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

June 26, 1997

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L212a - Thu 26 Jun 1997 / Jeu 26 Jun 1997

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

UNION FEES

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

UNION FEES

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

UNION FEES

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PRIDE WEEK

LONG-TERM CARE

TOWN OF PERTH

SAFETY BARRIER

CANCER PREVENTION

ONTARIO CHORAL FEDERATION

TVONTARIO

AMYOTROPHIC LATERAL SCLEROSIS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

MINISTRY BUSINESS PLANS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

FARM PRACTICES PROTECTION / PROTECTION DES PROCÉDURES AGRICOLES

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

MINISTRY BUSINESS PLANS

FARM PRACTICES PROTECTION

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

REPORT, INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER

ORAL QUESTIONS

REPORT, INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER

HOSPITAL SERVICES

PLANT EXPANSIONS

HEALTH SERVICES RESTRUCTURING

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT COMMISSION

COURT BACKLOG

VISITOR

REPORT, INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION EMPLOYEES

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

PETITIONS

BEAR HUNTING

HIGHWAY 601

ATLAS SPECIALTY STEELS

CASINOS

JUGEMENT DE LA COUR D'APPEL

RENT REGULATION

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

SERVICES FOR ABUSED WOMEN

COURT DECISION

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

WATER CHLORINATION

GOVERNMENT POLICY

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

BEAR HUNTING

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FARMING AND FOOD PRODUCTION PROTECTION ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LA PROTECTION DE L'AGRICULTURE ET DE LA PRODUCTION AGRICOLE

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT (BY-LAWS RESPECTING DRESS CODES), 1997 / LOI DE 1997 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES MUNICIPALITÉS EN CE QUI CONCERNE DES RÈGLEMENTS MUNICIPAUX RELATIVEMENT À DES NORMES DE TENUE VESTIMENTAIRE

CITY OF TORONTO ACT, 1997 (NO. 2) / LOI DE 1997 SUR LA CITÉ DE TORONTO (N O 2)

FAIR MUNICIPAL FINANCE ACT, 1997 (NO. 2) / LOI DE 1997 SUR LE FINANCEMENT ÉQUITABLE DES MUNICIPALITÉS (N O 2)

ST CATHARINES GENERAL HOSPITAL ACT, 1997

CITY OF SCARBOROUGH ACT, 1997

COMMITTEE SITTING

MOTIONS

REPORT, INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER

The House met at 1002.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

UNION FEES

Mr Gary Fox (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): I move that, in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should disallow the undemocratic requirement of mandatory fee checkoff by trade unions for those casual, probationary or contract employees who do not benefit from union membership but are still required to pay union dues. In addition, I move that union members be allowed to refuse to contribute to union-specific political parties or causes.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Mr Fox, according to the standing orders, you have 10 minutes to make a presentation.

Mr Fox: First, let me state clearly that this resolution is not about union busting, an accusation you will undoubtedly hear today from the opposition.

I agree that a trade union representing employees in the bargaining unit should be allowed to enter into an agreement with the employer and have regular mandatory union dues deducted from each employee in the unit who will benefit by the collective agreement. However, I do not agree that those casual, probationary or contract employees who do not benefit from the protection of a union should be required to pay mandatory union dues.

I feel that we have lost sight of the function of a union. Throughout time the role and mandate of unions has grown into the broader realm of political and social activists. Their power and position has escalated to the degree that they dictate which political parties their unions will support or protest against.

Historically, when a labour union tried to organize a plan, it would encourage as many employees as possible to become members of the union. Unions found it difficult to cover their expenses and, consequently, they exerted pressure on employers to agree to deduct union dues from an employee's pay and forward them to the union. Many employers agreed that union membership should be a matter of individual conscience and decision.

As a compromise, Ivan C. Rand, former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, drew up the Rand formula, which requires all employees covered by the collective agreement to pay dues to the union whether they are members of the union or not. This compulsory dues checkoff has allowed organized labour to collect over $1 billion a year from Canadian workers.

Talk to union leaders about the need for democratic reforms in the labour movement and you'll be told that at every level unions are the most democratic institutions in the country. Talk to the rank-and-file workers, however, and you'll get a different response. Interestingly, a survey released in the spring of 1997 reveals that a growing number of Canadians would like to see union practices become more open.

A poll conducted by the Angus Reid Group showed that 57% of Canadians approve unions, but 90% do not believe union membership should be a condition of employment. A further 80% do not agree that a worker, once hired, should be required to join the union chosen by the majority of workers. This poll also showed that 61% of respondents believe that both union membership and the payment of union dues should be voluntary.

I believe that compulsory dues should be devoted entirely to collective bargaining. Union leaders have assumed a mandate they do not have. They have encroached on the moral, social and political lives of their membership. An overwhelming majority of workers want basic freedoms introduced into the workplace. Workers want freedom to stop unions from using compulsory dues to fill the coffers of political parties and organizations they, as individuals, do not support.

Ordinary workers have very little say in what the union's head office does. Today they operate in a topdown structure, which raises concerns over how dues are handled relating to the salaries and perks enjoyed by top union officials.

Is it true that in 1992 the Canadian Auto Workers union built a $125,000 summer cottage for outgoing president, Bob White, even as thousands of its members were being laid off in plant closures? I hope not.

We must keep reminding ourselves that the role of a union is to bargain on behalf of its members. Union leadership has to start to be attentive to the real needs and desires of the rank-and-file worker rather than their own quest for money and forced union power.

A recent example of unions trying to control and dictate government agenda was in the fall 1996 Metro Days of Action, when union funds were used in an attempt to shut down Toronto, not only denying individuals their democratic right to work but denying workers the right to say where their dues were being spent.

Organized labour, angry with the Harris government Ontario Works agenda, threatened to withdraw its financial support to the United Way if their agencies participate in Ontario Works. Should unions be allowed this degree of control and power? I don't think so. Charities are important to the future of society, contributing to the needs of individuals, and should never be used as pawns by organized labour in its endeavour to oppose government policies.

In support of their strike action, private employer unions contributed over $22 million in interest-free loans to the Ontario Public Service Employees Union. Again, I would question whether top union officials discussed this expenditure with their membership or received individual approval for this allocation of funds to support another union's agenda.

It should be noted that Canada is still one of the last industrialized countries where closed shops and mandatory dues are legal. There are approximately 101 countries that have, either through legislation, court decisions or international agreements, outlawed closed shop provisions altogether.

In Quebec, Bedard is involved in a case before the Superior Court where 17 claimants are alleging that closed shop provisions and mandatory union dues violate the charter of rights, particularly freedom of association.

By opposing democracy in the workplace, labour leaders are revealing that they are afraid that if workers are given a choice, union powers will be seriously diminished. They should stop clinging to outdated and restrictive labour practices and start focusing on convincing employees of the benefits of union membership.

I am concerned that organized labour has the ability to restrict hiring to only those who belong to specific unions. The most vulnerable to layoffs are both federal and provincial public service term or contract employees. Those workers pay the same union dues as full-time public service employees but are entitled to nothing -- no job security, no payouts and no severance package.

With hiring freezes, term employees have been the only new blood coming into an aging public service. They're typically young, university-educated and predominantly female. They rank among the bureaucracy's best and brightest and are highly motivated to keep the contracts coming.

Ad mail carriers, who deliver advertising flyers to your home, are another example of employees who must pay union dues but do not get union wages, nor do they qualify for union benefits. Part-time taxi drivers find themselves in the same position, where they have to pay union dues but get no protection.

Summer students working within a union environment have unions dues deducted at source from their pay, and subcontractors who are not part of a specific union have been denied contracts which have been granted to others who support the same union.

Unions, like governments, are guaranteed financing by deductions removed directly from employees' paycheques. This special position should require guarantees of financial accountability to ensure that all bargaining unit members know and have a way of finding out how their money is being spent. It's time to put more control back into the hands of the rank-and-file employees who pay union dues.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Unfortunately, this resolution represents yet another attack on the trade union movement in Ontario if you look at the actual wording of the resolution.

It's not as though this is trying to tear down a law which was established by what would be considered to be a pro-labour government. It's not as though you're undoing, for instance, some of the things you complained about that the NDP may have introduced.

What you're in effect doing, if you pass this resolution and if it is brought to its conclusion, is removing something that either the Davis or the Robarts government granted to the trade union movement in Ontario, and they did it back when there was a more balanced government, a more balanced approach to labour legislation.

What you often found was that governments in those days, under Bill Davis or John Robarts, when passing labour legislation would ensure that within that labour legislation there were items which would be favourable to what unions had asked for and some favourable to what management had asked for, so you developed what was called a balance in terms of labour legislation. It is always dangerous and unhealthy when labour legislation is radically skewed in favour of either one side or the other. Most people who are involved in collective bargaining expect and accept labour legislation which is indeed balanced.

What this is is another idea coming up from the United States, from the Republican Party in the United States. There are a number of states where trade unions are under attack. They are ordinarily the southern states, the less industrialized states in the United States. Unfortunately, at a time when workers are under assault from a variety of factors -- and when I say "assault," I say that in a symbolic way -- such as impending job losses, downsizing, restructuring and so on, they require the trade unions to be able to defend their interests.

Without a trade union, the consequences for many of those people affected by severe downsizing or restructuring are rather tragic. That is why they form unions and that is why they join unions, because collectively they can have more influence in the bargaining process than they can individually by themselves.

What I'm looking at then is an attack on the Davis administration or the Robarts administration for conferring these particular rights on trade unions, keeping in mind that when they were conferred on the trade union movement, there were other items that would be more favourable to management. In that way, Mr Davis and Mr Robarts, former Conservative premiers, tried to bring what they felt was some balance to labour legislation in the province.

The member has dealt with a number of complaints that he has heard over the years. I can't comment on those individual complaints because I'm not familiar with the specific complaints he has heard, but they in many cases can be dealt with by members of trade unions attending union meetings and having an effect.

We have seen in recent years some very feisty contests for leadership positions and other lower-ranking executive positions within unions where if there's some dissatisfaction, there is a democratic right of some people to express that by running for public office and trying to gather support. Indeed, in some circumstances there have been some what you would call upsets, I suppose, or unpredicted results on elections. That is because union members have exercised the rights they have to attend meetings, to go out and vote, to become involved in the process. I think everybody in a healthy democracy wants all of those individuals to take

part in that process and to express their views.

But what this resolution does is that it removes, for want of a better word, the Rand formula, which was established some time ago and is accepted by virtually everybody. It's hard to believe, when the member for Lincoln and now the member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings raise these issues, that we would be going back so far as to remove the Rand formula. I don't always agree with some of the legislation you have proposed in the field of labour law, but in some cases what you are doing is removing what you felt a previous NDP or perhaps Liberal government had put in place. In this case you want to remove what a Conservative government has put in place.

If anything, today workers are much more in need of protection from downsizing, from restructuring, from layoffs, than ever before. Because of the employment situation, they are very vulnerable.

You have to look at the other factor that all of those who work in a workplace benefit from the collective agreement that is signed by the union. Some don't want to pay the dues, but very few of those who don't want to pay the dues are prepared to say, "I'm going to take less money" or "I don't want the benefits" or "I don't want the protection that the union has provided for me." Very few would say that; it would be a very rare case.

Many are prepared to not pay the union dues but are quite happy, thank you, to take the benefits in terms of health care benefits, pension benefits and sickness and accident benefits that have been won through the collective bargaining process where both sides sit down, where management and labour sit down, they go through some difficult negotiations sometimes, and they come to a collective agreement. Sometimes the collective agreement tends to favour management more in certain circumstances, particularly taking into account the economy, and sometimes it benefits those on the labour side.

For instance, when the economy is booming, when there's a great demand for employees and perhaps a shortage of employees available in a particular field, labour tends to do better. When the economic situation is very difficult, where there's a lot of unemployment, where there's a lot of uncertainty, management tends to come out of the collective bargaining process, by and large, better. I think what we always need in our labour legislation in this province is balance. I think this resolution, if it were adopted by this House, would not strike that balance.

A very similar bill put forward by the member for Lincoln was defeated in this House just a couple of weeks ago. Interestingly enough, it was defeated not just by the opposition but by some of the moderate Conservatives who understand that this is pretty radical, to be removing the Rand formula. This is not tinkering; this is a very fundamental aspect of labour legislation that's been in effect, and I hope members will reflect very carefully upon that as they vote later on on this resolution.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): It's quite breathtaking to consider all that this government has undertaken in terms of legislation they've brought in so far and the undemocratic nature of it. To all those watching today, in terms of the debate held a few weeks ago on Bill 131, which would create a right-to-work state in the country of Canada, and today's resolution, which would indeed roll back the Rand formula, this is the future. This is the future of where this government is going should they win another election. That ought to scare the hell out of anybody that cares a whit about this province.

The fact is that this government is going after the labour movement for a couple of reasons. One is that of course they can label the labour movement a special interest group, which automatically, in their eyes, demonizes them. Banks and others in society who have a lot of power and have a lot of money and have a lot of control, they're not a special interest. No, no, the banks are not a special interest. But the labour movement? Let's tag them a special interest, because then you can go after them, then they can become a legitimate target, in your mind, something that needs to be beaten down.

But the reality for people in this province is that if you care about the plight of seniors, you need a strong labour movement. If you care about health care in this province, you need a strong labour movement. If you care about the environment, if you care about women's rights, if you care about child poverty, if you care about anything to do with something other than those who already have, you have to have a strong labour movement. That's the second reason this government's going after the labour movement.

Anybody who's active in their community or watches what's happening or watches their local municipal council on TV will realize that this government has cut the legs out from any group at all that might oppose their hard, right-wing, ideological agenda.

It's my opinion that this government realizes that the only real group that can provide the kind of leadership and expertise and communication ability in our modern world, that is organized enough to mount a democratic opposition in a pluralistic society -- where did the concept of pluralism in democracy go, anyway, with this government? The labour movement is the one entity that can mount enough mass opposition to bring this government down in the next election, and this government knows it, and they're the only ones that can mount community response.

As we see all the media being bought up -- we have one of the highest concentrations of media control in all the world. That's not just some wild-eyed radical idea; the facts are there. And the concentration continues; we see it in our papers every day. This government knows that. They like it. It's their friends who own the media. This is a great idea to them.

But ultimately they've got to get after the labour movement, and that's what this is all about. So was Bill 131 and so was Bill 7, when you attacked public sector workers and took away their right to continue and have job protection when you privatize. It's the same under Bill 49, when you took away workers' rights under the Employment Standards Act. It's the same under Bill 99, where you're taking money out of the pockets of injured workers and giving it to your corporate pals; $6 billion you're giving out of the pockets of injured workers. It's the same with Bill 136, where you're ensuring there's now a mechanism to gut collective agreements, again to set up privatization.

What does all this mean at the end of the day? What it means for working people, whether you're union or non-union, and quite frankly, whether you're management, is a lower standard of living. This is very much an agenda that races to the bottom.

Four times now -- three at least, but I think it's four -- we've been chosen the greatest country in the world to live in. Ontario being the largest province, with 46% or 47% of the economy, what happens in Ontario as a society plays a large role, an incredible role, in identifying and defining why Canada is this kind of place. Every single factor you look at, in terms of our health care system and our social services system and what used to be proper and decent environmental protection and care for our seniors, all those things, if you study your history, guess what? There's the labour movement, front and centre, every time.

All the things you're undoing and attacking are those very issues that make this the greatest place in the world to live. What's so hard to believe is that they would have the audacity to continue to put this out in the public arena and think it's going to sell. I guess that's partly because they've achieved what they wanted so far. All the bills I've mentioned are either the law now or will be very shortly.

But this government believes they can do anything. When they were elected in June 1995, they believed that was the last time they had to talk to or listen to anyone and that as long as they play their politics right, as long as they can win 52 seats -- because that's all it will take next time, 52 seats to win a majority government -- as long as they can win 52 seats, everything else be damned.

You believe you can get away with this kind of agenda in the province of Ontario, and now we're at the point where we're debating the rule changes. You don't think you can implement these changes, these frightening changes, fast enough, so you want new rules so you can ram them through this place even quicker.

That's what's so frightening when we see these things being brought up in private members' time. This is foretelling the future. We knew that Bill 131, even it passed the Legislature, would not become law -- not this time. And I would hope this wouldn't carry today; there can't be that many dinosaurs over there. But if it should, I still don't believe they will put this on this mandate's agenda.

But I have no doubt in my mind that if you do manage to pull off those 52 seats -- God help us if you do, and I don't think you will, but if you should -- I have no doubt that 131 and the Rand formula are on the line, first off, fresh out of the gate with their new mandate. This is exactly what they're going to do.

Interjection: Stay tuned.

Mr Christopherson: I just heard one of the members in the back there holler, "Stay tuned." It's there. It's there. This is where they're heading. It may take a month, it may take a year, it might take five years, it might take 10 years. Quite frankly, if it takes 20 years, you will not defeat the labour movement and the rights inherent behind it.

These laws and protections came about for a reason. It was because we didn't have the ability, as the world changed during the Industrial Revolution, to provide for those who didn't have. We just keep seeing the growing and growing disparity.

This came out of a 1946 strike at Ford in Windsor where the people took to the streets. The army was on standby. The Premier was urging the Prime Minister at the time, if necessary, to bring in the army. The mayor in that community knew this was going to lead to a bloodbath. There were injuries and there was blood spilled, but fortunately we didn't have civil war. Instead, we had a reasoned outcome, a reasoned, thought-out, balanced, fair outcome, and that was the Rand formula. That's what this is all about: taking on that Rand formula.

Let me close my remarks, because my colleagues also want to get in on this debate, by saying to anyone who's watching or who reads these Hansards or cares at all about the things that matter in this province to the vast majority of people, this is your fight too. If you're a senior at home worrying about health care, if you're a laid-off worker or you're in the public sector or you've got a spouse who's in the public sector and their job is about to be privatized and you're not sure where you're going to be a year from now, you ought to be concerned about this.

If you care about the environment, if you care about child poverty, you ought to care about this, because if they take on and defeat the labour movement, everything else is gone.

By the same token, as long as there's a strong, vibrant labour movement in Ontario and Canada, we've got a fighting chance to make this a better place to live -- God, we don't hear that much any more -- so we can go on to be the kind of society we are.

Let me end by saying that I don't care how many resolutions or how many bills you dinosaurs bring into this place, you will not stop the labour movement. You have no right to attack the labour movement, you have no right to attack working people and the poor, and you will be stopped. I assure you, you will be stopped.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): I'm certainly pleased to join the debate of this resolution brought forth by Mr Fox. The resolution essentially deals with a dues deduction for casual, probationary and contract employees, and also addresses specific political parties or causes being given dues deductions.

The relevant provision under the Labour Relations Act is

section 47, which deals with dues deduction. I think we have to make it very clear right now that it's a permissive right; it's not an absolute right that unions have dues deducted. When you read

section 47, the deduction is a permissive right on behalf of unions and it does apply to each employee in the bargaining unit, be it a full-time, part-time, casual or contract employee. The right that has been given applies to every employee in the bargaining unit and it's a permissive right.

The resolution focuses on fairness and equality to employees in the bargaining unit. This permissive right, I would submit, is not fairly applied and may be abused where the dues are not used to provide meaningful and equal representation for all employees in the unit. The government provides statutory rights to employees throughout the province, be it part-time, full-time, casual or contractual employees, through the Human Rights Code, through the Occupational Health and Safety Act, through the Employment Standards Act, through the Workers' Compensation Act, to name a few.

That has to be contrasted with the rights provided through a freely negotiated collective agreement between a union and an employer.

The reality is that it's not the same for all employees in a bargaining unit. Full-time employees have greater rights with respect to seniority and the benefits that brings, with respect to layoff rights, with respect to recall, vacation, benefits and pension, in comparison to casual or part-time or contract employees. I think that's what Mr Fox is focusing on when he deals with the use of union dues deductions and the realities of the collective agreement and whether they are being used to support and provide rights for all employees in the unit. I think it's his submission that in fact they're not.

What we're looking for is fairness and equality and to give them an opportunity -- because there are employee rights in this province; it's not always union rights and employer rights -- where they're not getting the same benefits of full-time employees.

That leads me to address the other issue with respect to the use of union dues deductions for political causes, political parties etc. The purpose of the Labour Relations Act, under

section 2, is very clear. I'll quote just one part of it, because there are some specific purposes. The purpose under the Labour Relations Act is to facilitate collective bargaining "between employers and trade unions as the freely designated representatives of employees." The purpose, for collective bargaining purposes, is to collectively bargain and also to provide meaningful representation under the collective agreement. That's the purpose under the Labour Relations Act.

When you look at the definition of a trade union under the act, the definition of a trade union is very specific. It means "an organization of employees formed for purposes that include the regulation of relations between employees and employers." What we're dealing with there is strictly collective bargaining within the workplace. There is no place in the Labour Relations Act that specifically says that union dues or collective bargaining are to be used for political causes; no express language. It's silent, and it's obvious why it's silent: because it's not to be used for that.

When you look at regular union dues as defined under

section 47, they are to be paid "in accordance with the constitution and bylaws of the trade union." I think what Mr Fox is getting at here is basically looking at amending that to make sure it's not used for political causes and it's also used to provide meaningful representation for part-time, casual and contract employees.

The premise under

section 47 of the Labour Relations Act for union dues deductions is that dues will be used for collective bargaining purposes, to negotiate a collective agreement and to provide meaningful representation under the collective agreement. What we're looking for under this resolution is a balance of employee rights versus union rights, and the use of the dues for purposes within the context of the Labour Relations Act: for collective bargaining and representation.

The resolution is designed to place reasonable limits on the use of union dues within the realities of the Labour Relations Act, which is designed strictly for collective bargaining purposes; and also the workplace realities, where part-time, casual and contract employees have minimal rights under the collective agreement versus full-time employees.

Mr Fox, through his resolution, is identifying the reality of the workplace, the reality of the labour relations community in the province and the reality of the law. I think he's being fair with respect to employee rights in this context, which should be recognized under the act.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): As I begin, I just want to acknowledge the presence in the gallery of Jack MacDonald, former mayor of the city of Hamilton, who is visiting today, and also Candace Gingrich, the spokesperson for the American Human Rights Campaign and of course the sister of the US House Speaker, Newt Gingrich. Welcome to Toronto and welcome to Canada, Ms Gingrich.

On the bill itself, what we see here today is part of the ongoing Tory attack on the labour movement in this province. As this government continues to attack the labour movement, they continue to attack working men and women across this province. We have seen this right from the day they took office. Every single piece of labour legislation that has been brought forward has been slanted against the worker. Every single piece of health and safety legislation or reform has been slanted against the worker. The WCB bill in front of the House is also slanted against working men and women.

I don't understand -- and my colleague from Hamilton Centre outlined some of the reasoning -- why this government continues to believe it is fashionable to attack the labour movement; why this government continues to believe it's fashionable, through attacking the labour movement, to attack every single working man and woman across this province. Let me remind you that many of those people you're attacking today through this resolution, many of those people you've attacked through your legislation in the past, are folks who voted in good conscience and with the right intention for this government last time.

You're not simply attacking the people you believe are opposing you, being the labour leaders; you're attacking the workers, the people they represent.

The labour movement, and the member gave some examples, has its faults, as any other organization and every government in this province has or continues to have or has had in the past. But the reality is there's a mechanism within those movements for dealing with the problems. Leaders are elected democratically by the membership, they are accountable to the membership, and they are there to represent the membership, as you were elected to represent the people of this province. But somehow you feel that you only need to represent certain groups, certain individuals who agree with your point of view, who agree with your philosophy, and to hell with everyone else.

I don't really understand why this government continues to believe that the politics of division should rule the day. You believe in the old, outdated, regressive political approach that you add by subtracting, that it's okay if we get rid of all these people here, whether it's right or wrong, because we're going to win all these people over here. The right or wrong of an issue doesn't matter any more; it's simply old style division politics that you have practised from day one.

This government is a bully government. This government has no respect for democracy. This government has no respect for anyone who dares to oppose its agenda on the people of Ontario, because you believe that on June 8, 1995, you received a blank cheque to do whatever you want to anyone in this province.

The reality is that in our democratic system it isn't that neat and simple, it doesn't quite work that way, and you don't understand that. You continue to believe you can just go across this province and attack, attack, attack: go after people, go after single moms, go after welfare recipients, go after school boards, go after teachers, go after the labour movement. It just becomes the mantra of this government: "You don't agree with us, we're going to destroy you. You don't agree with us, we're going to put you down.

You don't agree with us, we're going to make sure you have no power left to speak out against us." We're seeing it in the House; we're seeing it outside the House. We see the intimidation that has occurred, or the attempts at intimidation that they've tried to pull off on people who have dared to speak against this government.

We're seeing it through the rule changes very clearly again. The government and government members, through supporting those changes, believe very much that opposition gets in the way of your agenda, that democracy gets in the way of your revolution, that your revolution is not moving fast enough so you need to curtail the opposition in order for this revolution to succeed.

You have a right to govern. You have received that mandate to govern, but it does not mean that you have the mandate to simply steamroll and run over and run roughshod over anybody or anything that dares to disagree with your agenda. In our system it doesn't work that way. It may work that way in some Third World banana republics; it doesn't work that way in a democratic society in the province of Ontario.

This resolution here today, again, is simply an attack on those who dare to oppose you, an attack on union leaders and working men and women who are not happy with your agenda, who are not happy with what you did in Bill 7, who are not happy with what you did with the health and safety changes in Ontario, who are not happy with what you're doing to injured workers and the punishment that you're further going to inflict on people who are already suffering in this province. How dare these people who are not happy speak out against you? How dare they try to take on Mike Harris and the revolution?

Don't they know there's a revolution in this province, that people on June 8 wanted a revolution? This government is going to give them that revolution, and how dare anybody get in the way of that?

How dare the labour leaders speak out when their workers are being oppressed by this government? How dare the representatives of injured workers speak out on behalf of injured men and women in this province who have suffered a workplace injury and are only trying to get fair, decent and reasonable treatment at the hands of the people who have caused that injury or have been part of that injury, who run the companies, who run the government?

That is really what is driving this bill. It's not necessarily even the details, because this thing is so bizarre that, as my colleague from Hamilton Centre mentioned earlier, I don't think there are enough people on the Tory side of the House who actually believe this is a reasonable and fair way of doing it, but it's the message it sends out.

It's the ongoing message it sends out: Don't you dare criticize us, don't you dare attack our agenda, because if you do, we're going to come after you with all guns blazing and we're going to use the might and the power and the stick of government to suppress any type of opposition. I think it's an ongoing disgraceful attack on the labour movement in this province, on working men and women. Remember that next time around many of those working men and women who voted for you last time with all the right intentions are going to slam you, vote against you and cause your defeat.

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): I am pleased to have a couple of moments to take

part in this debate on the resolution from the member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings. The problem that he has with the trade union movement puzzles me somewhat because he makes inferences about "non-democratic" and about the use of union dues and so forth.

I happen to live in a community that largely has been traditionally known as a very labour-intensive community, the community of Sudbury, with strong unions: the Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, now affiliated with the CAW, and the United Steelworkers, who represent the workers at Inco. Those workers -- not the labour leaders, the workers -- have voted democratically to support their choice of political party. They've decided that, not some boss somewhere else. They decided themselves.

They have votes on whether or not to contribute to the New Democratic Party or to contribute to my campaign or anybody else's campaign. That's democratic. The shareholders at the Royal Bank don't have a say in whether or not the Royal Bank makes a contribution to the Tory party or the Reform Party. They don't have any say. But workers have a say in where their dues go. The Tories don't seem to understand that.

I must say that I've been a very strong supporter of the trade union movement ever since I saw what happened to my own father. I don't like to personalize these things too often, but my father -- and I say this directly to the member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings -- was a farm labourer, and when his back gave out on him, he was out the door with zero benefits. Out the door. I don't think that's right, and I think that's one of the things unions are for. This was a wealthy farmer. This was not a struggling family farm operation.

This was a wealthy farmer, and yet there was absolutely no consideration given to him once his back started to give him trouble. That was it; he was gone. To me, that's fundamentally wrong in a society like ours, and that's one of the reasons why unions grew.

The record of safety in our mines and forests before unions appeared on the scene was outrageous and, quite frankly, disgusting. Who has done more to promote safety and health in the workplace than the trade union movement? Nobody. Nobody has done more: not governments, quite frankly, and certainly not employers. Honest employers will tell you that too, that they've been pushed hard by the trade unions when it comes to health and safety on the job, because they protect their members.

I don't have any problem with everyone who gets the benefits of a trade union's efforts and bargaining having to contribute to that cause. Why should some have the benefits and not pay for them and others have the benefits and pay for them? That's not fair. That doesn't make any sense at all.

I say to the member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings, I understand where you're coming from, but you're sending out some pretty bizarre signals. I would ask you, how many cabinet ministers do you think are going to be in here to support this resolution at 12 o'clock? I will be amazed if there's a single cabinet minister in here to support you or, quite frankly, to vote against you, because they're worried about the Reform vote in the next election. So they just won't be here. The cabinet will not be here to vote on this. They don't have the courage. They weren't here to support the member for Lincoln --

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Mr Morley Kells (Etobicoke-Lakeshore): It's a pleasure today to rise in support of the private member's resolution of my colleague the member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings.

There are a number of reasons that have induced me to be vocal in support of this resolution. In the short period of time that I am allowed, I would like to have these put on the record.

First, let me reiterate the reason for the resolution. It is about protecting the rights of those who, for whatever reason, have not attained permanent status in their job. I have no quarrel with the normal position of union dues being paid by a permanent employee under a collective bargaining agreement. When I say I have no quarrel, it basically means I recognize the requirement under law for this automatic transfer of money. Although the collection of dues is mandated, the performance and responsibilities of the union leadership on their behalf are not.

Clearly, this resolution is not an attempt to create any groundswell in opposition to the Rand formula. That automatic dues checkoff system has been accepted by the public as a reasonable and practical way to fund union activities. None the less, those who are exposed to the imposition of paying union dues while not receiving any services in return indeed have a reason to wonder about both the common sense and the legal rationale behind this forced extraction of hard-earned income from this group who receive little in return.

I do not have to look much farther than my own friends to cite an individual illustration of almost minimal return for the dollars involved.

Let us begin with a friend who has been retired for five years from his 40-year tenure as an employee of the telephone company. In the course of his long term of duty he paid union dues for a number of years and ended up in a management position. Not willing to accept retirement with little job activity, he pursued avenues that might gain him employment, and so here we have a person approaching senior status who through diligence gains employment with the post office as a temporary worker. This is achieved at the same time as many of our healthy younger unemployed claim there is no work available, but that is another question, aside from our debate today.

In securing this work, he finds that he must pay dues to CUPW as a condition of his employment. Although he hasn't complained publicly, you can be assured there is little activity by the union leaders that would lead to any improvement for him.

This is a simple textbook analysis in support of my colleague's resolution, which can only be refuted with great difficulty. Basically, he must pay for the right, however temporary, to work alongside the permanent workers who have security, health plans and pension benefits.

Not wanting to stray too far from the resolution, I believe this little sketch points out that even with the Rand formula permanently in place, many of our citizens are both unprotected and alienated from their union leadership with no recourse for change. Only at provincial election time, in a philosophical way, can voters do anything to rectify the complaints of those who do not agree with either the program or the purpose of union activists who control the agenda.

In today's environment we increasingly see a subclass of employees -- the casual, the temporary, the contract workers -- who share the cost but not the long-term benefits of the permanent union employee.

This poses an interesting conundrum, because union executives can complain that their employer should hire only full-time people and then everyone would be equal. That would be so in a perfect world, and in that creation everyone would have a job and there would be no unemployment. Naturally, despite George Orwell and his predictions, Big Brother never did expand to the point where full employment and similar remuneration is enjoyed by all.

Unions don't like the temporary, the casual or the contract person, but they are mollified by the influx of cash, duly delivered without any accountability.

Mr Christopherson: That's insulting.

Mr Kells: That's fine.

There is probably at the present time no solution to the imbalance between collection of dues and service rendered as they relate to the different classes of employees. Since the Rand system is so ingrained in the employer-worker culture, perhaps society should turn its attention to developing a protocol that satisfies union demands for equal fees from those involved in similar toil while providing those who fall into the not-permanent category with representation and equitable voting power at the union table.

Traditionally, we all agree and accept the axiom, "No taxation without representation." To be fair then, the casual, the temporary, the contract person should have it acknowledged that there should be no collection of dues without an equivalent say for all. That's why I'm supporting this resolution.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): I'm pleased to have the opportunity to rise and to tell two important stories from my constituency as they relate to this debate.

I have a constituent who lives in Nepean and who has worked in his workplace for a good number of years, who chose to speak out and say he didn't agree with the tactics of his union, he didn't agree with the process they were following. Not only by his actions; he spoke out through the newspaper, through writing letters to the editor. He had his membership suspended in that trade union. They said that he wouldn't be allowed to go to the union meetings and vote, that he wouldn't be allowed to fully participate in that trade union.

You can appreciate he was rather surprised when he got his next pay stub and discovered his union dues were still being deducted. It was taxation without representation. He had no choice. Despite the fact that he was paying union dues, he had no voice in terms of how decisions were made at his union, and he still doesn't. He's been having to pay for a good number of months, even years, those union dues while he was suspended, simply because he had the courage to stand up and say he disagreed with it, by his actions and by his public comments. He was suspended. There is no fairness, there is no democratic ability in that.

One thing in Canada and in Ontario is that if you disagree with the government you still have the right to vote. They can't suspend you and then require you to pay taxes, because one of the most central elements of democracy is no taxation without representation. I think this resolution seeks to address a good amount of that concern.

I can tell you as well that in Nepean there was a good amount of concern when one prominent national trade union said it would pay the wages of any worker in its union who wanted to take time off during the federal election to support a candidate. Those people discovered that when they wanted to go and take time off, they couldn't work for the Liberal Party -- they wouldn't be allowed -- they couldn't work for Reform, they couldn't work for the PCs, but if they worked for the NDP, the union would pay.

If they worked for the Bloc québécois, the party that was trying to destroy this country, their union would pay the way, and I think that's wrong. I think it's wrong for Canada and I think it's wrong for Ontario. It's wrong. It kills jobs and is just in my mind absolutely outrageous.

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): The two main components that concern me about this resolution and my support of it concentrate on the barriers that are brought up by the member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings. Where are the benefits for the dues paid, particularly for part-timers who are required to join unions? That's one key element. The second item that concerns a lot of the rank and file of organized labour unions, of which I was once a member, of one of the most powerful unions in this province, the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, was how they used money unaccountably.

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired. The member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings has two minutes.

Mr Fox: First, I'd like to thank my colleagues for the presentations they've made here this morning. Some comments made by the member for St Catharines, saying that this resolution is against the Rand formula -- the thing is, the Angus Reid poll figures show that employees are also against the Rand formula. The members for Hamilton Centre, Hamilton East: repetitious, same old story, no constructive criticism to the resolution whatsoever. The member for Nickel Belt: The resolution doesn't deal with the comments he made here in the House this morning.

In conclusion, I would like to add that in addition to our promise to repeal Bill 40, we campaigned to shift the power from labour bosses to union members, restore individual choice and democratize internal union decision-making. I feel we have an obligation to the people of Ontario to continue democratizing the workplace, even after the passage of Bill 7.

This resolution is not about the devolution of power of unions, it is not trying to usurp the authority of unions, nor is it an attempt to reverse gains made by unions such as health and safety standards for workers; rather it is an attempt to protect the rights of the most vulnerable workers, those casual, probationary and contract employees who pay union dues but do not benefit from full union protection. The pendulum has swung too far in favour of union management. It's time to balance the power between management and the ordinary worker.

You'd be surprised how many times in my own riding I have had constituents coming to my door expressing their objections to the powers that union officials yield over ordinary workers. These individuals are asking why they are being forced to join specific unions and how can a collective agreement apply to them when they are not part of this union. I can't give them an answer, but I can --

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain): I move that in the opinion of this House, given that the government of Ontario has viewed municipal restructuring as a key component of delivering government services effectively and efficiently throughout this province; and

Since the government of Ontario has so far acted on this in Bills 26 and 103; and

Since the region of Hamilton-Wentworth has been undergoing a restructuring exercise for the past three years without success; and

Since the people of Hamilton-Wentworth agree that local government reform is necessary to provide efficient and accountable government at less cost to taxpayers; and

Since the government of Ontario has so far put forward two workable plans for local government reform in Hamilton-Wentworth;

Therefore the government of Ontario should take the initiative as soon as possible before the municipal fall elections to implement a plan that reduces waste and duplication in the delivery of local government services and creates a single, unified level of representation for the roughly half million residents of the region of Hamilton-Wentworth.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): The member for Hamilton Mountain has 10 minutes.

Mr Pettit: I'm very pleased to have the opportunity today to speak on behalf of my resolution regarding municipal reform in Hamilton-Wentworth. I believe it is imperative that this government take the initiative as quickly as possible before the next municipal election to implement a plan to create a single, unified level of government for the region of Hamilton-Wentworth.

I'd like to spend the majority of my time this morning giving a very brief

summary of some key events in municipal reform in Hamilton-Wentworth. I'd like to do this because I believe the relevant facts on this issue speak for themselves. I also believe the importance of this issue for the community of Hamilton-Wentworth demands that this debate be rational and that it be centred on what is really at stake here. What we are talking about is the broad public interest in Hamilton-Wentworth, a public interest which concerns the long-term social and economic wellbeing of our community.

The question of municipal governance has been dogging Hamilton-Wentworth for over 20 years now. In 1978, the Stewart report, which was commissioned by the then Davis government, concluded that the two-tiered regional government structure in Hamilton-Wentworth did not allow citizens to fully control regional services. Without one authority to set priorities and control total local government expenditures, the report stated that the two-tiered structure was not the most cost-efficient, was not the most effective or the most accountable governing option for Hamilton-Wentworth.

It was further observed that regional council policy decisions often ran counter to the best interests of the entire region.

In regard to eliminating the region-wide decision-making body and returning to six independent municipalities, the Stewart report was absolutely clear: This was not a feasible option. Service boards and intermunicipal agreements could not substitute for an area-wide authority.

Almost two decades later, in 1996, the constituent assembly final report, an independent citizen-led review of municipal governance, concluded that a single municipal council for Hamilton-Wentworth provided the best opportunity to ensure the continued delivery of services in an equitable manner. The current governance structure, the report held, was compromising the long-term planning and priority-setting for services that affected all residents.

The constituent assembly also evaluated other models of governance, including the return to six independent municipalities with boards to administer particular services between municipalities. The assembly concluded that this option did not adequately address the challenges and meet the principles set out in its framework for reform. Moreover, this kind of fragmented governing model was calculated as the least cost-efficient model of governance for Hamilton-Wentworth. In

summary, the report made the following key recommendations:

It recommended the creation of a single, unified municipal council and administration to facilitate strategic decision-making across all municipal service areas in support of sustainable development, wealth creation in the region and a simplified administrative system.

It recommended the creation of a new and innovative method of community governance in the form of community committees to make recommendations on community needs and priorities, make decisions on locally specific issues and provide for citizen participation and consultation.

It recommended the creation of community offices based on defined communities of interest for the decentralized delivery of municipal services so citizens would deal with only one administration to access municipal services and would be able to do so at a convenient location within their communities.

I'd like to say a few things about the constituent assembly report, because many within and outside the community of Hamilton-Wentworth believe that it exemplified a process of citizen participation that should be emulated.

From the start, the assembly's mandate was "to involve the community in a region-wide discussion on the role and structure of municipal government and manner of service delivery for the purpose of ensuring a high quality of life for citizens of Hamilton-Wentworth." Informing and involving the public in its work was a key purpose of the assembly. It maintained an open and inclusive process in consulting with citizens, hearing from experts, meeting with individuals and organizations, talking to municipal staff and councillors and working together to reach a consensus on recommendations.

The assembly itself was comprised of 23 citizen volunteers, who represented a broad cross-section of the population of Hamilton-Wentworth. This piece of work is a made-in-Hamilton-Wentworth solution. There are those who will argue against this resolution this morning who will probably say that they agree there should be restructuring in Hamilton-Wentworth, but there should be a local solution to municipal reform. I say to those people, "Here it is. Here's your local solution." What did the local politicians do? They dismissed it out of hand. They commissioned it, but they didn't like what it said so they took their ball and they went home.

Apparently I'm not the only one who thinks the work of the assembly represents a unique process in citizen participation in municipal decision-making. This process has received widespread recognition. Hamilton-Wentworth has lent its expertise in community consultation, participation and governance at the international level. Most recently, it was announced by the International City-County Management Association that the winner of their 1997 excellence in citizenship involvement award is the region of Hamilton-Wentworth for the constituent assembly project.

Three fiscal impact studies have also been done, and together conclude the following:

A single-tier governance model for all of Hamilton-Wentworth has the potential to generate the most significant cost savings.

Six standalone municipalities and the dismantling of a region-wide authority is the least cost-efficient.

A single-tier arrangement offers the greatest opportunity to eliminate barriers to delivering services most efficiently and to provide for coordinated policy outcomes.

The cost of borrowing for area municipalities will be detrimentally impacted with any kind of fragmented governance structure.

A fragmented governance structure threatens the competitive position of the region and may hamper economic development initiatives.

The facts do speak for themselves. They speak so much that the regional government of Hamilton-Wentworth was the subject of an editorial in the Washington Post this past Sunday. The

article was entitled "Regions that Work: A Lesson from Canada." The

article compares the social and economic fate of two cities, the city of Buffalo and the city of Hamilton. At one time Buffalo and Hamilton were very similar kinds of cities: both were medium-sized and both had industrially based steel-producing economies. Then came the early 1970s and both communities were plunged into economic chaos by the Arab oil embargo and international competition which threatened to annihilate their steel industries.

The Canadians, the

article observes, responded with rapid restructuring, downsizing the workforce and investing huge amounts in technology and worker skills. They also did something else which was key to their success: they created a top-tier regional municipality and reduced lower governments to almost half. The region took over economic development, planning, health and social services, transit, police and major roadways. Hamilton today isn't a flashy Toronto or a Vancouver, the

article goes on to say, but it's packed with mom-and-pop stores, has a new arena, arts centre, lots of cappuccino places and a health race and class mix on its streets. I don't believe I have to paint a picture of what has happened to Buffalo in contrast.

Hamilton was able to met these serious structural changes to its economy because they created a governance structure to meet these challenges. Buffalo could not make the transition because its local government remained politically fragmented. It is now, according to economists, one of the weakest, if not the weakest, regional economy in the United States.

The

article ends with this piece of wisdom: "Until our regions start thinking cohesively, strategically -- about the health of downtowns, big land use choices, workforce preparedness, global positioning -- they'll be in peril. That's where the Canadian regions have a real lesson to teach us."

I say to my colleagues and especially my good friend from Wentworth North, for whom I have the utmost respect, and who we will hear from this morning, any plan that attempts to eliminate a regional government that played such a major and crucial role in ensuring the economic and social wellbeing of our community so that we didn't go the way of Buffalo is beyond ludicrous. It is absolutely irrational and runs counter to the lessons of history.

I say to my colleague from Wentworth North that he knows as well as anyone, as every report has tirelessly pointed out, that Hamilton-Wentworth is a single economic unit. All the communities that comprise Hamilton-Wentworth are interdependent. We are part of a whole. The fates of our communities are intertwined. We are for all intents and purposes one community, and our governance structure must more accurately reflect that reality.

To my friend from Wentworth North, we are on the same boat. We'll either float together or we'll sink together. Most certainly, if we pretend we're not in this together we will undoubtedly and most definitely sink.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I rise to speak to this resolution. I'm not going to waste a great deal of time debating the merits of a one-tier government. I have been a one-tier supporter from my days on city council. I continue to be a one-tier supporter.

I'm here to question what this resolution is all about today, though, what the intent of this resolution is and what is behind this resolution. We are talking about an issue that this government has had the opportunity to act on. This government had a glorious opportunity last November to take decisive action when there was local consensus. The Church deal had been signed by four of the six municipalities.; the Church deal had consensus and there was widespread support on this side of the House for the Church deal.

This government, despite its assurances -- I as one member and I know others on both sides of the House gave the minister assurances that we would work with him because it was in the best interests of Hamilton-Wentworth and we'd put our political partisanship aside.

This minister failed to act. This government failed to act. There was no excuse for this totally gutless lack of leadership by the minister and by this government in November when the opportunity was there to act and move on one tier for Hamilton-Wentworth. What did we do? We just continued to put the region through months and months of hell -- bitter divisions, debate, ongoing fights -- when you had a chance to act and you didn't. That is the worst part of all this.

What motivates this today? What motivates this issue? Is it a last-minute grasp by government members, who saw that their government mishandled this and dropped the ball? Their government had an opportunity to act in the best interests of Hamilton-Wentworth and failed to do so. Is this an opportunity to be able to wave this document at election time and say: "My government failed. My government couldn't act. My government didn't have the leadership to act. But do you know what? I supported this. Look, I voted in favour of this resolution."

I'm not going to be part of that game. I tried hard to work with that minister and that government to find a resolution for Hamilton-Wentworth. That minister and that government failed and let the people of Hamilton-Wentworth down.

What is this all about today? Is it another opportunity to embarrass the member for Wentworth North, to show him that the government members are right and that he's wrong? This was a member who had the guts and courage -- I didn't agree with Mr Skarica's position on one-tier government, but I admired his courage, his determination and his gutsiness in representing the people of his riding. What did the government do to him? They punished him. They took away his PA position. They blackballed him because he dared speak out against this government.

I give that member a good deal of credit for what he has done on behalf of his constituents. He has paid a political price, but there's courage in what he has done and he should be commended for that.

This bill here today is nothing more than simply a feel-good message. It's too late, folks. It's too late. This government, this minister, as late as a few days ago, have given us no assurances whatsoever that they have any interest in bringing a bill forward enacting this. We are debating a resolution on the last day of the House, which will not resume until the end of August, for an issue that would affect November's municipal election. It is bizarre to think there's going to be any action at this point. It is absolutely bizarre. That window of opportunity you had is gone. That window of opportunity was back last November.

The government failed. It failed miserably when it came to doing what was in the best interests of Hamilton-Wentworth. It gave in to backroom pressures. It gave in to manipulation.

I understand my colleague's intent, but if you listen to him, it sounds like he's not on the government side of the House. He kept talking about a local resolution, about local politicians. Well, local politicians had made the decision; local politicians had that consensus we were looking for, but somehow it wasn't good enough.

I say to my colleague that it is your responsibility as a member of this government and it is your government's responsibility to live up to and defend in Hamilton-Wentworth the failure to act when the opportunity was there. On this side of the House both political parties went beyond the call of duty and extended the olive branch and extended a hand of cooperation to this government to deal with this issue in a way that was in the best interests of Hamilton-Wentworth, and all we got was the back of a hand and a slap in the head by this government.

I cannot support this resolution today. I'm not going to be part of any effort to try to give some coverage to local members who could not get the government to change its mind or give some coverage to a minister or government that failed and let down the people of Hamilton-Wentworth when you had the opportunity. It's disgraceful. It is an embarrassment what this government has done to our region and it is an embarrassment that we're actually still sitting here today and debating this when this House is breaking this afternoon and will not come back until the end of August. I will oppose it.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): Let me say at the outset of my remarks that having served as a Hamilton alderman and a regional councillor from 1985 to 1990 when I was elected to this place, my position on one tier is similar to that of my colleague from Hamilton East. I have always believed that ultimately the future of our community requires a one-tier government structure.

Let's not undervalue the importance of the differences of opinion that exist in the various communities, the six communities. It has always, since it was imposed in 1974, been a focus of major controversy in our community. In fact, former mayor Vic Copps had to be dragged out of the public galleries when the law was passed originally bringing in the regional form of government we now have, the two-tier. The current thinking is that it indeed cost the seat of one of the local Tory members, who was a cabinet minister at the time, because there was so much controversy.

I think that needs to be respected and listened to by other members of the House when we talk about this particular local issue.

I want to be very clear. I am very much a one-tier person and believe that's in the best interests of our community. However, I want to address two key points while I'm on my feet here today. The first is the timing of this issue. The second is the moral authority, or lack thereof, the government has in this instance.

Timing: This, as has been pointed out, is the last day of the House. We aren't coming back until at least mid-August. Mid-August would leave from August to September, October, November. You're going to give the people of Hamilton-Wentworth three months to prepare for municipal elections at a time when municipal governments and the decisions they make have never had a greater impact on the taxpayers and citizens of our community. We're going to get three months.

That certainly serves candidates who are already ready or those who have a lot of money already, but for those who have to do some planning and have to talk to people, it would be nice if they knew what the structure of government was that they were running for, what the positions were. They won't really know now, at the very least, until August.

That's not just the opposition members' opinion. In today's Hamilton Spectator, Henry Jacek, who teaches political science at the McMaster University and I would say is a recognized, respected expert certainly on local politics -- and other politics too, Henry; I wasn't trying to suggest it's limited to that -- says: "It sounds pretty strange to me. The timing is totally impossible." Well, of course it is, absolutely impossible.

There are rumours floating around our community that this government is looking at delaying the elections for a year and then some other new kind of process. That's the rumour. I haven't had it substantiated. I don't know if others are aware, but that's the rumour. That is equally, in my opinion, unacceptable because you're just playing politics with our community.

My colleague from Hamilton East stated that he was prepared to endorse and vote for the November 8 agreement. I also publicly said I would support that agreement. That position was not universally popular in my caucus and I don't think it was universally popular in his, but as local citizens, local politicians, we've always prided ourselves, all of us from all parties, that we would always, when it came to the crunch, put the interests of the community first when it came to local issues.

On that basis, on that principle, even with some of my colleagues disagreeing with me, I was prepared to support the November 8 agreement. Why? In large part because of the arguments the member for Hamilton Mountain made, particularly when he talked about the constituent assembly and their final report, an excellent process, headed up by two distinguished citizens, Chester Waxman and Don Granger, and it is being used as a model in other places around the world as an example of devolving power to not just local government but to local citizens to give them a chance to actually be involved.

It was an excellent report, and that indeed was the basis of the agreement that was reached on November 8. For those who are not aware, on November 8 we had the signatures on an agreement of four of the six mayors of the six communities making up Hamilton-Wentworth, representing almost 90% of the population. That was the moment when the member for Hamilton Mountain should have been using members' statements every day and using private members' time, back then to use those hours -- not today on the last day but back then -- and all the other backbench government members. That was the moment for you to say to your government, "You have to move on this."

But what happened? The Hamilton-Wentworth file went to the bottom. Al Leach was so busy trying to put out so many other fires that our fire just wasn't big enough. I say now we paid the price of not having a minister at the cabinet table. Because I've been there, I've sat at that table, and it makes a difference when you can say, "This is a priority and it has to be dealt with and this government has no right to ignore it," and you can do that at the cabinet table. We have paid a price over and over and over because we don't have anyone at the cabinet table representing our interests.

Don't talk to me about the minister from Burlington, because that's Burlington. We needed a Hamilton cabinet minister. That was the moment that Al Leach, on November 9, should have stood up and said, "On the basis of the agreement reached yesterday, I will introduce legislation to amend the Hamilton-Wentworth Act to ensure that the historical agreement reached will now be the law."

But that didn't happen. He dropped the ball and he let it go. It sat for weeks and months. Now what's happening is that the government, particularly the backbenchers -- and maybe that's why the government is getting very nervous. They're very nervous because they're worried that this is going to come back to haunt them in the next election. And it will.

But in my opinion, as much as I support one tier and as much as I support the agreement of November 8, I don't believe this government has the moral authority to impose unilaterally a one-tier structure on our community, not after all we've been through, not so close to an election. You don't have that moral authority. Nowhere in the resolution does it say there has to be any local support -- none.

Other members may get up and say you expect support from this quarter or from that quarter, but the fact is that this resolution does not say there needs to be some local support, none; it's a unilateral action. What does the member for Hamilton Mountain point to as his rightful motivation for suggesting it doesn't need local support? He talks about the Metro model, Bill 103, and Bill 26, the most undemocratic -- for those who don't know the numbers, that was the omnibus bill, that was the bully bill, that's the one where we had to hijack the bloody Legislature just to have some semblance of decent public input.

That's also the bill that created the health restructuring commission that's now looking at shutting down hospitals in Hamilton. That's what the member for Hamilton Mountain says is his authority in terms of how this can be done and why it ought to be done, and in Metro, people are beside themselves that this government steamrollered that bill through.

Let's remember, for those backbenchers over there who are rolling their eyes and shaking their heads, the fact is that a few months before you introduced that Metro bill, your own government said: "That's not an idea we'd look at. We don't like that idea. That makes no sense." That became the law a few months later. You rammed that through.

Those are the two examples the member for Hamilton Mountain says give him the right to argue that his government ought to move now and unilaterally: the Metro model and the omnibus Bill 26. Isn't that special?

Let me tell you, member for Hamilton Mountain, in your resolution, when you say "since the region of Hamilton-Wentworth has been undergoing a restructuring exercise for the past three years without success," the only reason we didn't have success was because you and your government didn't do your part. We had success on November 8. Four out of six mayors, representing 90% of the population, signed on the line.

Two opposition members, who have no interest in supporting you or this government if we can possibly avoid it, which is usually not difficult -- it broke my heart that I would ever have to stand up and vote for a Tory-sponsored bill. It truly did, but the fact was that I felt there was enough legitimacy in that November 8 accord and enough need for a one-tier structure in our community that I would have done that. I said so publicly at the time, and I meant it.

You have created a different world from that, a completely different world. You've let so much time go by and there have been so many flip-flops, so many new ideas. There was even a little scheme hatched outside the doors right over there. I didn't know anything about that, but it was in the paper the next day. That was just one more little

chapter in this huge volume you've written. Then the last-minute move by our member for Burlington to come in and try to structure some kind of magic bullet -- that's a joke.

I have a great deal of trouble believing this is not just you positioning yourself politically so if the government does do this -- I think you know what they're going to do; I think there's a good chance you know what the Minister of Municipal Affairs is going to do in this regard. If he is going to move you're going to try and take credit, for those who think this is a great idea, that you moved the minister. If he's not going to do it, you're covering your rear flanks by saying, "Hey, I tried."

Let me say to you in closing and to the government, you didn't try hard enough for our community. You had your chance. Unfortunately, you didn't just blow it for yourselves, you blew for all of us in the community. But that does not give you the right to bring in a resolution asking this government to impose unilaterally, without any local support, a totally new form of government three bloody months before the election. You've got no moral authority to do that at all, and I will vote against this resolution and against the politics that are behind it.

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): I'm pleased to rise in support of this resolution. Whatever conviction I had that it was the right thing has been further resolved by the comments of the member opposite. To think that he had endorsed a move that would effectively have resulted in exactly the same result, and now stands up today and suggests otherwise, is very typical.

To couch his comments in terms of Bill 26 in the doom and gloom that continues to be the litany of woe that comes from that side, I would remind people, as he reminded people, that was the bill they suggested would bring pestilence, famine and plague to this province, but which instead has been part of an economic turnaround that has created over 1,000 new full-time jobs a day; that has seen one company alone announce 5,000 new jobs; that has seen new home sales go up 60%; that has seen automotive sales at record levels. That's the result of Bill 26 and its companion pieces.

But let me get back to the resolution at hand here, because I don't think there is any doubt that whether it's Hamilton-Wentworth or any other municipality across this province, most reasonable municipal politicians have recognised (

a) the responsibility they have to their taxpayers to find the most efficient, the most effective, the most appropriate means of delivering services, and (

b) have recognized that we were serious in our campaign commitment to seek at municipal level, in addition to what we were doing ourselves at the provincial level, that those savings would come about in this term of office.

I'm pleased to report to you that as we stand here today, 71 proposals have been received by groups of municipalities across Ontario. The result so far, their voluntary efforts: 140 fewer communities coming up this fall when we go back to municipal elections and over 600 fewer municipal politicians. That's courage; that's foresight; that's respecting the needs of the taxpayers they represent.

In Hamilton-Wentworth, we've had a very different scenario. In 1974 when regional government was created, at the time it was appropriate, as it was in many parts of Ontario. It was one of 13 regional governments that were created to balance the diverse interests of rural and urban portions of the region, to provide for growth in a managed and truly controlled method. Quite frankly, it provided -- for the population base to afford the upper-tier municipality -- the revenues to be able to deliver some of the services we've all come to expect in this province. Certainly, looking back, those were wise decisions of the government of the day.

However, Hamilton and Toronto and some of those regions developed at a far faster rate than anyone could have ever anticipated when the regional governments were created. I would draw to your attention it was only four years later that the first of a number of reports was produced showing that the regional government should be moved one step further and that one government be in place, one-tier level of municipal government across the entire region.

I could stand up here and regale you with details of that Stewart report or with the report done by the regional chair in 1988, the Task Force on Sustainable Development in 1993, the Whynott report in August 1994 and many other independently produced reports by the various municipalities or by the region, all of which came to the conclusion that moving to a single-tier government in Hamilton-Wentworth made sense.

To think we sit here today, 19 years later, after the very first report, and still have a municipality that has not taken the steps forward, I think it is quite appropriate for the member to have brought this resolution forward in the hope it will steel the resolve of the municipal politicians who, I might note -- on November 8, last year, a majority of the mayors, mayors representing 88% of the population of the region -- voted in favour of the report that would have seen a single integrated administrative structure for Hamilton-Wentworth.

Within a couple of weeks, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing did ask my colleague, the other parliamentary assistant for municipal affairs, Ernie Hardeman, to undertake a review of that report and move forward with terms of reference on how it could be turned into legislation.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the forum. They got cold feet down in Hamilton-Wentworth. In the context of all of those reports, and most damning, the final report of the constituent assembly that these same mayors had set up and had charged with the task of ascertaining what the public in Hamilton-Wentworth believed -- let me just highlight a few of the details -- was a single unified municipal council for the entire Hamilton-Wentworth community, community councils, single administration for the entire region, decentralized service delivery, benchmarking and best practices.

That's what the people of Hamilton-Wentworth said. That's what the voters that member opposite represents said. For all the damning that went on from that side about why we didn't -- exactly that process here in Toronto, Bill 103, the answer being of course that municipal politicians here had wasted the first two years of their three-year mandate. There was no time. He now turns around and damns his own constituents for the conclusion that is represented by this resolution. I believe it's only appropriate we move forward. I support this resolution wholeheartedly.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): I rise, not as a member who comes from the Hamilton-Wentworth region, so I don't feel it's appropriate for me to enter into debate on the pros and cons of the history of the debate that's gone on in that area to attempt to reach a consensus on these very difficult issues of amalgamation and what form of governance is in the best interests of all the residents, all the citizens of a particular region.

The reason I rise to speak today is because I find it, as a parliamentarian, somewhat incredible that this resolution should be here at all, let alone that this resolution should be here on the very last day of the session of the House. I speak to it because I see this as being a classic illustration of the way this entire government does business. I want to make just a couple of points about it.

First is that typically of this government, resolutions they'd rather that nobody noticed tend to be brought in under the cover of something else or at the very last minute in the hope that nobody will recognize that once again we have a government that is going to attempt to impose its will on the people of this province.

The government members will argue that there has indeed been a long history, a lot of time taken in an attempt to reach a consensus. The bottom line is there is not a full consensus on this issue yet, as both the member for Hamilton East and the member for Hamilton Centre have said, "This still constitutes a unilateral action by government and it is still action which is intended to shut down dissent."

Typical then that this government would bring it in on the last day of the session, just as they brought original bully Bill 26 under the cover of a budget debate and wanted it passed in the two weeks before Christmas; just like they brought in the draconian rule changes that are intended to shut down dissent in this place; just as this government wants to shut down dissent in the public forum; just as they brought those draconian rule changes in under cover of other things in the hope they could quickly get them through before the end of the session when nobody would be noticing.

This resolution, and the timing and the way it's been brought forward, is illustrative of this government's method of operation in another way. It's a classic illustration of the way they have decided to start using backbenchers to do the dirty work of government. If this government wants to force an amalgamation, they certainly have examples of how to do that. They have examples of how to do that in the amalgamation in Toronto where they rammed through that amalgamation in spite of the opposition of 72% of the population.

I guess they decided that they didn't want to be seen to be forcing another amalgamation on another region. I guess they didn't want to be too quick to get the tag of being bullying on amalgamation again. They'd just done Toronto; they'd just forced through the amalgamation of school boards in the province. It's a little bit heavy a record to add another one. What do they do? They have one of their backbenchers bring in a resolution so that then they can wash their hands of it. They're being urged to take action in Hamilton-Wentworth.

They're being urged by one of their own members and a member from that area to take action. They will defend this on the grounds that this is about giving backbenchers more of a voice.

I'm sure the member for Nepean who was the front man for the rules changes will argue that this is the kind of a voice backbenchers should have. If this is truly the voice of a backbencher, and if this government really doesn't want to have any part of unilaterally forcing amalgamation on another region, let them defeat the resolution, and then their member has had every chance to urge them to take unilateral action if that is what he wants and let the government defeat it. If the government defeats it, then we will rise and say: "Maybe the government is going to back away. Maybe the government has learned its lessons. Maybe it's not going to force amalgamation on another region."

But I am pessimistic because we have seen in the last weeks the way in which this government is prepared to use a backbencher to do the dirty work for them. They didn't bring forward the rule changes themselves. They had the member for Nepean bring forward the rule changes. They had the member for Nepean out there saying that this is about increasing the amount of time for debate, when in fact we know that it is about ramming more legislation through in a hurry so that people in the public don't get a chance to voice their concerns, let alone people in this Legislature. That's what the rule changes were all about.

It wasn't about more time for debate, as the member for Nepean suggested. What the government wanted was to be able to ram through their legislation, and they used the member for Nepean as a backbencher to be able to carry it forward under the flag of more time for debate. Clearly this government doesn't want to be responsible for its bullying actions, the kind of bullying actions that we see in the rule change proposals, the kinds of unilateral actions against a region that we see urged in this resolution.

One of the rule changes is very relevant to the resolution that's before us today, because one of the rule changes will prevent opposition members from blocking a private member's bill. I expect the member for Nepean will say, "That's all about giving more support to private members so that they can bring forward their bills and not run the risk of opposition from 12 members of the House." In fact, what that rule change will do is make it even more easy for the government, give the government more scope to let private members do their dirty work for them with no opposition at all.

That may be the government's intention, to wash their hands of the responsibility for the next series of bullying actions they want to take, but they simply can't duck the responsibility. It will be the government's decision as to whether or not this motion passes. They have the majority. As with all things, the government, the cabinet, will dictate what it wants and we will see whether or not the majority government passes this resolution, just as it will be a decision of the government, not the backbenchers, not the member for Nepean, to impose rule changes on this assembly that will stifle debate and dissent.

It will be the government's decision as to whether or not they act on this motion. Private members' motions don't need to be carried forward by government. The member for Hamilton Mountain may wish to urge his government to take unilateral action. His government does not have to do that. The member for Nepean may say: "Well, these weren't really the government's rule changes. I really believe in this. I'm putting it forward." The government doesn't need to bring that forward as a bill. The government doesn't need to act on that. The decisions that are made in this place when you have a government with a majority are clearly the decisions of the government.

Make no mistake about it: If this resolution is passed today, if this resolution goes forward, it is because once again we have a government that is in a great hurry to ram its agenda through. It's not content with having forced its amalgamation on the Toronto municipalities this spring. It's not content with having brought about the broadest school board amalgamations that this province has ever seen this spring. It's going to force through another amalgamation on another region.

I fully appreciate that there has been a long history here. Reaching consensus on something as difficult as amalgamation, reaching consensus on something which is as gut-wrenching, as heart-wrenching, for citizens as altering their sense of community, their sense of involvement in community, takes a very long time.

It is sort of like, dare I say, hospital restructuring. Up in my community we worked for 10 years to bring about hospital restructuring, and the hospital restructuring commission came in with its unilateral powers to impose its will on our community and destroyed 10 years of work to get consensus on that issue in my community.

Yes, it takes a long time to get consensus, to get real consensus, to have citizen participation and involvement and to have citizens buy in. This government has no patience for that, no time for that at all. They believe it's okay as government, when you've got a majority and you've got an agenda, to go ahead with that agenda and to do it as fast as possible, because they've got a political imperative here. Their political imperative is to get all the dirty work done now. You're at the two-year mark. You want the next two years for appeasement, so you've got to do all the bullying now and get it done. You can't wait any longer for Hamilton-Wentworth. You can't wait any longer for consensus.

So they will act on this motion, I suspect. They will silence the opposition in Hamilton-Wentworth, just as they will move forward on their rule changes to silence opposition in this House and as they will continue to silence dissent in this province.

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired. Further debate?

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): This private member's motion is yet again another example of how the government is utilizing the private members' hour to basically do government business. This is not the first time the government has done this, and this is certainly, by the looks of it, not going to be the last.

We have to remember what this time is for. We have two hours every week to bring forward motions by individual members that deal with issues within their own ridings or deal with issues that are important to the constituents they represent. Arguably, you can say the member is from Hamilton, but the fact is that this government moved on the megacity madness, on Bill 103, last fall much to the opposition of not only the members of the opposition but most of the people in the city of Toronto, and this government did not want to be in the position of having to themselves impose legislation on the people of the cities in and around Hamilton.

What do they do? They get the private member to introduce a motion asking for it to be done so that if they do go ahead, they can say, "Oh, it wasn't us. It was the member from Hamilton who made us do it," and they can hide behind this private member's bill.

In the 20 seconds I have left, I have to say to members of this assembly, members of the government, you have to stop utilizing private members' hour to be doing what is government business. You start doing that and it is a long, slippery slope where finally individual members of this assembly are going to start losing the rights that they have in this assembly to properly represent the constituents of their own ridings.

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): I'm pleased to rise and join in the debate on this private member's resolution. The opposition have raised a couple of issues with respect to the motivation for the member's resolution. It's my understanding that private members' time is exactly that: private members' time. It's for us to bring forward matters that we are concerned about, issues that we're concerned about and things that we hear in our communities and that we want to see changed.

I commend the member for Hamilton Mountain for bringing forward this resolution. He obviously is concerned about what's happening in our area, as I am.

There's not much time, but I want to tell people about Hamilton. We often hear derogatory comments about Hamilton, the steel city. I'm proud of Hamilton. I'm proud of the community that makes up Hamilton-Wentworth and I'm proud of the individuals who live in that community. I'm proud of our steel industry. I'm proud of the fact that we have looked to our community to come up with what we call Vision 2020, which looks at diversifying our community and making sure we have economic prospects in our community to make it a viable community on into the future. I think we all in Hamilton-Wentworth love our community and we all work hard for our community.

Hamilton has been acknowledged, as we've heard, by the United Nations for their Vision 2020. The constituent assembly report has been honoured with this latest award for their efforts in coming to a solution with respect to municipal restructuring. We have a lot to be proud of in Hamilton-Wentworth.

With respect to restructuring, we have a lot of history that goes back numerous years, as you've heard on reports that have been submitted. Every one of them except for one states that the only way for Hamilton-Wentworth to continue to be a viable economic community for its people is to restructure into a one-tier regional government -- every report but one.

I listened to the member for Fort William, who says she is appalled that backbenchers are sent to do the dirty work of the government. I take real exception to that. Private members' resolutions do not impose anything on the government, they allow members to bring forward matters that concern them, so I take real exception to that.

The member for Hamilton Centre said that restructuring has always been a focus of controversy in Hamilton-Wentworth, and indeed it has. He also mentioned, and so have the members for Hamilton East and Fort William, that they question the timing of this. I'll say to them that private members get to put their private members' bills according to designated slots. Unfortunately, his bill came at this time. We, at the time his slot came, didn't even know we'd be sitting at this date. I think they should look at that as well.

With respect to what's going on in Hamilton-Wentworth, recently the Spectator conducted a poll on amalgamation and what people felt about amalgamation, what they were concerned about. Some 51% of the people where concerned about community. What does "community" mean? It doesn't mean a bunch of politicians sitting in a room. "Community" means people living together, neighbour to neighbour; people working together, helping each other, building families and homes. That's what community is all about; it's not about politicians in a room. So I take real exception to people saying, "I'm going to lose my local identity by this."

You know what? In Hamilton, we have numerous communities. We have Durand neighbourhood, we have Beasley, we have Westdale. Up in Hamilton West, we have Gourlay Park, Gilkison. They're all communities. They all come together in the end to form one local identity, what we keep intact, what matters to us most. I think that's what makes community. I don't think politicians make community.

Somebody talked about the flip-flops of this government on this issue. I say to them that the flip-flops have not happened here; they've happened at the local level. They've happened with politicians at the local level who didn't know where they wanted to go. We still don't have a combined effort from the regional politicians. We've got local interests saying, "We oppose this," but we don't have one combined. We've got a report that came forward that they all agreed to, but when there were amendments put forward, nobody agreed to the amendments. So what do we have? Nothing.

On April 7, what we do have from the city of Hamilton from committee of the whole is an agreement that they want an amalgamated tax base, representation by population, amalgamation of all area municipalities into the city of Hamilton. They want to eliminate the region and devolve all staff and services into the city of Hamilton. They want regional, one-tier government. I'm very much supportive of it. I can't say enough about the fact that I think it's unfortunate we didn't get a local solution. We would have all preferred a local solution. It's evident it's not happening, so I'm very much supportive of the resolution.

Mr Toni Skarica (Wentworth North): I only have three minutes. Personally, this whole amalgamation debate has been a source of considerable pain to myself and to all members of the Hamilton community. When I ran for politics, there were two principles that I believed all governments should adhere to. I think we all should adhere to them, and it doesn't matter what party you're from. They are that government should be run in an efficient manner -- run like a business is how we phrased it -- and it should be done in a democratic fashion. It has been a source of pain to me that this has not occurred in Hamilton in this debate.

The constituent assembly report was referred to. The problem with the constituent assembly report is that attached thereto is a report from a chartered accounting firm that says you could save up to $200 million but without any breakdown of any kind on how it's going to be done. If you were in a business and you said, "Let's restructure," and you asked, "How much is it going to save us?" and they said, "Well, $200 million," and you asked, "Where are the details?" and they said, "I don't have any," you wouldn't do it. So the regional council didn't do it.

Into this morass the government sent an individual named Gardner Church. It's interesting to note how he conducted himself. Bill 26 indicated that any restructuring had to be an open process, no private meetings allowed. In fact,

section 55 of the Municipal Act says you can't have private meetings unless certain requirements are met, and they weren't met here. Church came in and he had private meetings right off the bat. He broke the minister's own guidelines. He broke the law. What did he do when he broke the law? What did he do in those private meetings? Mayor Wade -- who is the most respectable, experienced, decent, honest mayor you could ever get; he's been in Ancaster forever, probably was there before Mr Laughren was here in the Legislature -- said: "I had no choice but to sign it. They put a gun to my head."

This is the November 8 agreement we're talking about. Of the four out of six mayors who signed, three of them had the gun put to their head. Here we have laws broken, rules broken, guns to the head. Government like a business? Business is not a Mafia; that's what this business sounded like. There was no costing of any kind.

The key part of the November 8 agreement was that we were going to save $30 million. The question was asked, "Where did $30 million come from?" Don't forget, it was $200 million to be saved just months earlier in the constituent assembly report. All the mayors said, "We don't know." The figure was pulled out of the air. Could you imagine going to a private company and saying, "Let's restructure," and asking, "How much is it going to save?" and they say, "Well, $30 million," and you ask, "Where did you get that figure from?" and they say, "Alchemy; I pulled it out of the air." You would never restructure in the private sector on that basis.

We did have a local solution. All six councils voted on it. This is totally contrary to that. If this resolution passes, democracy in Ontario does not mean anything.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Hamilton Mountain, you have two minutes.

Mr Pettit: So much to say in so little time. I'd like to thank the members for Cochrane South, Hamilton East, Hamilton Centre, Scarborough East, Hamilton West, Wentworth North and Fort William. I find the comments from the member for Fort William somewhat insulting, but we've come to get used to that from a member who obviously still can't rein in and conceal her bitterness over the results of the last provincial election.

To the members for Hamilton East and Hamilton Centre, I say that I agree that the plan back in November should have been implemented. It was never explained to us why it wasn't.

To those who say this is political opportunism in the timing, I should remind them that I wrote to the Premier in March of this year proposing exactly what I am proposing today, and they never did tell us why they didn't.

There has been nothing said to sway me in any of the arguments that were presented. The people of Hamilton-Wentworth are all one people. We all go to the Binbrook Fair, we all go to the Ancaster Fair, we all go to Hamilton Place, we go to Stoney Creek Flag Day, we go to the cactus festival in Dundas or the Rockton Fall Fair up in Flamboro.

It's very easy for the member for Wentworth North to say there was a local solution. But he sat down all those who were opposed to the one tier in order to come up with that solution, so that's very simple right there.

In closing, I'd like to say that what divides us are artificial political boundaries and the local politicians. They don't create community identity and they don't create community spirit; the people do. I believe it's time for leadership. Leadership is not taking a position, leadership is taking action, and the time for action is now. If not now, when? If not by the provincial government, then by whom?

UNION FEES

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): We'll deal first with ballot item number 87. If there are any members in the chamber opposed to taking a vote on this at this time, they will please rise.

Mr Fox has moved private member's notice of motion number 58.

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

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

The vote will be deferred.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): We will now deal with ballot item number 88. If there are any members opposed to taking a vote on this at this time, will they please rise.

Mr Pettit has moved private member's notice of motion number 59.

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

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

This vote will be deferred as well.

Call in the members. There will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1200 to 1205.

UNION FEES

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Mr Fox has moved private member's notice of motion number 58. All those in favour please rise and remain standing until recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Baird, John R.

Guzzo, Garry J.

Skarica, Toni

Boushy, Dave

Hastings, John

Spina, Joseph

Carr, Gary

Johns, Helen

Stewart, R. Gary

Chudleigh, Ted

Kells, Morley

Tascona, Joseph N.

Doyle, Ed

Klees, Frank

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Flaherty, Jim

Leadston, Gary L.

Wood, Bob

Fox, Gary

Pettit, Trevor

Young, Terence H.

Galt, Doug

Ross, Lillian

Gilchrist, Steve

Sheehan, Frank

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed please rise and remain standing until recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Curling, Alvin

Martel, Shelley

Bisson, Gilles

Duncan, Dwight

Martin, Tony

Boyd, Marion

Gerretsen, John

McLeod, Lyn

Bradley, James J.

Grandmaître, Bernard

Miclash, Frank

Brown, Michael A.

Hampton, Howard

Patten, Richard

Castrilli, Annamarie

Kormos, Peter

Pouliot, Gilles

Christopherson, David

Kwinter, Monte

Silipo, Tony

Churley, Marilyn

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Tilson, David

Colle, Mike

Lankin, Frances

Wildman, Bud

Conway, Sean G.

Laughren, Floyd

Wood, Len

Crozier, Bruce

Marchese, Rosario

Clerk Assistant (Ms Deborah Deller): The ayes are 25; the nays are 32.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the resolution lost.

There will be a pause for 30 seconds.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Mr Pettit has moved private member's notice of motion number 59. All those in favour please rise and remain standing until recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Boushy, Dave

Newman, Dan

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Chudleigh, Ted

Pettit, Trevor

Wood, Bob

Gilchrist, Steve

Ross, Lillian

Young, Terence H.

Hastings, John

Spina, Joseph

Leadston, Gary L.

Tascona, Joseph N.

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed please rise and remain standing until recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Duncan, Dwight

Martel, Shelley

Baird, John R.

Fox, Gary

Martin, Tony

Bisson, Gilles

Gerretsen, John

McLeod, Lyn

Boyd, Marion

Grandmaître, Bernard

Miclash, Frank

Bradley, James J.

Guzzo, Garry J.

Murdoch, Bill

Brown, Michael A.

Hampton, Howard

Patten, Richard

Carr, Gary

Johns, Helen

Pouliot, Gilles

Castrilli, Annamarie

Kells, Morley

Sheehan, Frank

Christopherson, David

Klees, Frank

Silipo, Tony

Churley, Marilyn

Kormos, Peter

Skarica, Toni

Colle, Mike

Kwinter, Monte

Stewart, R. Gary

Conway, Sean G.

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Wildman, Bud

Crozier, Bruce

Lankin, Frances

Wood, Len

Curling, Alvin

Laughren, Floyd

Doyle, Ed

Marchese, Rosario

Clerk Assistant (Ms Deborah Deller): The ayes are 13; the nays are 43.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the resolution lost.

All matters relating to private members' public business having been completed, I do now leave the chair. This House will resume at 1:30.

The House recessed from 1212 to 1332.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PRIDE WEEK

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I rise today as the Liberal Party's human rights critic to recognize Pride Week and the significant contributions made to our society by the gay and lesbian community.

In my riding of Ottawa Centre, gays and lesbians have always been a strong and vibrant force in all aspects of community life. They are an anchor in keeping a good part of our downtown safe, healthy and livable. Their battles for acceptance and equality have been hard fought and hard won, and they still have a way to go.

Ontario's laws still discriminate against same-sex couples in many areas such as employment benefits, ability to make decisions on behalf of children or loved ones who are unable to consent to treatment, mourning rites for deceased partners, and inheritance rights.

The chief Ontario Human Rights Commissioner has called on the Ontario government to revise 16 laws which violate the rights of gays and lesbians. I support his move, as I'm sure many in this House do as well.

Gay pride as we know it stems from a particularly ugly incident in 1969 in New York City where gays were viciously attacked. Regrettably, discrimination based on sexual orientation still is with us and exists, and regrettably, so does the violence that all too often accompanies it.

Pride Week is an important celebration for many gays and lesbians in many communities. Today in Toronto, Pride Week is one of the largest cultural events in North America. This year marks its 17th anniversary.

Gays and lesbians are people from all walks of life: they are our friends, our neighbours, our coworkers and our family. Please join with me in recognizing Pride Week and in working towards balancing the inequality that exists --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): The St Catharines long-term-care office has served the Niagara region in an exemplary fashion. It's resolved difficult health care issues with skill and sensitivity. That office has had a strong, involved presence in Niagara Peninsula communities, which has made for good communication with service providers and consumers.

Reminiscent of this government's attack on the family support plan, 14 area offices providing long-term care in their respective areas are being abandoned, to be substituted by five regional offices serving and monitoring 1,700 long-term-care agencies. After the family support plan decentralization fiasco this government should think twice about removing valued services from the communities that need them.

This move will prove more costly at the end of the day. This move will subject those in need of the services provided by these long-term-care offices to abandonment and in fact deny them the services that are rightly theirs. It will affect the ability of long-term-care staff to effectively monitor and supervise the long-term-care providers who are available to clientele across the province.

I want to join people in Niagara in condemning this Soviet centralization, "Bigger is better," on the part of the Tories --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you very much.

TOWN OF PERTH

Mr W. Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): This year, Canadian Living magazine challenged readers to write and tell them why their home town was the best in the country. Entries and nominations poured in from young and old, ranging from the best place to raise a family to the best place to retire.

Today I wish to inform all members in the House that the town of Perth in the county of Lanark was selected as the number one community for retirement in Canada. For Mrs Betty Rapkins of Perth, who sent in the winning entry, Perth is number one for many reasons. She said Perth has food and housing at a reasonable price, excellent health care, a fine hospital and doctors, and is a town where you can sing, dance, act, quilt, curl, hike, or play golf on one of Canada's oldest golf courses, Links O'Tay.

Perth is a community for all seasons and generations. There are endless types of recreation, ranging from swimming in a modern indoor pool to being able to fish or boat in over 100 lakes within a 50-mile radius. Winter activities range from travelling the hundreds of miles of snowmobile trails around the region, to the annual Festival of the Maples.

Perth is vibrant, full of life and community spirit. I would suggest to all members of the House that they take some time and visit this heritage town during the summer recess. I know you won't be disappointed.

SAFETY BARRIER

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): On August 26, 1996, a runaway gravel truck crossed Steeles Avenue at the exit ramp from the 404 and smashed into a town house, killing May Wong and injuring her two sons. Residents in the area have been living in fear ever since; living in fear that another truck will overshoot the same busy exit ramp, causing more damage and more deaths.

For months, the local residents have been demanding that the government build a retaining wall around this ramp to protect them. Local Meadoway resident Mary-Jane Rose has led the fight since last September to get a commitment to action from Minister of Transportation. But it's now more than eight months since the minister wrote to former Oriole MPP Elinor Caplan promising he would act quickly.

Since that time, specific promises of protective structures have been made only to be delayed and delayed. Today, almost a year after the original death, the minister's promises of quick action have become a farce. The people of the Meadoway community are still waiting and are still wondering when the next truck will overshoot the ramp.

Recently, local school trustee David Caplan has also been active on the issue, working with the Meadoway residents to get the minister to honour his commitment to plan to begin construction. David Caplan has spoken to me on behalf of the local residents asking that we remind the minister in the Legislature of his promise. How long will the people of Meadoway have to wait before this government agrees --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

CANCER PREVENTION

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I have a letter which later I will be sending over to the health and environment ministers. It reads:

"Dear Minister:

"You will be aware that on April 18, 1996, the Ontario Legislature passed my resolution which committed the government to phase out the emission of environmental carcinogens. This resolution came directly from a comprehensive report on cancer prevention undertaken by a former Minister of Health, Ruth Grier.

"Since that time I have tried repeatedly to meet you and the Minister of Environment, to no avail.

"This coming July 13-17, Kingston is hosting the World Conference on Breast Cancer. A full day of the conference has been set aside for discussing prevention/environment and I will be attending that session. I'm sure you would agree that it would be a perfect occasion to be able to announce that legislators of all three parties are working together to carry out this resolution and that we are taking some leadership in the area of cancer prevention.

"Minister, I am asking you today to meet with me so we can begin the process of ridding our environment -- and our bodies -- of carcinogens and other environmental toxins.

"Thank you in advance for agreeing to make this happen."

Cancer claims over 20,000 lives every year in Ontario, and by now we have enough evidence to know that some of these carcinogens are causing damage to the immune, neurological and reproductive systems.

ONTARIO CHORAL FEDERATION

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): In my riding of Durham East, music is a universal language that unites individuals across geographic and cultural boundaries.

The Ontario Choral Federation, which last year celebrated its silver anniversary, has been an active participant in the global musical community. For a quarter-century, the foundation has linked Ontarians with others around the world who share a passion for choirs and choral music.

It has introduced young people to this great artistic tradition, creating the Ontario Youth Choir in 1971. Since its inception, the choir has trained more than 500 young singers.

The foundation's extensive musical library and programs serve more than 14,000 people and contribute significantly to Ontario's musical legacy. Moreover, the foundation's special events do more than showcase local and international talent. They also generate economic activity for the province.

Much of the foundation's success is due to the hard work and creativity of its members and volunteers. Their time and expertise, given freely, have enriched the lives of choral music fans and practitioners far beyond the boundaries of their organization.

Our government knows that when it comes to a healthy community, a vibrant volunteer sector is just as important as the public and private sectors. The Ontario Choral Federation's many years of service are a testament to the volunteer spirit and a source of inspiration for all of us.

TVONTARIO

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): Earlier today, Privatization Minister Rob Sampson and Culture Minister Marilyn Mushinski announced that TVOntario has been referred to the Office of Privatization for a review of the role of the provincial government in educational broadcasting.

Unfortunately, I understand that Minister Sampson has decided to insult the members of the Legislature and the people of Ontario by not also making this announcement in the Legislature today. However, on behalf of the Ontario Liberal caucus, I believe a response to this major announcement is not only in order but of grave importance.

Ontario Liberals believe that TVO best serves the people of Ontario as a public asset. We made our position clear in this matter earlier this year and we strongly maintain that belief.

The people of Ontario have also put their support behind TVOntario. Public opinion surveys confirm that a strong majority of Ontarians oppose the potential privatization of TVO. Thousands of people from all across the province have expressed their support for our publicly funded network by sending in petitions en masse.

However, in that the government has now decided to begin this privatization review, let me be very clear about how this process must work. I know the minister is listening. We urge the government to conduct open and honest public consultation across the province. We have seen more than one example of this government going against the public will. Therefore, all of us must be diligent to ensure that the public is heard and listened to.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I'm very concerned about the announcement that was made today that TVOntario is being made the test case of the privatization commission.

I want to say to the ministers, when you launched your privatization framework you said two questions must always be asked:

(1) Is there a way to improve service to the public?

(2) Does it increase value to the taxpayer? These two goa