps the member may have dealt with that in his comments. The registration of pleasure craft and, for that matter, of all boats currently comes under the responsibility of the federal government. In fact, those boats which have motors of less than 10 horsepower do not have to be registered at present. Therefore, we would have to set up a whole new system. I doubt very much that the province has the power to do that.

Perhaps that is why the member, in his resolution, said "governments" rather than "government." It appears we cannot just pass the resolution or a bill in this Legislature and make it effective. I think we would have the power to monitor and even to establish the rescue units, but I do not think we would have the power to enforce this legislation.

To some extent, there is also the question of desirability. Is it going to apply to all boats? Is it going to apply to sail boats? Is it going to apply to very small boats? If it is going to be effective, it would have to apply to them, and there would be some resentment on that.

There is also the question of enforcement. We would have to have a fairly substantial-sized police force patrolling all the time to ensure that all of these boats did have the radio equipment in them at any time when they were out on the Great Lakes.

All of this has to be weighed in balance, but after weighing it in balance, I will support it. We do require, of course, many safety measures at the present time such as life jackets. In cars, we demand seatbelts, and I am in support of that. There are all kinds of other safety devices which we legislate; therefore, I think it is desirable and I will support the proposal that there be two-way radio on all boats that are on our Great Lakes, even the small ones.

Mr. McGuigan: I am very pleased to rise and support the motion of the member for Kitchener and to congratulate him for bringing this matter to the attention of the Legislature and also to the attention of the people of Ontario.

The first coho salmon were planted in Lake Superior and Lake Michigan in 1966, and the fast runs occurred in 1967. The first people who were aware of this found the fish around the mouths of streams and did not venture out into open waters, but gradually, as the sport increased, people began going into the lakes.

On Saturday, September 23, 1967, nearly 1,000 boats dotted the water between the Platte and Manistee rivers on Lake Michigan. A severe squall, not even a major storm, pounded hundreds of boats to pieces, dozens of fishermen were hospitalized and seven were drowned. After the 1967 incident, small boats retreated to inland waters for the most part and big boats made their appearance. Recently, there have been some nasty incidents in Ontario as well, involving not quite as many people. There have been some even this year.

To give members some idea of the popularity of sport fishing on the Great Lakes, I point to an event taking place in the great riding of Kent-Elgin from July 12 to August 4 of this summer. The event is run by the Pointe-aux-Pins Salmon and Trout Club and is sponsored by Budweiser Corp. The location is the port of Erieau on Lake Erie. The event is estimated to draw 3,000 contestants over the three-week period and bring $1 million in tourist trade to Erieau and nearby communities. Prizes are estimated to be worth between $50,000 and $60,000.

The first prize is a 17-foot boat, a 90-horsepower motor and a deluxe trailer worth in total about $16,000. This tournament will be but one of 17 tournaments under sponsorship of Budweiser Corp. this summer in Ontario. The event in Erieau is the sixth annual.

The sport has grown in numbers and in sophistication of the equipment, and safety has improved since salmon were first discovered off the shores of Lake Erie, Lake Ontario and Lake Huron. We do not find very many open 12-foot or 14-foot aluminum boats 20 miles at sea on the Great Lakes. In comparison to small inland lakes, the Great Lakes are inland seas and in their angry moments can sink 200-ton fishing tugs and even a 50,000-ton ship such as the Edmund Fitzgerald. The ballad by Gordon Lightfoot has made this tragedy of Lake Michigan a well-known event.

10:40 a.m.

I have spoken to people on both Lake Erie and Lake Ontario, such as Mr. Laird Snobelen of RR 3, Blenheim, an experienced sportsman out of the port of Erieau, and Mr. Bob McGary, a charter-boat operator of 736 Tatra Drive in Oshawa. Mr. McGary told me most of the boats on Lake Ontario do have radios aboard their craft, a portable citizens' band radio costing approximately $80 to $90 with a high antenna costing about $150. While CBs are not quite as reliable as very high frequency marine radios costing $300 to $400, they offer a good deal of protection.

Most operators leave their radios turned on. If a storm is approaching or a boat is in trouble, the message can be relayed from ship to ship and eventually to shore if a rescue vessel is required from port. The CBs have a range of about 12 miles, which may not be enough to reach shore if the boat is 20 miles from shore. Many of them go 20 miles or even to the international border in their search for salmon or trout. Many sports people now are equipping their vessels with marine VHF radios. When they get a weather warning, they switch to the CB channel and relay the message. Mr. McGary assures me the system works fairly well.

Bob also said most boaters now are equipping their vessels with two motors, the second as an auxiliary in case of a breakdown. A small 10-horsepower motor would maintain the ship's headway into the waves in the event of a storm and would take the ship to shore, although at a slower pace. In the event that fog settles in on a ship, the radio would be able to direct the rescue vessel to the general area and the radar-equipped rescue vessel would be able to pick up the lost or stranded vessel.

Bob also said peer pressure is working on careless or novice boaters to see that their ships are properly equipped with the necessary equipment as outlined in the safe-boating guide mentioned by the member for Kitchener.

Bob pointed out there are no criteria or licensing regulations for charter-boat owners. He thinks most charter-boat owners would welcome such a program. Charter captains would be required to take safety courses and provide liability insurance for their patrons. Until this year, it was possible for any boat owner to make one or two charter trips a year and write off 20 per cent of the cost of the boat as an income tax deduction. However, the federal government has eliminated this tax loophole for 1986. Operators of this nature could easily lack the knowledge to protect their passengers.

There is an Ontario Charter Boat Association that requires members to meet strict standards, but it is not necessary to be an OCBA member to hang up one's shingle.

The state of Michigan has very strict regulations for charter-boat captains. According to Bob McGary, Ontario would be wise to consider such a move. He also said the continued presence of the Ontario Provincial Police, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and harbour marine patrols was a very effective method of bringing safety education to boaters. He stressed the value of education. He said in the past year or so he has been intercepted six or seven times; so in his view that protection is working.

Laird Snobelen of Erieau stressed that the size of the boat was not nearly as important as the seamanship ability of the operator. He was born and has lived within sight of Lake Erie and is a sportsman on the lake. He respects the power and the majesty of the lake. He points out that once you get a few miles from shore, even on a clear day you cannot see the shore. A compass and a spare compass are absolutely essential. Fishing tug operators have told me that people in open boats have asked them the way to shore.

Laird says if you hunt for salmon and trout on Lake Erie, sooner or later you will be caught in a storm. An open boat is an invitation to disaster. He would not go out beyond two miles in an open boat even though he is an experienced boater. In the spring and fall of the year, the salmon are within about two miles of shore. It is possible for open boats to go out and get back in before a storm reaches them. However, in summertime the fish are out in deep water and the hunters, as they call themselves, have to go out 20 or 25 miles.

Even in a cruiser-type boat, a cool head is required in a storm. A full-power dash to shore will put the boat airborne at the crest of every wave with the inevitable crash to the slope of the wave that can smash the boat to pieces. I happened to be on one of these boats about two years ago when a storm arose. The operator headed for shore at full speed. He was a good operator, but it soon became apparent that he could not maintain that speed. He slowed the boat down and, while we were pretty close to being seasick by the time we got to shore, we got there safely.

Seamanship -- the knowledge of how to handle a small boat in four-foot waves -- can mean the difference between a safe harbour and a tragic death by drowning. Laird has a VHF radio in his boat and says most sportsmen have this equipment. The problem would appear to be the novice boater, accustomed to inland boating, who is at grave risk on the Great Lakes. While we cannot stop the foolhardy boater, we do owe a duty of care to the unwary passengers who may think they are in the hands of an experienced operator but could be doomed the minute they head out to sea.

I have listened to the presentations of other members and I do not hear any serious objection to the idea that it be made a requirement that people have these radios on their ships.

Mr. McLean: I would like to spend some time on this resolution. There are some concerns I would like to express. Being a small-craft owner, I have the opportunity to spend some time on Georgian Bay, Lake Simcoe and Couchiching Lake. When I realize the difference there is between the Great Lakes and the smaller lakes and bays, I have some concern with this.

This resolution means I would have to be equipped with a two-way radio if I wanted to travel from my home area to Georgian Bay with a few other couples and their craft. I used to own a craft on Georgian Bay and that is where I kept it. At that time, I had a two-way radio on it. I felt it was necessary. But when I travel with some other craft that is equipped with a two-way radio, then I wonder whether it is necessary that I should have to be equipped with a two-way radio. We look at the cost. I am not comparing the cost of a radio with a life; I am comparing what people feel government legislation does. Sometimes we think we are legislated to death.

I believe two-way radios have been a great asset to boaters on the Great Lakes system, but this legislation does not define travelling on the smaller lakes. It says when I go on to the Great Lakes I have to have a radio. Personally, I do not feel the legislation should be on smaller boats. If I had a 16-foot runabout that I wanted to take to Georgian Bay to take the family fishing, would I have to be equipped with a two-way radio to do that?

I realize what has taken place and the background of this resolution. The coast guards are equipped and have usually done an excellent job. However, I feel in the one case that has been referred to, that did not happen.

10:50 a.m.

I have travelled with friends of mine who have two-way radios but I do not. The government is telling me I must also have a two-way radio and I do not feel that is proper. I would like it clarified. I believe it says "any lake in Ontario." Is that correct? That means I would have to have a two-way radio regardless of the lake I am on. I live on Lake Couchiching, which is only three miles wide and 11 miles long. If I want to take my boat out to do some fishing, then I have to have it equipped with a two-way radio. My neighbour uses his boat for water-skiing. It is a 19-foot Starcraft. Is the member for Kitchener telling me that boat would have to be equipped?

Mr. D. R. Cooke: It is just on the Great Lakes.

Mr. McLean: It says, "Ontario's lakes through boating." That is what I am trying to get at here.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: The member should read the fourth line from the bottom.

Mr. McLean: I have some reservations with regard to this motion. I understand why the member is initiating it. This resolution is before us because people go out on Lake Ontario as individuals. However, I still have some concerns about making two-way radios compulsory.

It does not matter which law is passed if people want to do something within the realm of what they like to do. When we say boaters have to be further equipped, then I have some concerns. In reading the boating guide, one finds there has to be a pail for bailing water. That is compulsory. We have to have lifejackets, ropes and many things.

If I have to have a two-way radio, then why is the federal government not initiating such a thing? The other laws are federal. I presume the member wants to make the federal government aware of what is happening. I have some concerns about it and I wanted to put them on the record.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: I appreciate very much the comments that were made by all the members who spoke on the issue. I would like to clarify a couple of matters that were brought up by the member for Simcoe East (Mr. McLean).

I considered including lakes Simcoe, Nipissing and Nipigon in this resolution, which are all lakes on which boats could be lost. As the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) pointed out, the many hundreds of thousands of smaller lakes in the province are lakes on which lives are lost, but not necessarily lakes on which boats are lost because of the size of the lakes.

Initially, it was my feeling the resolution should be reserved to the Great Lakes, which are huge expanses of water on which we have real difficulty finding a lost boat. I also considered wording the resolution in such a way as to make it illegal for a boat under a certain size to go more than a mile from shore. Part of the problem in that regard is that so often when the boat is that far from shore, the operator of the boat is really not in control of or may not know the direction it is going.

In so far as the problem of jurisdiction is concerned, lakes and rivers are squarely federal jurisdictions. There would have to be federal participation in this matter. The administration of the activities, particularly initiating search and rescue activities, comes within the ambit of the Ontario Provincial Police. That is why the concern is in this Legislature. It is hoped that with the passing of this resolution, the issue would be brought to the attention of the federal officials.

Enforcement is not necessarily always going to occur. I am not suggesting we spend a lot of money trying to enforce it. What I am suggesting is similar to seatbelt legislation. If it is against the law, it will encourage a great number of boaters who currently do not have facilities such as this to put it on their boats because they will realize there is the power in force and the moral force of the law there.

The member for Welland-Thorold raised the question of problems of frequency, etc. I did point out during the course of my speech, and I believe that must have been when he was not in the House, that it could be monitored through the Canadian Forces' satellite system and that they could in turn make the local police aware of a boat which was lost, even though the local police might not have facilities to monitor it.

Once again, I emphasize the fact that costs would be greatly reduced with the sale of these items on a mass basis.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): The debate has ended on resolution 9.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Barlow moved second reading of Bill 45,

An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

The Acting Speaker: The member has up to 20 minutes for his presentation and he may reserve any portion of it for the windup.

Mr. Barlow: I will reserve some wrapup time at the end, depending on how much time my initial remarks take.

I am pleased to lead off on the debate of second reading of Bill 45. It has been proposed in response to continuous representations that I have received as our party's critic for small business. It gives me great pleasure to realize that we can bring forth changes in legislation which not only directly respond to the concerns of business, but at the same time are also responsive to some concerns that have been expressed by labour.

As many members of this assembly will recall, I was the parliamentary assistant far the Ministry of Labour before being appointed by my leader to my present position as opposition critic for small business. Although these two positions might seem to be a bit divergent, I cannot help but feel appreciative for having had the opportunity to serve in both capacities, because it gives me a deep understanding and respect for both labour and business.

The best laid marketing plans cannot be successful without a strong healthy labour force to bring them to fruition; and, quite simply, there will not be a need for a labour force if more consideration is not given to those who provide the employment opportunities.

I believe there has been a distortion of the balance between labour and business in the past year. I would like to think that in some small way Bill 45 will help to restore that balance. Bill 45 would require a secret ballot vote for certification of a trade union in all cases where the Ontario Labour Relations Board is satisfied that at least 45 per cent of the employees in the bargaining unit are members of a trade union. The act now requires a secret ballot and provides that the board has discretion to decide whether to call a vote when more than 55 per cent of employees are members of a union.

11 a.m.

I have with me today two letters that I would like to bring to your attention. The first one is a letter all members of this assembly received from Judith Andrew of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. It is dated May 27, 1986, the same day I introduced Bill 45. I should point out that this letter was not solicited by me as has been suggested. Instead, it was prompted by the passing of first-contract legislation on May 26. Ms. Andrew writes, and I quote directly from her letter:

"At the very least, legislators ought to predicate access to first-contract arbitration on the requirement for a supervised, secret ballot vote for certification. If this is not accomplished, each MPP will be an accomplice in a legislated organizing drive by unions of the province's small-and medium-sized businesses, the sector which provides the majority of net new jobs and whose key advantage is its flexibility."

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business is a nonpartisan organization that represents 75,000 independent Canadian-owned businesses, more than 34,000 of which do business right here in Ontario.

I also have a letter from the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, once again dated May 27. It too was prompted by the passing of Bill 65 and it expresses this association's belief that there should be a provision for secret balloting for trade union certification. About 85 per cent of all the goods manufactured in Canada are produced by members of the CMA. In Ontario alone, they have about 4,000 members. In commenting on the passing of the first-contract legislation, the vice-president of the CMA says in his letter: "The least that we hoped was to get some agreement on secret ballot. However, it looks like industry has lost another round with government."

The throne speech said, "Ontario will flourish as an enterprising society only when business, labour, educational institutions and government work together to create prosperity and opportunity." Bill 45 is an opportunity to have business and labour work together.

Employers usually take it as a personal affront when their employees are organizing for collective bargaining. Whether it is true or not, management will always be inclined to believe employees are being intimidated into signing a union membership card and that union organizers use a no-holds-barred method of obtaining signatures because, as the Labour Relations Act provides at present, a vote on certification is not required if the union can satisfy the board that more than 55 per cent of the employees are members of the union. A secret ballot representation vote need be directed by the board only if between 45 per cent and 55 per cent of the employees are actually members of the union.

Many employers resist the concept of collective bargaining and recognition of a trade union, causing them to act in an intransigent manner, because they cannot accept the fact that their employees really want to be organized as a union. To have a secret ballot vote required by law for all members of a bargaining unit that has satisfied the Ontario Labour Relations Board that at least 45 per cent of its people have joined the union would indicate clearly to the employer the true wishes of his employees.

Section 2 of Bill 45 deals with the issues of secret ballot voting for strikes and ratification of an agreement. The Labour Relations Act of Ontario does not stipulate that union members must have the right to vote as a precondition to the right to strike. The decision as to whether a strike vote will be called generally remains with the union executive and is governed by the internal constitution and bylaws of the union. However, the Ontario Labour Relations Board does provide that in the event the union calls for a strike, the vote must be conducted by way of secret ballot.

The labour relations board further provides that all employees in the bargaining unit, whether members of the union or not, are entitled to vote in the strike vote. The internal constitution and bylaws of a union similarly govern whether union members will be asked to vote to ratify a proposed collective agreement.

Although the general practice in Ontario is to put the issue to a membership vote, the constitution and bylaws of the union may authorize the executive to ratify the agreement without the necessity of a vote. The Labour Relations Act provides, however, that in the event the union calls for a ratification vote, the vote must be conducted by secret ballot and all employees in the bargaining unit are entitled to vote, union members or not.

In preparation for this private members' bill, I conducted a survey of the 49 largest unions in Canada that have locals in Ontario to see, first, whether their constitution or bylaws include the requirement for a secret ballot vote for a strike or for ratification and, second, what they actually do in practice.

The results of this survey show that many unions are amending their constitutions to include this measure as an internal reform movement. However, there still are unions in Ontario which do not allow their membership to vote either by way of their constitution or in practice.

The survey shows that 59.2 per cent of the unions contacted are required by their own constitution, bylaws or government legislation to put a strike vote to their membership. Of the unions contacted, 30.6 per cent said that while they are not required by constitution, bylaw or legislation to hold a strike vote, they always conduct secret ballot votes; and 6.1 per cent said they hold strike votes usually, sometimes or never, as they see fit.

Similarly, when asked about the ratification vote and the ratification issue, 61.2 per cent have it as a requirement at the present time; 36.7 per cent do not have it as a requirement but always have a secret ballot vote; and only two per cent were in the usually, sometimes or never category.

While the majority of unions are either required by their internal constitution or bylaws to call or consistently follow the practice of calling secret ballot strike and ratification votes, Bill 45 will safeguard these rights in legislation. Amending the Labour Relations Act to include this provision would prevent the situation of a union executive being out of touch with its membership and agreeing to a contract which the membership finds unacceptable, or issuing a strike order to a union whose members are not united in their desire to strike. It would make the union executive more accountable to the membership.

I am sure the argument for and against this bill will be not so much whether there should be a secret ballot but whether there should be a vote at all.

As I stated earlier, under our current circumstances, when votes do occur within a union either for certification, strike or ratification of an agreement, they are generally conducted by secret ballot. There does not seem to be much objection to the use of secret ballot as an instrument of implementation. This secret ballot vote has a symbolic, democratic value that a card check can never have. It clears the air of any doubts about the union's majority and it also confers a measure of legitimacy on the union's bargaining authority.

11:10 a.m.

Secret ballot voting ensures a democratic form of decision-making within unions. It gives workers the right to vote. It restores the employees' ability to express themselves with respect to the work place. It frees individuals from intimidation, coercion or interference by the union or by the employer. The process of voting by secret ballot is at the very core of the democratic process.

The

preamble to the Ontario Labour Relations Act indicates that a primary goal of the act is to further harmonious relations between employers and employees. To my mind, Bill 45 does just that. I encourage members on all sides of this House to give their vote of support for these amendments to the Labour Relations Act. In so doing, we will send a very clear message to the business community that we do care about and understand their position as employers. To the organized labour of the province we will send a message that we care about their plight as well.

I will reserve the rest of my time for wrapup.

Mr. Mackenzie: I rise to oppose this despicable piece of legislation. I am surprised that the member for Cambridge would bring in a piece of legislation that is designed to do nothing but attack and further take away the rights of workers in Ontario. It does not really surprise me, though.

When he quotes the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and calls it a nonpartisan group, he must believe in the tooth fairy as well. He quotes the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. Obviously, it does not like any authority on the part of the workers in Ontario. I did not hear him quote a single union. I did not hear him read letters into the record from anybody in the trade union movement. He talks about whether he has support in the trade union movement. He is from a union town himself and he obviously does not care much about them, because he does not have any support within the trade union movement.

The

preamble of the Ontario Labour Relations Act is honoured more often in the breach these days than in the carrying out of it. It says, "Whereas it is in the public interest of the province of Ontario to further harmonious relations between employers and employees by encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining between employers and trade unions as the freely designated representatives of employees." How do we do that with this legislation?

I do not believe the member for Cambridge has any understanding whatsoever of what one goes through to try to organize a trade union movement. One comment he made that was accurate was that, in most cases, employers take it as a personal affront when their workers decide they are going to join or want to join a trade union.

I have had the privilege as well as the tough job of organizing workers in a number of units in Ontario. In not a single unit that I organized did I not end up with a petition against the union or an attempt before the board to try to stop the certification of the union. I am happy to say that we finally got certification in every single one I organized, but we had to have thrown out by the board petitions and pressure that came from the company, and petitions that were organized in some cases by the foremen or by the company's lawyers. The pressure that was often put on workers was almost unbelievable.

If members allow this kind of move to go through, they are saying that in the case of workers who have decided they want a trade union, who have organized and who have signed a card and paid their initiation fee to become members of that union and who may have signed up 60, 70 or 80 per cent of them, their word, their signature and their money are not worth a darn. Members do not believe them. They insist they have a vote.

Once members have gone this route and decided to force that kind of procedure in Ontario, an additional hoop that the workers have to jump through, they will have opened up the opportunity for employer pressure. Essentially, once the union has made its application, it is out of the picture. What happens is the company then has the time, before the vote is ordered, to do what it wants to pressure those workers. We are not an egalitarian society. If the member thinks that an employer cannot put the pressure on workers, there is something wrong with his thinking.

If he thinks the pressure was not on in the Eaton's case, he is really out of the picture as far as workers' rights in Ontario are concerned.

To qualify for automatic certification, the union has to get 55 per cent to start with. Does the the member think he should have more than 50 per cent after he has been elected? I notice he got elected with 40 per cent of the votes cast, which is nowhere near 40 per cent of the votes in his riding. Maybe he would like another vote after that election to ensure that he has the right to enter the House. There are times when I get a little exercised.

I also ask the members of this House to think for a moment about a request that was made within the past few weeks by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, which recognizes that the distortion in the balance among workers' rights, employers and trade unions in this province is not one that is in favour of the unions, as the member for Cambridge implied. It is one that says workers are under fire and that it is necessary the people in this province start taking the side of legitimate worker organizations which are trying to do something in social terms and workers' rights terms in Ontario.

"Bishop John O'Mara of Thunder Bay, president of the 29-member Ontario Conference of Catholic Bishops, told the Star that the May Day message" -- referring to this May -- `is a reaffirmation of the church's teaching on labour and social justice. O'Mara said that unions are under attack today, and the church feels a responsibility `to teach the people, particularly our people, and make them aware of the teachings and the work of the trade union movement.'" He goes on to make a number of comments that indicate the attack that is on the trade union movement today.

The member for Cambridge is joining that right-wing attack on the rights of workers. There is no gain whatsoever for workers in the legislation he has brought forward. It boggles the mind. Doies he think there is something wrong with the majority of cards the workers have signed up in the certification drive? Why should that be questioned? That majority of cards is a majority of all the employees in that work place. It is not the type of majority he or I get elected on in Ontario.

Every once in a while we get something before us that would really have a chilling effect in respect of an employer's influence over the employee and his desire to join a union. The time delays it would force and the extra effort that could be made to intimidate workers is enough to make one realize that workers still do not have an awful lot of protection in Ontario. In terms of workers' rights, the jungle is not very far away.

I hope there are some progressive members in the Tory caucus who realize exactly what this bill would do, the uproar it would create and the additional hoops through which it would put the trade union movement in Ontario if such legislation were passed. It would get them absolutely nothing, only another hand up for the companies, which is exactly what the member referred to and is on side with in this legislation.

If he wants to really cause some problems for workers, who are already having a tough time organizing in the current climate in Ontario and in our country, then he can bring in the legislation he has brought forward today. To me, it is a disgrace that a member of this House would bring forward this legislation. It is a waste of this House's time that we are here debating this blatant attack on workers in Ontario. I should not be surprised at its coming from the Tories when I take a look at this party's history of anti-labour legislation. I hope the House turns down this bill by an overwhelming vote, and I hope there are some Tory members who have an ounce of sense left in them.

11:20 p.m.

Mr. Polsinelli: I can best characterize my position with respect to this bill as, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." We have all witnessed recently in Alberta a situation where the former federal Conservative leadership candidate, Peter Pocklington, refuses as an employer to accept the reality and the legitimacy of the trade union movement. The ensuing acrimony resulting in violence is not welcomed. Bill 45 invites this type of confrontation to take root here.

The phrase, "secret ballot," in terms of certification and representation votes is a code word in industrial relations. It stands for the delegitimization of trade unionism. In the parlance of labour-management relations, this is widely known. In relation to ratification and strike votes, the phrase does not carry the same hidden meaning. The underlying premise of this bill is that the current voting procedures do not capture the true intention of organized workers, presumably because union leaders are somewhat dishonest or union members are somewhat ignorant.

To support this bill is to support its underlying premise, namely, that unions cannot be trusted. To affirm this proposition is to have impugned both the credibility and the creditworthiness of the trade union movement.

For the trade unions, this issue strikes at a fundamental principle; for them, it is not a peripheral matter. An attack against this principle will be viewed as an attack against the essential viability of the trade union movement. It is poor practice to legislate where there is no indication of a problem. There is no evidence that a problem exists with the current voting procedures. Certification is the first step in the collective bargaining process. It opens the relationship between labour and management in the work place.

Certification is, of itself, only a small cog in the entire collective bargaining system. Certification gives the union the authority to bargain with the employer on behalf of the employees in the bargaining unit.

This authority has little meaning if the union does not truly have the support of the employees. Without such support, it is unlikely that an acceptable collective agreement will be reached. Instead, where true support is lacking, the inevitable result is abandonment, displacement or decertification of the union. There are essentially two approaches to certification in North America. The American approach focuses on the requirement that a representation vote be held in every case. This approach leads to lengthy representation campaigns with the resultant delays.

Moreover, the representation campaign is an open invitation for employer interference in the process and can and does lead to undesirable animosity between the parties.

Most Canadian jurisdictions have adopted a different approach. In these jurisdictions, evidence of a clear majority of employees favouring the union is sufficient to result in certification without a vote. For example, the Ontario Labour Relations Board can certify a bargaining unit without a vote if there is evidence that more than 55 per cent of the employees are union members. This approach avoids the undesirable delays and animosity which frequently result from the mandatory-vote approach taken in the United States.

At this point I am going from memory, but I recall that in the 1970s, there was a Waisberg commission which reported. At that time, the Ontario Labour Relations Board required 65 per cent to certify without a vote and the Waisberg commission recommended that it be reduced. That former government reduced it to 55 per cent. They had the option at that time to require secret ballot, but it is amazing how opposition changes your point of view.

The Canadian approach has a number of safeguards to ensure that abuses do not occur. For example, where the evidence of union membership indicates that between 45 and 55 per cent of the employees are union members, then a vote is mandatory. In addition, the board can, and often does, order votes where there is evidence of improper sign-up tactics being used by the union. The board has required that all of these votes be by secret ballot. This system has worked well in Ontario.

Bill 45 would also make ratification of strike votes mandatory. This view is directly contrary to the prevailing philosophy in Ontario that internal trade union affairs should not be interfered with unduly. There is a strong rationale for this philosophy. The union has been selected by the majority of employees as the bargaining unit for the unit. As a result of the selection, it has been authorized to conduct collective bargaining with the employer. Inherently, this requires that the union have the ability to make a wide range of decisions about negotiation priorities and the settlement of a contract.

Because they have such powers, unions are able to take into consideration their own unique circumstances in developing appropriate processes and procedures. For example, a union with a geographically diversified membership may find a strike vote an unwieldy mechanism that may hinder the union in obtaining a better deal for its members. As a result, it may develop a less formalized process for determining the wishes of the bargaining unit.

At the same time, it is recognized that individual union members need protection from abuses. The Ontario act provides this in a number of ways. One example is the requirement that if a vote is taken, all employees in the unit must be entitled to participate and the vote must be by secret ballot. The act also imposes a duty of fair representation on the union. More important is the right of union members to insist on changes if they desire them. If the membership is dissatisfied with the leadership, it may elect new leaders. Similarly, they may change the constitution of the union to make such votes mandatory.

The ultimate power under the act is the ability of the employees to decertify the union or to change the union. It is the same power the people of Ontario have. They were not satisfied with the former government. They elected to change it --

Mr. Sterling: By secret ballot.

Mr. Polsinelli: By secret ballot, and that happens in the union movement.

In addition to these mechanisms for protecting employees, the Labour Relations Act also provides for a final offer vote. Under this provision, an employer may put his final offer to the employees in a government-supervised secret ballot. This allows employees to have a meaningful influence on the negotiation of the collective agreement, while not unduly interfering in internal union affairs.

Because the bill impugns trade unions, it potentially erodes their bargaining strength. If the collective bargaining balance is eroded, we confound the pursuit of harmonious relations between employers and employees as required under the

preamble of the Labour Relations Act. It is improper, not to mention embarrassing, to support a legislative mechanism that contradicts legislated public policy and, let me add, legislated public policy by the former government, whose members now are sitting on the opposition benches.

Mr. Cousens: I too am pleased to rise in this House, not to speak in opposition but in favour of this important piece of legislation. I would like to compliment the member for Cambridge for the insight he is bringing to this House and to labour legislation through his suggested legislation in Bill 45.

As an alderman for 10 years in Cambridge and Galt, as a legislator for five years, as a parliamentary assistant to a Minister of Labour and now as the one responsible, as critic, for small business, the member for Cambridge exemplifies the best of what I see in Ontario politics, the balance that comes from understanding, on the one side, the needs of labour and of people and, on the other side, the needs of employers and business.

I see in this legislation a deep sense of respect that comes through with the integrity the member brings to all his work in this House. We are fortunate to have such people who are going a step further in looking at some of the problems now taking place in the whole legislative process. He is a man who speaks for the people. He speaks for what is right. I am proud to stand and speak in support of his bill.

He also stands for something that has been a characteristic of our party for many years, something that has passed over to all parties in this House. There is respect for both sides: for management, the people who are trying to run a business, and also for the employees, those who make the business run. There is a unity of purpose when both sides, management and employees, work together in a common way, gathering a consensus and having one honourable goal, to make a profit in business and to share the profit and the privileges that go into making that success.

11:30 a.m.

This role of what happens in the certification of a union is important. It has to do with the first step towards a change in the relationship between the employee and his employer. I believe very strongly in something the member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. Taylor) said as he was sitting here commenting and thinking out loud about some of the reactions to what was being voiced. I have never before heard the garbage that came from the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie). None the less, I heard from my colleague to the right that a secret ballot frees the worker from intimidation from both sides.

Mr. Mackenzie: The member does not know what he is talking about.

Mr. Cousens: If my friend disagrees with that, then he really does not understand some of the effects that take place during an election of any kind.

Many unions right now have within their constitutions the opportunity for secret ballots. A secret ballot gives people a chance to be free to express their views without any pressure. I believe that by having a secret ballot at certification the democratic rights of the employee and of the employer are totally respected. There is no secret except that the person has the confidentiality of how he is going to vote. I do not know how people vote in provincial elections and I really do not think I would want to know how they all vote. The fact is that they exercise their franchise and, in so doing, they elect whomever they want. Once one is elected, one serves all the people.

In the case of a union being certified, if we have that open opportunity for all to participate more actively, no one is going to be pushed aside. Their votes will count because they are going to want to exercise their rights. They will able to mark their X in the box they want to put it in without anyone saying, "You are going this way, you are going that way," without having the pressure of the crowd coming in upon them, which is all part of what the member for Prince Edward-Lennox calls intimidation.

I believe part of our democratic form of decision-making allows an employee to make his decision in private if he wishes, and having a secret ballot gives him that important democratic right. I believe as well that there will be greater participation in the whole certification process. When we have changed the statistic to any number over 45 per cent who are anxious to do it, we will have automatically engraved in the legislation that is being proposed in Bill 45 the ability to have a secret ballot. It means that no activist group is going to be putting pressure on. It means that all will be equal.

Many unions already have constitutional amendments that allow for this. Why, then, would the member for Hamilton East and the member for Yorkview (Mr. Polsinelli), who has already left the House -- oh, he is here talking with his comrade. We see a lot of this chatting together, the Liberals and the New Democrats. We are glad someone has friends.

We are now in a position to give leadership in the important role of labour negotiations for the establishment of labour. Our party stands up for all. We want to see employees have their rights protected.

I believe strongly, as do the member for Cambridge and I am sure a great number -- I hope the majority -- of the members of this House, that this bill reflects the needs in our communities for that kind of freedom to be exercised. I regret the word that came from the member for Yorkview. I have the feeling inside that he is in a minority in the Liberal Party, just one of the few who have been misdirected by the member for Hamilton East.

Notwithstanding that, I am not exercised, as he is. I am proud to stand up for the employees of the world who want to have a collective agreement. If they want it, I want them to have it. I am glad they can have it, because unions have done a great deal to help the employees in this country. Let us allow them to form when they want to, not just when a small, exclusive group is trying to shove it down their throats.

Mr. Charlton: I will not rise to the level of anger that was expressed by the member for Hamilton East, because I have listened to the member for Cambridge and the member for York Centre (Mr. Cousens). The naïveté those two members have expressed here today is frightening. The demonstration they have given us that they are both so totally out of touch with reality is frightening.

Neither of them even understands the reason the member for Hamilton East was so angry. Neither has ever been in an organizing drive, obviously. Neither has ever talked to an employee who has been fired for signing a union card or for participating in an organizing drive. Neither, obviously, has ever talked --

Mr. Cousens: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I would like the honourable member to withdraw his statements. He does not know what he is talking about. He cannot say that neither of us has done what he is saying. It is wrong. He should withdraw it.

Mr. Mackenzie: if the member has, he sure does not show the results.

Mr. Cousens: I wish the member would speak the truth.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the members please control themselves?

Mr. Charlton: As the Speaker often says in situations such as this, I am expressing an opinion. I said "obviously" because these gentlemen have demonstrated that they do not understand the problems. Obviously as well, they have never talked to employees who have been leaned on by their employer during the course of an organizing drive.

Mr. Cousens: The member cannot say that. He has no way of knowing whom I talk to.

Mr. Charlton: The member demonstrated that in what he said today.

Mr. Cousens: He should not say things that are not true. His opinion is not necessarily the truth.

Mr. Charlton: The member has come in here --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Interjections are out of order. I hope the member for York Centre will contain himself. Every member has the right to express his point of view.

Mr. Charlton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. They have come here today with a paternalistic piece of legislation that chooses to impose on people who have already made their decisions that their decisions are not the correct ones. During the course of his comments, the member for Cambridge talked about unions not allowing their members secret ballot votes on strikes or ratifications. I point out to him that unions do not impose those conditions on their members. It is the members of the union who vote to set up the bylaws and the constitution of the union in the first place. It is not the union leadership, but the members of the union who create the procedure.

The member talks about democracy and he is here trying to impose a decision on those who have already made their democratic choice about how the procedure in their union should work.

As we all know, there are the Peter Pocklingtons of this world. We have seen the situation going on in Alberta around the meatpackers' strike. We have seen the comments from the owner of that company not only about his existing relationship with the union, but also about his future role in terms of the operations he runs.

The two members from the Conservative Party who have spoken today are trying to tell me and the other members of this Legislature that the likes of Peter Pocklington, and there are thousands of them across this country, are not going to try to intimidate those who work for them as to whether they should be members of a trade union. They have asked us to impose a vote procedure on trade unions when a majority of the members have already signed union cards and paid their dues.

I can count and most people on the Ontario Labour Relations Board can count.

Mr. Cousens: Has the member ever belonged to a union?

Mr. Charlton: I have talked to thousands of them. We meet with them every day.

Mr. Cousens: See; there you are.

Mr. Mackenzie: He was the president of one. That is more than the member can say.

Mr. Cousens: I can say a lot more than he can.

Mr. Charlton: I have also been on organizing drives, which obviously, as I said before

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the member please disregard the interjections and address his comments to the chair?

11:40 a.m.

Mr. Charlton: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Obviously, those of us who have been on organizing drives know a little about what goes on when employers start to lean on employees. We know the difficulty trade unions and people who decide for themselves that they want to organize go through when an employer makes up his mind that he does not want a union and that he is going to do everything in his power to see there is not one. Nobody has taken into account, in the preparation of discussion around this bill, the kinds of pressures that were brought to bear in the Eaton's strike and the organizing drive that went on prior to that strike.

This legislation totally ignores the realities for working people, especially the working people in the community that is supposed to be represented by the member for Cambridge in his role as critic, that is the small business community. The member does not seem to understand the additional pressures that can be brought to bear on employees in the small business sector. That has always been true.

That is why the largest employers have been the first to be organized by trade unions. There has always been strength in numbers. We all know that. To organize an Inco or a Stelco, although it may be a lengthy process because of the time it takes to get a majority of signatures on a majority of the cards, there is strength in numbers. Those employees feel much more comfortable in expressing themselves openly.

In the very sector that is supposed to be represented by the member for Cambridge, the small business sector, we all know that in the intimate relationships that exist in small businesses what is going on in the shop is well known to everybody. The pressures that can be brought to bear and the intimidations that can be wrenched into the system in that kind of situation are at their very maximum. This is the very sector where this kind of legislation will do the most damage.

This is the kind of legislation that will say, in effect, to the vast majority of people working in the small businesses and small manufacturing sectors in Ontario that they likely will never have the opportunity, even if they so desire, to become members of a trade union because the intimidation that will be brought to bear on them or numbers of their colleagues in their work place will be, in most cases, unbearable.

There will be employees let go because they are talking about organizing a union; there will be employees let go because they sign a card. There will be no protections as there are in the process we now have where members can sit down together, decide they want a union, sign the cards and make their application to the Ontario Labour Relations Board. Nothing up until that point has impeded them because they have not had to notify the employer that any of that is going on.

Once the application is made to the labour relations board, the employer is obviously aware, and that is when the pressure begins. Even if 95 per cent of the employees have signed union cards, the member wants to delay that procedure and allow a vote to take place somewhere down the road and allow time for that employer and that small shop to start putting the pressure on individuals. As I suggested earlier, that is going to push all the people in that sector into a very difficult situation in terms of their desires and rights to express those desires openly and freely without intimidation.

The members of this party cannot support this piece of legislation. The people in the trade union movement and even the majority of people who are not in the trade union movement in this country will not support this piece of legislation because they understand what has gone on.

I urge the members of the government party and those other members of the Conservative Party who have not taken a position in support of this legislation to think very seriously about opposing it.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Wellington South has nine minutes.

Mr. Ferraro: Mr. Speaker, I assure you my comments will not take nine minutes. Much to the chagrin of my colleague the member for Yorkview and much to the disgust of the New Democratic Party, I rise today in support of the bill being proposed by the member for Cambridge.

The perception if one supports this bill is that the supporter is in the pocket of business and management. If one opposes this bill, the perception is that the concerns of the labour union are the prerequisites of that individual's statement.

Quite frankly, I do not trust all business managers and employers. It is safe to say, at least in my opinion, that one cannot call all union organizers Mr. Clean as well. To take that to a third level, I do not trust all politicians, at some levels in particular.

Having said that, there is one undeniable truth that I do trust. There is the democratic principle by which every member in this House is elected, that is, based on a secret ballot. Yes, I am sure management will coerce employees in certain situations for their own individual causes. Yes, union organizers from their perspective have, in some respects, to use aggressive methods to sign up cards and so forth.

Let me give an analogy. This House will know I recently had an unfortunate 51-day teachers' strike. I can say unequivocally to the members of this House that when I spoke to teachers who were on strike, they hated in some respects the fact that they had the right to strike or had to vote for a strike, as individuals. However, when they put that person with two or three others, they toed the union line.

Interjection.

Mr. Ferraro: The members opposite are afraid to hear the truth.

I want to sum up this. In my opinion, failure to support this vote will, in essence, condone the fact that we are elected under false pretences. Failure to support the bill of the member for Cambridge will indicate we are afraid of the truth.

I am not in the pockets of business or in the pockets of labour unions, but the one undeniable fact I am proud to say is that I speak as a member of this House because I believe in the people. Unless the people can have the undeniable, legitimate and justifiable democratic right to vote as they see fit in secret, then I suggest anything else we do as politicians is not right.

Mr. Sterling: I did not expect to get an opportunity to speak in support of this bill, but I do so for many of the reasons that have been put forward by the member for Wellington South (Mr. Ferraro).

It is important that I also would support other amendments to labour legislation that would further democratize the process. I believe that both representatives of management, the employer, and representatives from unions should have an opportunity to present their cases in a full and open way to the workers in such a manner that they can weigh both the pluses and minuses of either having the union represent their interests with management or not having that particular union represent their interests with management.

We all know as politicians what type of intimidation can take place when someone comes to us with a petition to sign, with a cause to support or whatever. We may not feel very strongly about supporting that cause, but we may feel a rejection of supporting that cause will cause us some political harm.

If an organizer came to me, such as the member for Hamilton East, who happens to be much greater in size than I am in physical stature, and the members know how forcefully he spoke in the Legislature when he was dealing with this matter, I might feel intimidated by his very size and by his bombasity in terms of what he might do as an organizer in asking me to sign a card to join a particular union.

11:50 a.m.

In reply to the arguments put forward by those who would like to paint into a corner anyone who would support this measure to further democratize the process of organizing by saying, "You do not care about the worker; you do not care about unions," etc. , I have a great deal of respect for the unions. I talk constantly with the presidents of the unions that are in my riding. I talk about the problems they are having with management. I have no concerns with the unions I represent in my riding.

However, I also have the concerns of union members who come to me who do not think their union is properly representing them. I had a problem recently with pipefitters working out of Kingston. They were taking an attitude that was detrimental to the pipefitters who were located down in my area of the riding.

There can be problems in unions, and those things have to be discussed in the open and cases have to be presented in the open. However, in the final analysis, as the member for Wellington South put it in the best possible way, there has to be a time when a person can vote without the employer coming and looking over his shoulder, without the union coming in and looking over his shoulder, without the problems that those two kinds of intimidation can create in a man's work and on his livelihood, on his family, on his whole life. Therefore, I do not understand how the Minister of Labour (Mr.

Wrye) and his parliamentary assistant can stand there and say it is a great sin to democratize further the process of certifying a union.

I commend the member for Cambridge for bringing this forward. I know he is going to be subjected to the kind of rhetoric we heard from the member for Hamilton East and the kind of garbage we heard from the member for Yorkview, acting as a straw man for the Minister of Labour. I commend the member for Cambridge for having the intestinal fortitude to bring this issue to the floor. Many members have thought about it and have wanted it here. I thank him for doing it and I will vote in favour of his bill when I get a chance to do so.

Mr. Barlow: I thank all the members who did participate in the debate, some a little bit more than others, mind you.

Mr. Wildman: The member has five minutes to persuade me to vote for it.

Mr. Barlow: All right. I am going to work on it right now.

This bill was not introduced as a we-they, white hats-black hats issue. It is not a business-versus-labour issue. I feel this is something to further the democratic rights of all individuals who are being organized by a union. Those who have signed a card have the opportunity then -- I guess I am really saying exactly what the member for Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Sterling) just said of sitting back and thinking quietly about what a certification vote will do: "Do I really want to be in a union? Do I not want to be? I have had pressure put on me by my peers in the work force. I have had pressure put on me on the other side by management."

Incidentally, this is already covered in the Labour Relations Act. Intimidation and coercion are not allowed; it is against the law to do that. If there is talk about petitions being filed by management, I feel it is well covered in the Labour Relations Act as it is at the present time.

I heard the Minister of Labour interject, "Where is the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) today?" The member for Brantford was going to be speaking in favour of this bill, but he had to be away today. He told me that some two weeks ago.

I thank the other members of my party for supporting me. I thank the member for Wellington South for supporting this piece of legislation. He told me he did want to speak on it and he had the opportunity to do so. Along with our other colleagues in this House who are of Italian extraction, he is at a meeting with the president of Italy, or some such dignitary from Italy at the present time. Unfortunately, my colleague the member for Wellington South will not be here to vote, but I am sure he has convinced many of his party colleagues to support him.

This bill covers three particular areas. It covers the area of secret ballot vote in the case of strikes or ratification of a contract. At present, about 90 per cent or more of the unions in the province, either by their own constitution or by practice, have a secret ballot vote for a strike or the ratification of a contract. To put in law what is already in practice is a simple, straightforward amendment.

The other amendment, the one on union certification, is one that has probably raised the ire of some of the members of the House. I remind the member for Hamilton East that I talked to union representatives as recently as last Thursday about the amendment I was putting forward to the Labour Relations Act. While I must admit I did not receive full unanimity on the total bill, we did have an excellent dialogue. I have talked to them in the past about other matters and I am sure I will be talking to union representatives in the future in my riding.

Mr. Warner: Not if this passes.

Mr. Barlow: The member is right, we have a big union town. Without both the organized and unorganized workers in Cambridge, I would not have been elected the last time. I hope the New Democratic Party does not feel that all members, because they are unionized, are supporters of the NDP; they are not. I count a great deal on many of the unionized workers to support me during any election campaign, and they do support me. I have them working on my campaign.

At present, in the certification process, if the number of cards signed falls between 45 per cent and 55 per cent, there is automatically a vote. I am saying let us extend that vote. It is a democratic right for those employees who want to sit back and think about it to give them the opportunity to have a vote, whether there are 45 per cent or 80 per cent signed up in the union. Let them have a democratic vote.

I do not know why anybody should be afraid of that. Management should not be afraid of it. They cannot be afraid of the democratic right of their people. I do not see what the fear is. l cannot see unions being afraid they are going to lose some of their support after some attacks on personalities, etc. l do not see why they should be afraid.

If the employees of a company feel that company is not treating them right and they want to be unionized, they are going to vote in favour. They will say: "Yes, I do want to support the union. My X goes on the ballot that I want to support a union in my company." That is a simple matter. It is a democratic right of each and every one of us. All of us in this House were elected by the democratic right. It is an extension of that democratic right.

SEARCH AND RESCUE OPERATIONS

Mr. Speaker: Mr. D. R. Cooke has moved resolution 41.

All those in favour will say "aye."

All those opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

12 noon

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

The House divided on Mr. Barlow's motion for second reading of Bill 45, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Andrewes, Baetz, Barlow, Bennett, Cousens, Dean, Eves, Guindon, Harris, Hennessy, Lane, McCague, McFadden, McLean, O'Connor, Partington, Pollock, Rowe, Sargent, Sheppard, Smith, D. W., Stephenson, B. M., Sterling, Taylor, Treleaven, Turner.

Nays

Allen, Bossy, Bryden, Charlton, Conway, Cooke, D. R., Cooke, D. S., Foulds, Gigantes, Grier, Haggerty, Hart, Hayes, Laughren, Mackenzie, McClellan, McGuigan, Miller, G. L, Morin, Morin-Strom, Newman, Philip, Poirier, Pouliot, Ramsay, Reville, Smith, E. J., Van Horne, Warner, Wildman, Wrye.

Ayes 26; nays 31.

The House recessed at 12:09 p.m.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

BURLINGTON NEWSPAPERS

Mr. Jackson: It is a great privilege for me to rise in the House today to pay tribute to the local community newspapers in Burlington.

The Burlington Post has been acknowledged by the Canadian Community Newspapers Association as the best newspaper of its class in all of Canada. The Burlington Gazette garnered a first and three second-place prizes, and was acknowledged the third best in its class for the entire country. These newspapers were in competition in the largest circulation class, against the biggest community newspapers in Canada.

I have had occasion to refer in the House to our two community papers, because I have found them to reflect the needs and concerns of all the people in Burlington. In fact, it was the strength and excellence of the community coverage of these papers that formed a large part of my arguments against the redistribution proposal that would cut away a portion of southeast Burlington and put it in the proposed Oakville South riding, away from the natural communication flow for Burlington.

With that digression aside, we in Burlington are justifiably proud of the work that the staffs of our two newspapers put into providing us with the best community coverage in Canada. I am proud to be able to take this opportunity to give them this recognition they so richly deserve.

FOOD DISTRIBUTION

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I would like to say a few words about hunger in Ontario and the growing difficulties with hunger in cities such as Toronto. As of today, I learned from Second Harvest here in Toronto that it has distributed more than 260,000 pounds of food in the first five months of this year, more than it did in all of last year.

The Scott Mission is giving out 1,700 bags of food a month. Stop 103 is expecting to distribute $300,000 worth of food, more than double what it did last year. The Salvation Army is having trouble keeping up with its clientele, and FoodShare got rid of 170,000 pounds of potatoes in two days without any difficulties at all. There are people suffering terribly in this province.

In January I asked that there be a task force established to review our whole social assistance network because people are now so dependent on this kind of assistance for their day-to-day nourishment, on an ad hoc basis with no nutritional guarantee.

In the throne speech, the minister said we were going to get this task force. We still do not have it. He said we would have a report by the end of the year; that is obviously impossible at this point.

The Liberal government is not making the problems of the hungry in this province its priority, as it should be. I and this party decry that situation.

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. D. R. Cooke: Like that of many members of this House, my constituency office gets two or three calls a day in support of Bill 94 and practically no calls opposing it. My staff was surprised yesterday, therefore, when we received seven calls in a row asking that Bill 94 be withdrawn to avoid a doctors' strike.

Curiously, the fifth caller identified herself as Gail Hill, 520 Westheights Drive, Kitchener, and a patient of Dr. Michael Thorburn, who happens to be the director of District 3 of the Ontario Medical Association. She said she was opposed to Bill 94 and she finds her doctor inaccessible at the present time.

My assistant's curiosity got the better of her and she looked up Mrs. Hill in the city directory, to find her listed as the receptionist for Dr. Michael Thorburn, director of District 3 of the OMA.

I direct Mrs. Hill, if she has any concerns, to contact the emergency number at the Ministry of Health, Zenith 6-9100. The phone lines are waiting.

APPOINTMENTS IN PUBLIC SECTOR

Mr. McLean: I want to emphasize to the Solicitor General (Mr. Keyes) the concern I have encountered regarding appointments by the provincial government to various boards in the province. One case in particular is the police commission in Orillia in my riding of Simcoe East.

Since last February this commission has been unable to function because two provincial appointees have yet to be named to this five-member board. This is an important board in any municipality, and the fine police force we have in Orillia can carry out its mandate for only a limited time without a policy-making body to give direction.

As members may be aware, the police commission deals with salaries and licensing. At this very time in Orillia we have a problem with taxi licensing matters that requires immediate attention. This matter would normally be dealt with by the police commission. This cannot be done at this time since only one person appointed by the province is with the commission. The two other appointees are representatives from the city council.

I urge the Solicitor General to expedite the appointment of two very qualified people to complete this commission roster and thereby allow the police work to continue with a minimum of disruption. The Orillia police force must be allowed to continue with the fine work it has been doing and to deal with other related matters. The Solicitor General knows the criteria for selection of members to this board. Should he require any assistance, I shall be delighted to oblige him.

DISASTER RELIEF

Mr. McClellan: I am sure all members will want to join with me in expressing a great deal of concern about the tragedy that has befallen the people of Jamaica. There has been a flood, with a great loss of life, loss of homes and destruction of property. Many people here in Ontario will be concerned about the situation in Jamaica and anxious about friends and loved ones.

To all those who have a direct relationship with this tragedy, we issue our deepest sympathy. We urge the government to see whether there are ways and means of providing some emergency assistance to the people and the country of Jamaica during this time of great stress and tragedy.

DEVELOPMENTALLY HANDICAPPED

Mr. Partington: Late in 1985, Mainstream, An Unsheltered Workshop, was created in St. Catharines. Its mandate is to serve the developmentally handicapped and moderately mentally retarded who could, with the appropriate training, become productive members of society. The design of this program was conceived in cooperation with the area associations for the mentally retarded and in consultation with local representatives of the Ministry of Community and Social Services to fulfil a need not currently covered under existing legislation.

Mainstream was led to believe that it would become eligible for financial support once the new fiscal year began for the government of Ontario, and it made its 1986 plans accordingly. The uncertainty of ministry funding has made it necessary for the local staff of the agency to work for the past three months on a volunteer basis. The United Way of St. Catharines and District learned of this and immediately took steps to rectify the situation with additional funding to sustain the program.

In the recent budget introduced by the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon), an allocation of $17 million over two years is earmarked to help integrate the developmentally handicapped into the community. I suggest that Mainstream should qualify for some of these funds and that the government take immediate steps to free up these funds to protect this very valuable program in the riding of Brock.

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Mr. Warner: As many members realize, disabled students in northern Ontario have not received the kinds of benefits that disabled students in southern Ontario receive, even though those in the south are not adequate.

Unfortunately, in this situation as in so many others, the north always takes the back seat. The very best is given to southern Ontario and whatever is left over goes to the north. It is time we provided equality to the north, in this situation to disabled students.

FISHING TOURNAMENT

Mr. McGuigan: I want to make the members aware that from July 12 to August 4, the Pointe-aux-Pins Salmon and Trout Club is holding its sixth annual tournament. This will bring about 3,000 contestants and an estimated $1 million in tourist revenue to the port of Erieau and the surrounding communities. I invite any members who are interested in salmon and trout to participate.

2:11 p.m.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

PHILIPPINE INDEPENDENCE DAY

Hon. Mr. Ruprecht: On behalf of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and the government of Ontario, I rise for the purpose of recognizing a special event that occurred 88 years ago, on June 12, 1898: the establishment of a free, independent, democratic Republic of the Philippines.

It gives me great pleasure to introduce to the members of the House the special guests who are in the gallery today representing the government of the Philippines: Mrs. E. Berengual, the acting principal officer of the consulate of the Philippines; Eloy Belo, chargé d'affaires, embassy of the Philippines; Consul Cabrera of the consulate of the Philippines; and many distinguished leaders of the Filipino community.

Philippine Independence Day is not only an important date in history, but it also has great significance to our Canadian citizens of Filipino heritage.

Though many of us take our democratic system of government for granted, the celebration of the 88th anniversary of the establishment of democracy in the Philippines serves as a useful reminder to all of us that for the tradition of freedom to be preserved, it must be valued and guarded with vigilance.

In recognition of the important contribution that Canadians of Filipino heritage have made to the economic development and cultural enrichment of our province and country, the blue, red and white flag of the independent Philippines was raised this morning. These Philippine colours have become an international symbol of the indomitable spirit of democracy and serve as an inspiration to us all to strengthen the bonds of friendship, respect and affection we have for the Filipino community.

Therefore, in recognition of this special day, the government of Ontario proclaims June 12 as Philippine Independence Day.

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: On this very special day when special guests are in the Legislature, I ask the unanimous consent of the House so that our party and the third party can respond.

Mr. Speaker: There has been a request for unanimous consent. Does the House agree?

Agreed to.

Mr. Shymko: I join with the member for Parkdale in greeting the special representatives of the Filipino community on this occasion. We have all shared the aspirations and emotions of the Canadian Filipino community recently when we witnessed a fundamental democratic change in the Philippines. We celebrate this 88th anniversary. Almost a century ago the aspirations of the Filipino people to live in freedom and sovereignty were heralded. That process has continued. As we know, that process constantly faces challenges in any sovereign and independent state.

In welcoming our delegation and in acknowledging this very special occasion, we are reminded of the price that sometimes has to be paid for independence and freedom. What we have witnessed in the Philippines with the present leadership of President Corazon Aquino is a process of change that was not violent but a process that represented in a major way the aspirations of the Filipino people. I know the challenges of the present president will continue.

I hope the unity that is shared today and the challenges for that solidarity and unity of the Filipino people is shared by their community in Canada so that the vigilance for the democratic institutions and what is symbolized by that process continue. We congratulate the Filipino community for its great contribution to Canada.

In conclusion, of all ethnocultural minorities, the Filipino community has the highest proportion of professionals who provide the leadership and set an example for many other minorities in this province and in this nation. I welcome and I join with the honourable member on this very special day.

Mr. Rae: I am sure all of us in the House want to join with the remarks that have been made by the Minister without Portfolio, as well as by the member for High Park-Swansea. I will be very careful not to say anything complimentary about the comments of the member for High Park-Swansea, because I know whenever I do it always appears in his newsletter the next time round.

I want to say to my friends in the Filipino community that we in our party have not only watched with open hearts the events of the last few years in the Philippines, but also we have worked with so many people in the Filipino community who have made Canada their new home in creating greater awareness in our own ranks and in our own province of the events that were taking place in the Philippines.

All of us in this last year have had reason to celebrate the triumph of democracy again. This is not a hollow day. This is not simply a celebration of something that took place many years ago. This is an opportunity, and I think it is our first opportunity, for us to express to the Filipino people and to the new Filipino government our congratulations on their struggle and on the courage Mrs. Aquino has shown over the last number of years in the face of tremendous personal loss.

Her courage and ability, her considerable political talent, her ability to mobilize and to encourage the democratic forces around her are an example that has inspired democrats -- and I use that in its small-d form -- around the world. Liberty won a great victory, not only in the Philippines but also in the world, with the victory of Mrs. Aquino and we share in that today.

TOURISM

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I would like to announce two initiatives that will bring more visitors and more tourist dollars to our province. Both of these initiatives reflect commitments made in the speech from the throne. They are part of my ministry's tourism strategy tailored to meet the needs of northern and eastern Ontario.

First, a $1.5-million annual program aimed at our neighbours in Quebec will soon begin. Quebec is our largest source of Canadian visitors, outside Ontario. It is a market with tremendous potential; one that was largely unexplored by the previous government. This government intends to reverse this neglect with a new, aggressive marketing strategy.

This strategy will focus primarily on attractions and events in eastern and southern Ontario. The program will include media advertising, direct marketing and enhanced customer service. Direct marketing may include direct mail programs, house-to-house mail drops and sales calls in selected areas in western and southern Quebec.

These efforts will help to make new inroads into the Quebec market. To meet the increased demand that will result, additional bilingual staff will be hired, French-language telephone inquiry service will be expanded and appropriate French publications will be produced.

The impact of our campaign in Quebec will be greatest in eastern Ontario because of its proximity to Quebec and the number of attractions located there. This is an exciting new program, and I am confident that it will draw more Quebec travellers to Ontario from now on.

The second initiative I would like to announce today, and one that was specifically referred to in the speech from the throne, will support the Quebec marketing program. The Lancaster travel centre will be upgraded and converted into a year-round operation and made more accessible for the disabled. This centre is just 14 kilometres from the Quebec border and is the only source of travel information at this main entry point for Quebec visitors.

The Quebec marketing program will bring more tourists to Ontario and an improved Lancaster travel centre will give a favourable impression of our beautiful province. This government feels that it is high time we encouraged our neighbours in Quebec to come and visit us, and it is a pleasure to see this campaign move into high gear.

Mr. Rowe: The Minister of Tourism and Recreation has proven to this side of the House that he will read absolutely anything that is put in front of him.

For months now, the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve) and the member for Cornwall (Mr. Guindon) have pointed out the lack of a marketing strategy for the Quebec market and the Lancaster travel centre situation. If the minister really wants to help encourage tourism dollars to eastern Ontario, and in particular the Lancaster area, he should tell his colleague the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) not to eliminate the excellent weed harvesting program which was carried on in the St. Lawrence area under the previous government.

I read about with interest, and I welcome, the upgrading of the Lancaster travel centre for the disabled. I only wish the minister had had the decency and had been available to meet with the disabled tourist representative for whom he does not seem to have time. I suggest the minister put a little more thought into his next statements.

Mr. Pope: I must rise to address myself to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation whose only contribution to date to eastern Ontario tourism has been to give new meaning and definition to the term "Johnny-on-the-spot."

Over the past three years, the Ministry of Natural Resources advertised the provincial parks in the Quebec market in Montreal and in western Quebec. We sent representatives of the Ministry of Natural Resources, including parks managers, into the Montreal area to meet with tourist groups and service groups to encourage them to come in.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: Zero last year.

Mr. Pope: Last year it was this government's fault. It was in power last year. Our commitment to getting Quebec tourists into Ontario is there for the record. The minister can rewrite history all he wants; it ain't true.

Ms. Gigantes: I would like to comment briefly on the statement of the Minister of Tourism and Recreation concerning the program for eastern Ontario, and the welcoming of francophones from Quebec. I think the comments made by the Conservatives have been mean-minded. I would like to suggest to the minister, as he works on this program, that I hope it will mean it is a forerunner of the fact that Algonquin College will be getting a hospitality centre.

I hope that the $1.5 million will be spent among advertising agencies in eastern Ontario to talk about the splendid offerings that we have to both francophone and anglophone Quebeckers who will come to visit, and that we will let them know about the marvellous francophone festival in Ottawa which occurs annually.

CANADIAN OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY WEEK

Hon. Mr. Wrye: As many honourable members know, the first Canadian Occupational Health and Safety Week begins on Sunday, June 15. The principal goal of the week is to increase the awareness of employers, employees and the general public to the benefits of occupational health and safety programs in minimizing injury, illness and death in Canadian work places. On behalf of the government of Ontario, I am pleased to endorse this worthy objective.

In this regard, I note the work of the Ontario branch of the Canadian Society of Safety Engineering in helping to organize the week. It is particularly appropriate, because it seems to me that awareness and the communication that produces awareness are basic to achieving health and safety on the job.

If work places are to be healthy and safe, employers and employees alike must be aware of potential hazards, must have the knowledge to cope with them, must communicate that knowledge clearly and must act positively in accordance with it. The obligations to be aware, to know, to communicate and to act affirmatively lie at the very heart of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The government has enhanced those obligations through new policy, procedure, regulation and law and will continue to do so in the interest of the occupational health and safety of the working men and women of this province.

Mr. Gillies: On behalf of our party, I want to join with the Minister of Labour in acknowledging the first Canadian Occupational Health and Safety Week which will commence on Sunday, June 15. I am sure the minister will agree that this very important occasion comes at a difficult time. It comes at a time when work place accidents are up rather significantly in our province. It comes at a time when the minister is concerned about the reaction of his ministry to these problems and has had to launch an investigation into the operations of his ministry. It comes at a time when the standing committee on public accounts has to consider the operation of the safety associations.

I think it fair to say that every member of the House shares our concern that Ontario's work places be as safe as possible. All of these things I have referred to are heading in that direction, and notwithstanding the problems I see this as a very positive development indeed.

I join with the minister, and I hope all members of the House in their own ridings will join in marking this very important occasion. Of course, we congratulate the Ontario branch of the Canadian Society of Safety Engineering for its initiative shown in organizing this very important occasion.

Mr. McClellan: I would like to respond to the statement of the Minister of Labour in which he announced the Canadian Occupational Health and Safety Week beginning this Sunday.

We have very little to celebrate this year, 1986. The statistics for industrial accidents over the past year show a massive increase in work-related accidents.

Quite frankly, the work of my colleague the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) over the last three or four months has demonstrated to the entire province that this minister and this ministry have not come to grips with the problems of safety on the job any more than their predecessors had in the previous government.

I note with amazement that the Minister of Labour announced health and safety week without a single, solitary reference to the Industrial Accident Prevention Association. There was not a word about the IAPA which received $34 million, if I am not mistaken, from the Workers' Compensation Board to promote health and safety.

The question, of course, answers itself. The IAPA appeared before the standing committee on public accounts a week ago and it was unable to account for a single dime of the $34 million given to it by governments to promote health and safety. It is on notice of summons to reappear to the public accounts committee to explain the stewardship of those funds, and the stewardship of its responsibility.

We expect it will be unable to account any more than the minister has been able even to mention it in his statement.

I hope that next week we will see some announcement from the minister. I hope he will be able to table an explanation of the work of the IAPA and an accounting of its expenditure of funds. I hope he will explain what he intends to do with Bill 101, which is on Orders and Notices. I hope he will explain why the occupational health clinic on the Lakeshore has not been funded by his ministry, and why it may be closed as early as September of this year.

I hope the minister will have some concrete announcement next week, during health and safety week, to tell us what his government intends to do and that he will not simply try to get by this occasion without any comments of substance or significance.

GO TRANSIT

Hon. Mr. Fulton: Last fall, I outlined to the Legislature plans for the long-term expansion of GO Transit train services in the greater Toronto area. The first phase of that expansion was to be the addition early this year of another weekday train to Burlington, making a total of three round trips between Burlington and Toronto.

Canadian National had given approval in principle to operate the new train but when detailed assessment got under way, the railway found a number of unforeseen operational impediments. The further the investigation went, the greater the complications. Unfortunately, we could not implement new service sooner.

Eventually I met with CN vice-president John Sturgess and, as a result, a way was found to resolve the problem. I am happy to announce the new train will start operating, not only to Burlington but also to Hamilton, on October 27. In other words, as of October 27, there will be three daily round trips between Toronto and Hamilton.

Further, the package to be introduced in October makes changes in GO's morning rush-hour schedule. These changes provide increased capacity along the entire route west of Union Station. With the three Hamilton-Burlington trains running express for the portion of the trip between Clarkson and Union Station, many passengers will enjoy faster service in addition.

The evening change is much simpler but equally beneficial, with a new semi-express train leaving Union Station early in the rush hour to make the run through to Burlington and Hamilton. This is only the first step in a phased program which will see us operating full GO train service to Burlington within the next few years.

[Applause]

Mr. Gregory: I want to join in the applause to the minister for the announcement of the additional GO train service and the fact that, in his very persuasive way, he has convinced Canadian National's vice-president, Mr. Sturgess, to go ahead with this. One wonders why he did not talk to Mr. Sturgess before he made his announcement last fall. It might have saved a lot of trouble and it would have made the member for Burlington South (Mr. Jackson) much happier had the homework been done first.

While congratulating the minister for this announcement, I hope he will not regard this as being a substitute for the much-needed rapid transit to serve the communities to the west of Toronto. While realizing that GO Transit is very important, it carries only a small portion of the required transit service to the communities west of Toronto.

I am also a little surprised that, while announcing the good news of the additional service, the minister did not take the trouble to announce the inevitable increase in rates which, as I understand it, will be announced on Friday. Had that been a part of the statement today, it would have given a more complete picture of what will happen in the future. Apart from that, I congratulate the minister on his announcement.

Mr. Mackenzie: I want to indicate to the Minister of Transportation and Communications my pleasure at his announcement of a third round-trip service right through to Hamilton.

Leaving my house at 7:30 this morning and arriving here at 9:30 is some indication of the kind of traffic jams we have along the Queen Elizabeth Way. It is my impression they have been getting worse and not better.

The need for the service to run on a regular and rapid basis, right through to Hamilton, is obvious. I am just a little bit concerned about the minister's final comments, that is, "This is, of course, only the first step in a phased program which will see us operating full GO train service to Burlington within the next few years."

I am hoping it will not be a number of years. I hope his intention is to go right through to Hamilton and not just to Burlington with that GO train service.

2:35 p.m.

ORAL QUESTIONS

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Grossman: In the absence of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) on this difficult day for the people of Ontario, I have a question for the Minister of Health. We have been informed that, as of today, across Ontario the medical advisory committees have resigned in approximately seven hospitals, the chief of staff has resigned in 23 hospitals, all or most of the doctors on the medical advisory committees have resigned in 24 hospitals and, in at least two hospitals, the abortion committees have either resigned or are not functioning.

With this kind of chaos in the system, and given the fact that our colleague the member for St. George (Ms. Fish) singlehandedly avoided a tragedy yesterday, could the minister tell us what steps he is taking that will meet his obligation under

section 6 of the Ministry of Health Act, "to ove