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

May 19, 1994

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

RECALL PROCESS

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA SANTÉ ET LA SÉCURITÉ AU TRAVAIL

RECALL PROCESS

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA SANTÉ ET LA SÉCURITÉ AU TRAVAIL

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

ROYAL WEEK

MOTORCYCLES

GREAT LAKES ALIVE

G.A. WHEABLE CENTRE FOR ADULT EDUCATION

POLICE SERVICES

LEADER OF THE THIRD PARTY

MAYFIELD SECONDARY SCHOOL

NORM JARY

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

ACCESSORY APARTMENTS

ONTARIO HYDRO PROJECTS

ACCESSORY APARTMENTS

PHOTO-RADAR

ANTI-RACISM ACTIVITIES

FEDERAL HIGHWAY PROGRAM

LANDFILL

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

ROLE OF INDEPENDENT MEMBERS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REFORM

KETTLE ISLAND BRIDGE

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

LANDLORD AND TENANT AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA LOCATION IMMOBILIÈRE

EQUALITY RIGHTS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES DROITS À L'ÉGALITÉ

CAPITOL THEATRE AND ARTS CENTRE (WINDSOR) ACT, 1994

CITY OF BURLINGTON ACT, 1994

TUBERATE HEAT TRANSFER LTD. ACT, 1994

WORDZ PROCESSING CORPORATION LTD. ACT, 1994

NORTH TORONTO CHRISTIAN SCHOOL (INTERDENOMINATIONAL) ACT, 1994

ONTARIO SOUTHLAND RAILWAY INC ACT, 1994

NORTH TORONTO BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL WOMEN'S CLUB ACT, 1994

CITY OF BRAMPTON ACT, 1994

COUNTY OF DUFFERIN ACT, 1994

1994 ONTARIO BUDGET

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 1002.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

RECALL PROCESS

Mr Cousens moved private member's notice of motion number 41:

That, in the opinion of this House, recognizing that recall provides citizens with the opportunity to exercise accountability over their elected officials; and

Since other jurisdictions in Canada are exploring the recall option in their provincial legislatures; and

Since evidence from other jurisdictions outside of Canada indicates that recall is rarely abused; and

Since the recall process should explore the ethical criteria for recall of an elected officer; and

That the process in which to initiate the recall process may involve a review of several checks and balances that could be ascertained by further guidance from legislative officials and the public,

The standing committee on the Legislative Assembly be required to develop a recall process for consideration by the Legislature and to present their recommendations and options to the Legislative Assembly by the spring session in 1995.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): The honourable member will have 10 minutes to open debate, after which all recognized parties will have 15 minutes to participate in the debate and then the honourable member for Markham will have two minutes in summation.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): This resolution may be called the recall resolution or the Bhaduria resolution.

Jag Bhaduria has been elected as the MP for the riding of Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville, which overlaps my riding 100%. Mr Bhaduria is a charlatan, and if you want to see someone who is a specialist in deception and manipulation, he has certainly done it to the people of Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville. He has hurt his riding. He has hurt the immigrant population. He has offended Canadians from coast to coast. He has destroyed the confidence of his own constituents. The people of Markham feel betrayed.

Today I would like to find a way that if such a person or such a candidate were to come to the Ontario Legislature, we would have some process by which to deal with it.

Let me deal with Mr Bhaduria's situation before he was elected. Federal Liberal fortunes were rising, certainly across the country. A month before October 25, few would have forecast that the Liberals would sweep Ontario the way they did, but it was all-important for the Liberals to win Ontario over. They would not gamble and take a chance of exposing Mr Bhaduria for who he was. They did not want to appear bigoted, I suppose. What happened is that Mr Chrétien and senior Liberals did know there were problems with Mr Bhaduria, but it was time for damage control. They didn't want to take a chance of upsetting the apple-cart.

Mr Bhaduria ran as a management consultant, so the public had no idea that he had been a teacher a few years before. The party did know that Mr Bhaduria had certain things in his background and certainly was not prepared to act on them.

After he was elected, I have to look at the way the federal Liberals dealt with the situation. There isn't any doubt that they handled it in a very special way. They gave him forgiveness over the poison-pen letters, and then they found a reason to remove him from the federal Liberal caucus.

When the Liberals kicked Mr Bhaduria out of caucus, they were seen to be very clean of the whole question. However, if Mr Bhaduria's not good enough for the federal Liberals, why should he be good enough for the people of Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville?

A coalition of Liberals, Reformers and PCs signed petitions calling for his recall. Over 35,000 signatures were submitted indicating that the community had lost confidence in this person. They requested a judicial review of the matter. This matter has now been referred to a parliamentary committee investigating citizen participation, but the fact of the matter is that the people of Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville feel they have not been able to have any impact because there is no true process for people to initiate a recall provision.

If such a thing happened in the Ontario House, we could be faced with the same kind of situation, so I'd like to talk about recall and indicate that this becomes a very viable option for our Legislature to look at.

Recall is a procedure which enables voters to remove a public official from office before the end of his or her term. The recall process is initiated by the circulation of a petition among the electorate for signatures. The recall is based on the political theory that voters should retain the right of control over their elected officials.

The United States is one country in the free world that employs a recall procedure: 15 American states provide in their state constitutions for the recall of elected officials at state politics. Eight of these states provide for the removal of all officials while six exclude judges, but it goes to show they have set up a process.

How does recall work? Recall laws in the United States vary in their detail, but all exhibit the following general features. First, voters interested in seeking a recall must circulate a petition. Second, election officials review the petition within a time period specified in the recall law to determine whether the petition has a requisite number of signatures. Finally, if the election officials determine that the petition has attracted the requisite number of signatures, a recall election is held.

What you're talking about here is a system where different states have found different ways, where different percentages of people will be involved. The signature requirements do vary from state to state and can affect the ability of voters to recall officials. The more stringent the signature requirement, the more difficult it will be for a recall to succeed.

Why would you want a recall? An official can be recalled for any reason, but in the United States, for example, in Michigan, their constitution declares that the sufficiency of any statement of reasons or grounds procedurally required for invoking the recall procedure shall be a political rather than a judicial judgement.

Secondly, they have indicated that in other states, the recall statute requires merely a brief and clear statement of the reason for the recall. The reason must be based upon acts or the conduct of the official.

The third type of recall provision specifies that an official may be recalled only for misconduct. For example, under the Montana recall statute, officials may be recalled for physical or mental lack of fitness, incompetence, violation of oath of office, official misconduct or conviction of felony offences.

Recall has not been used to the disadvantage of people, but it has been used extensively in the United Sates. Somewhere between 4,000 and 5,000 recall campaigns have been initiated in the United States. About 50% of these have been successful.

I'd like to outline some of the arguments for recall.

The recall provides for continuous accountability of public officials to the electorate. Voters need not wait for the next election to rid themselves of incompetent, dishonest, unresponsive or irresponsible politicians. The threat of a recall compels public officials to remain responsive to the mood and wishes of the electorate.

Second, the recall reduces the influence of special interests and lobbyists on politicians, who are reminded that corruption in office will not be tolerated by an electorate which is empowered to remove them at any time.

Third, the potential use of the recall encourages voters to stay informed about contemporary politics and to monitor the conduct of their politicians. The ability to recall unresponsive officials is an antidote to public apathy and frustration with the political process.

Fourth, the recall provides a safety valve for popular emotions surrounding controversial issues.

This whole issue has been raised in Canada on previous occasions. In fact, in 1935, in a provincial election campaign in Alberta, Social Credit leader William Aberhart promised that if elected, his government would introduce a recall bill. They did, and then when people started gathering around to get rid of Mr Aberhart himself, he had the bill revoked retroactively so that it stopped the process. So what we have is a situation where recall has been brought in and then moved away.

In 1990, the Social Credit government of British Columbia introduced the Referendum Act, which empowered the provincial cabinet to hold referenda on issues that were deemed of public concern. They came in on October 17 of that year. Some 80% of those voting answered yes to the recall question and only 19% voted no. However, when the Socreds were defeated, the issue did not proceed in the Legislature. What has happened there is something that has happened in other places: People have talked about it but have not acted on it.

If you look at the public opinion polls today, the public at large is saying, "Politicians, give us -- the people -- a chance to participate in the electoral process between elections so that if something happens that we lose our confidence, we have a way of starting a process to remove you from office." The people who are stopping that process are the politicians. The public wants it but the politicians aren't willing to put their necks on the line for that.

I'm suggesting, through this bill, that we start that process through a committee of the Legislature that will begin to look at it. It will give the people of Ontario a sense of making their politicians always accountable, so that if someone is elected to office in this House and the people have a concern, they will not have the frustration that the people of Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville have gone through and endured, and failed in trying to do something about. We have no way of dealing with the member we have in office. In that case, let us find a process provincially, federally, at every level, to see that this can happen. That is the suggestion behind this proposal.

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): I am pleased to join in the debate today, mostly because it actually forced me -- and I have to thank the member for Markham for this; I knew that I did not agree with recall but I didn't know why -- to do some research on the subject. As a consequence, I think, in my mind anyway, I can articulate to myself why recall is not the appropriate way to go.

I'm going to quote William Howard Taft from 1913. There has long been a discussion on how the people can have some political control over their representatives, so it's been discussed a lot. The Americans actually have a lot more literature on the subject than we do.

"Recall tends to produce in every public official a nervous condition of irresolution as to whether he should do what he thinks he ought to do in the interests of the public, or should withhold from doing anything, or should do as little as possible in order to avoid any discussion at all."

It's a convoluted way of saying it, but the reality is that I don't know, with a recall hanging over members' heads, whether you would really have people making decisions in terms of what is good for the province, in this case, or whether they would be worrying about whether a special-interest group would be calling them back on whatever and having to deal with that issue.

The charges on recall are interesting, and this is the other part that really bothers me. They can be assertions of corruption; you never have to prove it, though. They can range from the assertion to the presumption that an official is unrepresentative of his community. How do you determine that? What criteria are used to make that determination? "Unresponsive," "Wasteful," "Indifferent to the responsibilities of the office": These are examples that have been used in the past. How does one make that determination, number one? Number two, who is going to make it?

I think the political theory on which recall is based is that voters should have the right of control over their elected representatives, that the member is not the master but the servant of the constituent. Politically that's true, but the reality is that you have the control at every election time. In our case it's not a set time, it's whenever an election gets called, but at least you know it's never going to be longer than five years unless there's a war.

Recalls are extremely costly to the community and they force a special election. We know that. In most instances, they never require any kind of establishment of truth or even whether there is any merit in misconduct. It is primarily and often entirely a political rather than a judicial procedure.

I know the 15 states the member for Markham referred to use percentages. You have to get 15% of the voters who voted in the last election, or 10% in some cases, which I think is extremely minimal, but 20% to 25% is the average.

There is a problem there too. I'm going to use the federal government as an example rather than provincial, when the Liberals brought in, a number of years ago under Trudeau, the whole issue on abortion. Basically, if recall had been in place at that point, it could have meant that a special-interest group, on the basis of a free vote in the House, which it was, could have gotten the petitions. I have no doubt in my mind that they would have gotten 20% of the people who had voted in the election. They could conceivably have forced a member who had voted in favour or against, whichever the case may be, whatever their wishes were, and caused another election to be called.

I don't think the intent of recall is on whether or not your political views are different. I think really the intent of recall is, in the case of the example used by the member for Markham, anger that you didn't know much of the information before or during an election campaign. But I think there too, there is some responsibility on the voters in this country to find out about their members and take the time to do that. We in this country are very lucky to be able to vote, and unfortunately I think we have taken it for granted. Many people sit back and only when there is an election called pay any attention to what's going on. That is a real shame.

I will not be supporting the bill of the member for Markham. I thank you for allowing me this time. I'm going to stop now because I have other members of my party would like to speak.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I don't want to be mean-spirited, but I think the member who just spoke could be, in some respects, a candidate for recall with her own electors. I'm thinking of the situation with the murder of Constable Joe MacDonald some time ago in her own community. A few days after that shooting she got up and made a statement in this House about the Trivial Pursuit run by the Rotary club; not one reference to the screwup of the Ontario parole board, chaired by an NDP appointee, and the fact that this individual was out on the streets to commit murder.

In any event, this is an important initiative undertaken by the member for Markham, who is well known in this House and has significant tenure here in introducing very meaningful and helpful measures into the Legislature in terms of trying to help the people of Ontario. I want to say that I recognize the concerns in his riding in respect to the federal member Mr Bhaduria.

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): That's a cheap shot.

Mr Runciman: That wasn't a cheap shot; that was a legitimate shot.

Interjection: You should be recalled, sir.

Mr Runciman: Go and ask the people of Sudbury who should be recalled. We'll see how many of you are recalled in the next election. It'll be a very significant number.

I want to talk about the Arizona situation, which is the most recent one in memory, where the governor of Arizona, I believe, was recalled. He had made some very radical comments. He made some disparaging remarks about Martin Luther King Day in the United States and refused to recognize it as part of a national holiday in the state of Arizona. There were a significant number of petitioners who asked for a recall vote, and that individual was, in the subsequent election, removed from office. I think that's an appropriate initiative.

I understand the example used by my colleague the member for Markham -- the only example, I gather, in Canada -- was of Mr Aberhart, who introduced that kind of legislation and then was the subject of it himself in his own riding and cancelled the legislation.

I guess that's the problem I see, basically, with the Canadian system, where we have the parliamentary system and we don't have a division between the executive and legislative branches, so that quite often we see all of the power vested in the Premier's office or the Prime Minister's office. We see that has occurred essentially in this government. We saw it in the Mulroney government. We're seeing it happen again in the federal government under Mr Chrétien.

So that's a difficulty where a Prime Minister, for example, or a Premier can, in an arbitrary way, cancel this kind of initiative against perhaps the wishes of the people of the province or the country or even his own members, because there is so much power under our system vested in the office of the leader of the government.

I think this goes hand in hand with referendum legislation as well, which is an indication of how the people feel about a given issue. I feel very strongly, as I know the member who's going to speak following me from our party feels very strongly, about referendum legislation so the electorate have an opportunity to speak on very controversial issues.

Too often in the past we've seen all of the three mainstream parties, Conservative, Liberal and NDP, singing from the same hymn-book, whether it's Meech Lake or the Charlottetown accord, very controversial issues like official bilingualism; those kinds of issues where people, ordinary everyday citizens, have heard no one in the legislatures of Canada or the federal House speaking on their behalf because they've been intimidated by party discipline, party whips, and have toed the line because of their own personal ambitions or what have you and have not spoken out on behalf of the people they represent.

There has to be a mechanism available to ordinary citizens to ensure that their representatives are speaking on their behalf, and they shouldn't have to wait four or five years to take action.

We had Mr Svend Robinson, a federal NDP member, talking about how he may be convicted of a crime. I'm not sure if it's obstruction of justice; something to do with a BC logging firm. He said, "I'm not going to leave office if I'm convicted." "The only way I can be removed is if I'm sentenced for up to five years in federal penitentiary. Then I'm removed from office."

Well, it seems to me that's a significant weakness, if someone has to be sentenced to five years in federal penitentiary before he can be removed from office. We could have individuals commit very significant crimes and apparently their electorate cannot have any recourse in terms of removing those individuals from office; significant weaknesses.

We're seeing more populist parties arise in this country, which I think is important, so that these kinds of issues are being raised now in the legislatures and the federal House which were not raised to any significant extent in the past.

I want to again compliment the member for Markham for bringing this issue to the attention of the Legislature. Once again, he's doing a fine job not only representing Markham but the people of Ontario.

Mr David Winninger (London South): I'm certainly pleased as well to rise and debate the resolution before the House today.

It's my perception that the Conservative Party has never been more interested in recall than when they find themselves in opposition, and I noticed with some interest the member for Markham's reference to the US experience with recalls and the fact that 75% of all recalls were at the municipal level; 50% of those were successful.

I understand that the member for Markham actually has municipal ambitions and perhaps when he attains his aspirations he may well wish to introduce some kind of amendment to the Election Act that would permit him to be recalled in the same way that Bill Aberhart sought the same conclusion -- until he was in office. Once he was in office, as the member for Markham noted --

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): That was then; this is now.

Mr Winninger: My colleague says, "That was then; this is now."

David Pond, in his very good research paper, indicated that as soon as the recall movement started against Mr Aberhart himself the legislation was introduced by Mr Aberhart retroactive to the day that the recall legislation of Alberta gained royal assent and was successful in staving off recall effort on him.

I can't go on without observing the remarks of the member for Leeds-Grenville in regard to my esteemed colleague from Sudbury who spoke earlier in these proceedings. I think that kind of cheap and tawdry remark has no place in this House. Certainly, we all commiserated with the family of the officer slain in Sudbury, and to somehow link my colleague from Sudbury, whose services to her own constituents are inestimable, with that kind of violent act is totally reprehensible and I'm sure the member from Markham across the floor probably winced when he heard those remarks from the member for Leeds-Grenville.

Suffice it to say that there are many criticisms of recall legislation. I know there is an illusion that recall will somehow make politicians more accountable and responsive, and we need more of that today. We have a system of representative democracy that has served us well ever since it developed from what was direct democracy in ancient Athenian times. But with representative democracy comes a certain responsibility. We have recall, Mr Speaker, as you know. Governments can only serve for a term of up to five years. If the electorate don't like what they've done, then they're subject to recall.

The fallacy with recall legislation is this: We elect people to office; we expect them to display leadership; we expect them sometimes, as this government has had to do on several occasions, to make tough decisions. These decisions may not have immediate short-term benefits, although many of them do, but they may be in the nature of sound planning for the future.

If, as my colleague from Sudbury observed, politicians constantly have to look over their shoulder lest the wealthy and privileged interest groups in their constituencies attempt to muster votes to oust them from office, they cannot make the kinds of decisions that they need to make on a daily basis. The reason I say the benefits of recall legislation are illusory is that they don't benefit the average voter. The average voter does not have the resources to go out and collect 20,000 names on a petition. Certainly the wealthy and influential people do, and to enable them to influence governmental decisions in that kind of way I think does not serve democracy well.

I think it's important to note, as the member from Markham didn't, that the report of the Lortie Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing, after several years of consultation and several million dollars of spending, came to the conclusion that recall legislation would prevent compromise among regional and special interests within the government; that because we tend to have a high turnover of MPs and MPPs at the provincial and federal level we don't necessarily need recall; that voters tend to be highly influenced by party leaders and not necessarily by decision-making of the backbenchers; that interest and lobby groups, as I said, can mount very expensive campaigns to oust very responsible politicians from office; and, finally, that successful recall would allow a vociferous minority within a riding to upset a majority that's been arrived at across the province.

In conclusion, and we have one more of my colleagues who wishes to speak, I think that recall legislation is inopportune. It hasn't served those jurisdictions in the US well. In Alberta it was a complete sham. I think the resolution should be defeated.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): This is a debate that I'm particularly pleased to join. I agree with elements of what all of the speakers have spoken about. I'm going to support my colleague the member for Markham because I think this is a useful resolution.

The resolution speaks to the fact that we need to refer this matter to a legislative committee for study. Indeed, it's interesting to see that in BC, in the last provincial election, a huge number of the electorate voted in favour of both referenda and recall, and the two issues go together. Under recall, 73.75% of the voters in BC said yes, they wanted recall mechanisms, and 74% of the electorate said, in the last election, that they wanted to have access to citizen-initiated referenda and indeed government-initiated referenda.

This would engage people in direct democracy. There is a strong need to move to direct democracy from our current system of representative democracy because, frankly, there is a great cynicism today, not just in Canada but in all the western world, about the role of politicians and their responsiveness to the people who are our masters. Let us not forget that the electors are our masters.

The problem in debating this undoubtedly is the fact that yes, there is a danger that as long as we have not made the final step to total direct democracy, within our present system an individual member can, to some extent, be held to ransom by the desires of a small, vociferous minority. The evidence in the US would suggest that it is neither exclusively the left nor the right in the political spectrum that is involved in this. There is pretty much a balance with respect to the success of the organizations who move referenda items in the US.

Here we are today with the situation that there is a member of the federal Parliament who is beyond the reach of anything we can do here, but at least we can send a signal out. But that member was elected with patently false representations about his qualifications, and that's very disturbing. There was a very fine member of Parliament representing that area who was swept away in the last election. He was a Conservative, and by every measure all of the people of that riding have agreed that he was a very effective member, a very non-partisan member, somebody who worked very hard for the people of that area.

But in the leadership politics that we find we have in Canada, where so much depends on the popularity or the unpopularity of a leader, the tide sweeps somebody away.

I suspect that if an election were held today with the knowledge that those people in Markham have, the previous member would be re-elected with a massive majority. But that's water under the bridge. The fact is that we have an electorate that is disturbed by the lack of accountability of some of its members.

Surely, we should be doing everything we can to re-establish the confidence of the people in our system. I think the most important move would be to allow for citizen-initiated referenda. Indeed, I introduced a private member's bill some two and a half years ago on this very issue. Mr Speaker, you were in the chair at the time and you will recall it was a tied vote and you cast your ballot and it passed.

But in the ways of this House, the private member's bill disappeared into the ether because the government of the day blocked the movement of that private member's bill into a standing committee, which meant that essentially it was dead, even though it had been passed by this House.

The public want to feel that they have some ownership of the political process between elections. At the moment they don't feel that way. That is why my party has gone out and consulted very, very widely in the last three and a half years with the electorate. But the public has no concrete way of addressing its distaste for individual politicians.

If we were to introduce a system which would allow for the recall of a politician, I would say that we should be very careful that the circumstances under which recall can occur must be very, very strict, so that there cannot be a capricious use of this. Clearly, where there is a violation, lying to the public, then that member should be removed. Where there is any fraud, that member should be removed, and we're not talking about if that member has served five years plus a day in federal penitentiary. We should be able to remove the person expeditiously.

This would allow at least a committee of the Legislature to examine the issue and arrive at a fair way that would allow the safety valves of the electorate to be able to say, "I can affect the outcome of what happens with respect to my local politician," whom they may or may not have elected.

But we must set the barrier at which they need to get a number of signatures sufficiently high that we don't get a very small minority essentially blackmailing that member, because I'm mindful of the fact that in times of extreme economic difficulty, such as the time we face now, a member who votes for a very unpopular financial bill which may in fact impact their own riding would be in danger of being swept away under this. We must make sure that allow sufficient latitude for members to vote their conscience and to be able to face the electorate in the next election.

But there are clearly circumstances under which members should be removed at an earlier period of time.

I commend my colleague the member for Markham and I hope this passes today so that we can have an opportunity to send it to a committee and at least debate it in an intelligent, open way and allow public input. I am disturbed at the fact that all I get during this debate is constant heckling from the NDP. Clearly, they feel that if they oppose this, they can wash their hands of the fact that they have done a very poor job in government. They are scared of the implications of what this bill would do.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I'm pleased to rise this morning to speak to this resolution. I would say right off the bat I think it's crazy, and that's being blunt, but I would also suggest that the member has got something mixed up here. Here he is, he brings this resolution forward to affect the members of this Legislature and he's going to resign his seat and he's going to run for the mayor of Markham.

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): Is he campaigning for mayor?

Mr Mills: Yes. He's telling us what to do and then he's bolting off. He says here, "...recognizing that recall provides citizens with the opportunity to exercise accountability over their elected officials." I might suggest to the honourable mayor of Markham that he introduce this legislation as a motion in his council as soon as he's elected and then we can practise what happens in --

Ms Murdock: That's presuming he gets elected.

Mr Mills: If he gets elected; I don't know about that.

In all fairness, let's get serious here. We have followed the British parliamentary system for centuries. It's been the parliamentary system in the mother of parliaments in London, England, it's been the mother of parliaments in the House of Commons in Ottawa, and our role here is also governed by that centuries-old tradition that works, and it's worked for centuries. Why someone would come in here and suggest some crackpot resolution to change a system that has been in operation for centuries in the western world is absolutely beyond me.

This resolution reeks of "those that have got the gold will win." We know that this, coming from that party, is bent upon the ones who have got the money will go out and they will corral special-interest groups to start a recall, and if anything happens that they don't like, they've got the power and they've got the resources, and the common man in the street is left to one side and he can do nothing. I think this is the most dreadful resolution I've ever seen.

Can you imagine a day after an election -- and they haven't gotten over the NDP getting elected yet. They're still smarting. They're smarting all over the province. They're smarting in my riding. They can't look me in the face, they're so upset still, and here we are nearly four years down the road. Can you imagine if we got elected and then a group of these people with the money said: "We don't like that. Let's recall that guy now. Let's get rid of him"? It would undermine the whole electoral process because they would have the right to recall someone they didn't like, and that's the basis of what they want. They just want to get rid of the wrong people.

Ms Haeck: No merit, right?

Mr Mills: No, there's no merit in it at all. Can you imagine, we would be constantly electioneering. It would be awful. We wouldn't be able to do anything.

Mr Huget: That's what Cousens is doing now.

Mr Mills: Well, we know.

In closing -- and I've got nine seconds; seven -- I think we should stick with the balanced approach that's tried, true and works in this country and it works all across -- we've had Russians come here and ask what we're doing. They want to use us as an example. Crazy.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): What this resolution is all about, in my view, and with all due respect to my friend from Markham, is the contest for mayor of Markham, essentially. I know my friend is running for mayor of Markham. I'm probably giving him a little publicity now by saying this, but that is what it's all about this morning. It's an interesting initiative. As a politician, I should perhaps compliment him on this particular initiative, if I can use that word, which is used often in the United States.

This is an imposition of American politics on Canada, and that's what it's all about. The difficulty is that in a British parliamentary system it's difficult to apply the American political system to Canada, because it's a system in the United States, as we know, that separates the executive and legislative branches,

whereas in Canada the executive and legislative branches are integrated into one. The British parliamentary system does not lend itself to a lot of the changes that people in the right wing in the United States are endeavouring to implement.

This is not to say that the member has not raised an issue which is not on the public's mind. Obviously in the riding he represents, in the federal situation there's been a lot of publicity and a lot of frustration. I want to say that the member has at least raised an issue which is on the public mind, and it's something we always have to wrestle with in the British parliamentary system as to how we're going to handle it.

I've listened to speakers talk about the federal member for the riding that Mr Cousens is a provincial member for and, while I certainly do not endorse what I have seen so far from that member and some of the things that have happened by any means, I really think there is a biblical saying out there that says something like, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone."

If I were to look at all of the members of various elected bodies in this country who've been elected not exactly telling the truth, that would certainly disqualify a lot of people from public office because they sometimes haven't exactly portrayed themselves as they are and they've made promises that clearly cannot be delivered. That could apply to a lot of people.

In the case the member makes reference to, I can certainly understand the frustration of the people there. It's important for political parties to work hard to try to make sure that the candidates who come forward are portraying themselves as they really are and are reputable people. It's incumbent upon political parties to do that; I think most of us would agree that that is the case.

I listened to the member for Don Mills and he had an interesting thing to say that I think concerns a lot of people with the issue of recall: that it places elected members in a position where they can become the captive of special-interest groups.

Certainly this is the case in many cases in the United States where political action committees have a great influence over members of Congress and members of state legislatures, or at least try to exercise that. If you have a recall provision, it'll become even greater.

First of all, a lot of the people interested in recall are partisans. The member for Durham East has clearly indicated that after the last election there were a lot of bitter people. There are after any election where one government is defeated and another government is put in place.

I'm sure there were Liberals and Conservatives and others who might well have wanted to initiate some kind of recall on any one of the NDP members across the floor, particularly newer members in ridings where the NDP had not been particularly successful before. But they had been elected by the people of this province and they serve as they see fit. The people of this province will have a chance to pass judgment on election day; we'll either re-elect the government or elect one of the other political parties to govern in Ontario.

I find it very concerning to me that special-interest groups, particularly powerful and rich special-interest groups, could torpedo the political representation within a riding, could take over that riding. That's a great danger to me because I think our responsibility is to represent all of the people within a constituency, not simply special-interest groups.

When people come into our constituency offices, we know that we represent not only those who are there to perhaps get more out of the system but also those who must pay the tab; those who overwhelmingly do not get access to the system, do not get anything directly out of the system, but have to pay the bills.

I think it's important as well, as this resolution points out, that in an election campaign -- and I think we all encourage this -- people watch carefully as the campaign unfolds, that the news media present for people the information that is necessary, that people go to the public meetings to question candidates, that there be extensive canvassings of the candidates' views and the candidates' qualifications, to ensure at least that when the people vote for them they know what they're voting for. I think again there would be a consensus on that.

I know recall has some popularity in western Canada, in certain provinces in the far west of Canada in particular. But once again, it becomes an almost untenable situation if political representatives constantly have to be looking over their shoulder at powerful special-interest groups who are trying to bring them down. It makes it more difficult to do their job on behalf of their constituents.

All of us should be consulting our constituents on an ongoing basis. We do it simply by conversations in the street, by people who call constituency offices, by mail that comes in, by various events that we attend where we have access to people or by going out and questioning people about their views and issues. We also have, of course, access to the news media, whether it happens to be the formality of a newspaper where you have a letters to the editor column or you have radio talk shows where people may express their views.

There is a variety of ways that those of us in public office can get the views of the people, and I think it's going to be important and incumbent upon all who have any role in this to ensure that when we present candidates for public office at any level, we make certain that we have all of the information available that will be helpful to the public.

I think that where there is clearly a breaking of the law, a violation of the Criminal Code, there should be provision -- I believe there is provision in certain cases -- that members are removed from public office. The Parliament of Canada and the Legislature of Ontario have a bar that is a legal constitution of the Legislature which can deal with people in the Legislature who have perhaps not been as they should be.

I can recall, being a history teacher, that one of the people who was kicked out of this Legislature on a number of occasions was William Lyon Mackenzie. He was elected by his constituents and turfed out by the members of the Legislature, elected by his constituents and turfed out, largely because of the viewpoint that he held rather than anything else.

I recognize why this is coming forward. I recognize the importance of this issue. I said in a rather humorous way at the beginning that it was the mayor's race that we're talking about, but I also want to say to the member that I think it's an issue that we have to wrestle with as political parties, as a society, as the news media, everyone involved in the process, to see that we have the appropriate mechanism for electing candidates.

But coming down on whether one is going to be in favour of this or not, I see many dangers of special-interest groups, powerful and rich, being able to control members of Parliament, to threaten members of Parliament that if they don't vote one way on an issue or take a stand on an issue, they're going to be recalled. The member spends then a good deal of time fighting that action instead of appropriately dealing with the constituents' issues. Listen, if you go out there today, with the mood of the electorate and what people generally think of politicians, it's popular to be able to get at them all the time.

Except I think that when people listen to the full debate on this kind of issue, most people, at least people of moderation, will come down on the side of the British parliamentary system as it is constituted, with very strong news media out there to call people to account and of course with a message to political parties and to individuals that people being presented for public office should be those of honest qualifications and those who are reputable in every possible way.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate? The official opposition still has almost five minutes. The Conservatives are almost out of time.

Mr Bradley: On that basis, I guess I'm going to be continuing. I was hoping my colleague the member for Renfrew North was going to be here to speak to this piece of legislation.

I think this is one piece of legislation which, if passed, would lead to some other Americanization of the Canadian system. I think if you're going to move to the American system, you have to adopt the entire American system. It's very difficult to have a hybrid.

We in this country and in this province have elected people for a certain period of time. If there's a need for a change -- for instance, if people believe there should be a fixed term -- that's a matter of a different debate and maybe a matter which would have some significant support. If people out there felt that petitions should have more importance or that we should have more referenda, depending on what the issues are, again that's another issue to be discussed and it may have some more considerable support than this particular one.

I look at people over the years who have taken some unpopular stands in this Legislature and I think under recall provisions, particularly strict recall provisions, could be removed from public office simply because the stand they took happened to be unpopular at a point in time, particularly when that stand is defending for instance the rights of a minority. I can think of members of the Legislature of all political parties who have taken certain stands that haven't been popular over the years.

I could imagine they would be recalled by people who simply didn't like the political point of view they espoused, as opposed to the fact that a person had broken a law, that a person had been particularly disreputable.

Our system does allow, at the conclusion of a term, for the removal of people, and it does allow for the public to put pressure where there is considerable concern about the qualifications of a person or the manner in which a person is conducting herself or himself. There is a news medium out there which is extremely vigilant these days on this issue. Members of the Legislature themselves are vigilant on these issues as we discuss matters before the House.

Once again, I think it's important for us, when we're making our decisions, to talk about three or four different sections of people. First of all, there are obviously the so-called experts. You listen to the civil service and you listen to political staff when you're on the government side. But it's exceedingly important that we not simply spin a cocoon around ourselves in this Legislature and in the federal Parliament and simply talk to one another or talk to the so-called experts.

That's why I think it's important that governments listen to the government caucus, to members of that caucus. It's important for cabinet ministers to do that, to listen to members of the caucus who are out there talking to people on an ongoing basis, getting that input from people, so that we can make good judgements. This may shock some of the members of this Legislature, but not all of the wisdom in the province resides in this House or in the federal Parliament. I'm sure it won't shock the general population of this country or this province, but it doesn't. That's why it's important for us, through various means of outreach, to get those opinions.

That's why it's important as well that we maintain a good, solid standard of life in terms of representing people out there. People don't want crooks in local office or in provincial office or federal office. All of us have to be vigilant, whether it's within our own parties or other parties or for the municipal level, to watch for any signs of corruption. We have a police force out there that can investigate, that has conducted some investigations over the years and has made some prosecutions which have resulted in people being removed from public office, heavily fined, placed on probation or in some cases they've gone to jail.

We would support that, because as elected representatives, it's important to know that when one or two people are cast in this light, when one or two people are corrupt or crooked, then it reflects in a very unfortunate fashion on all elected representatives. That becomes, in the minds of many people, the norm,

whereas I think most of us who have served in public office would say that the overwhelming number of people we have served with, regardless of their political affiliation, regardless of the stands they have taken on issues, have been reputable people, have been doing the best they possibly can under very difficult circumstances.

I commend the member for at least talking about this in the Legislature. I think it's important. I wish there were a mechanism that could solve what he wants to, but I don't think this is the mechanism.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Markham has three minutes and some seconds in conclusion.

Mr Cousens: First of all, I'd like to thank all members for participating in this discussion or debate of the issue that is very, very important to me and to many people here in Ontario. I appreciate the fact that you may not all agree with me, but at least we've had a chance to begin some formal discussion in this House.

I also want to thank members of our community who have been involved in this process: Richard Van Seeters, Ivy Persaud, Kathleen Freeman, Judith Suraski, who have also been very, very concerned about this whole issue for a long, long time.

Our community feels tremendously violated by the process and would like to find some way in which, for the future, we as a society have mechanisms in place that provide the checks and balances and the opportunity for people to open those doors.

I think the concerns that have been raised by members of this House have to be addressed through the process that I've suggested. Let the legislative committee begin that dialogue and look for ways. The federal government is starting that now. It is something that we have seen across the States; we see it being considered in Canada at the federal level. Why could we not begin it here in this House? When I launch this effort, it's purely a matter of making democracy more available to more people.

Some of the issues that came out through the debate: Democracy is costly. The member for Sudbury brings up the high cost of the whole recall process. Let's deal with the cost. The costs are part of what democracy is all about, and I think we have to be prepared to pay for democracy. We haven't found a better way yet. There is a cost, and I think we, in our democracy, want to make sure that people continue to be involved in that democratic process.

I think the member for Leeds-Grenville brought up the point of referendum legislation. The people in Switzerland have an approach, far more than we, but we've got to get back to the people so that there's an ongoing dialogue between legislators and the public, not just by listening but also by really searching out their participation.

To the member for London South, I'll make this statement with regard to municipal politics: What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I think if we could begin this whole process, it would fall directly on to the municipal level as well. I would support that.

The member for York Mills talked about the cynicism of the political process. That is partly why my resolution today would begin to deal with that cynicism. You just have to come up to Markham and understand the level of frustration that people have. How else can they deal with it? The doors are all closed. I'm asking for a way of opening those doors at the federal level and the provincial level.

The member for Durham East is not prepared to look at any changes to the Westminster model. It isn't perfect. In eastern Europe, they're changing their constitutions on a far more regular basis. Why can't we begin to change our processes here at Queen's Park that allow for more participation by more people and provide for the checks and balances?

The member for St Catharines talks about American politics in Canada. Yes, that is part of the problem we all face, but no one has developed the perfect method for making democracy work. All I'm trying to do through this resolution is look for those checks and balances and find a way of getting people to own their Parliament all the time, not just every four or five years when there's an election.

The Acting Speaker: We will further deal with this motion at 12 noon.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA SANTÉ ET LA SÉCURITÉ AU TRAVAIL

Mr Winninger moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 157,

An Act to amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act / Projet de loi 157, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la santé et la sécurité au travail.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): The honourable member will have 10 minutes to initiate debate, after which all recognized parties in the Legislature will have up to 15 minutes to participate in the debate.

Mr David Winninger (London South): Bill 157 amends the Occupational Health and Safety Act to ensure that workers will continue to be paid if an employer shuts down all or part of the workplace because of a worker's refusal to work under unsafe conditions or pending correction of those conditions.

Mr Speaker, as you may know, over decades -- in fact, for a whole century and upwards -- occupational health and safety was regarded as being within the exclusive purview of the employer. It was part of management.

This all changed in the early 1970s. In the early 1970s, several miners went on strike at Elliot Lake protesting their unsafe working conditions and vowed not to return to the workplace until those unsafe working conditions were removed or corrected.

In direct response to the action by the miners at Elliot Lake, a Royal Commission on the Health and Safety of Workers in Mines was struck by the government of the day, with the support and assistance of the then Leader of the Opposition, Stephen Lewis. This royal commission was chaired by Dr James Ham, a professional engineer, and was established in response to the concerns expressed by those miners of Elliot Lake.

As a result of the very important work done by Professor Ham, the first Employees' Health and Safety Act was passed in 1976, allowing workers the statutory right to refuse unsafe work for the first time and to accompany government inspectors throughout the plant, and allowing them the option of establishing health and safety committees jointly with management and the right to find out what hazardous substances were being used in the workplace.

The Occupational Health and Safety Act first came into force in 1979. Since then, amendments have been made from time to time, including the workplace hazardous materials information system, but the most important amendments came with Bill 208, passed in 1990.

The underlying principle of the Occupational Health and Safety Act is one that places joint or internal responsibility on management but also on labour, the workers, so a balance is struck in the government's role of enforcing compliance with the act and emphasis is placed on the cooperation of labour and management in removing unsafe working conditions. This role typically is carried out through the health and safety committees of each plant. However, where the internal voluntary system of responsibility doesn't work and breaks down, then a worker has the right under the act to refuse unsafe work.

What we have under Bill 208 is an enhancement of the powers and rights of workers and health and safety committees and inspectors, while at the same time increasing the statutory rights of employers. Certified members of the health and safety committees are given authority to issue stop-work directives and inspectors receive greater enforcement powers. So there is, as it were, a collaborative approach ideally to health and safety issues.

The consultation, as I said, occasionally breaks down. In some of these situations following inspections, fines are levied, fines of $25,000 in the case of individuals or $500,000 in the case of companies. But we know that enforcement alone does not solve all of the problems and that what you need is a multipronged strategy that includes education, prevention and, yes, enforcement.

The Workplace Health and Safety Agency, created in 1991, which is fairly autonomous but still reports to the Minister of Labour, has a number of important roles. It certifies members of the health and safety committees. It administers health and safety education. It oversees the activities of the occupational health and safety delivery organizations, accredits employers, promotes occupational health and safety and develops standards of performance.

But these three fundamental rights are still paramount under the Occupational Health and Safety Act: the right to know about workplace health and safety hazards; the right to participate in health and safety recommendations through joint health and safety committees; and finally, the right to refuse work that endangers health and safety.

During the hearings in 1990 on Bill 208, under the former Liberal government, there were several locals that came forward and said the bill should be amended to guarantee payment at all stages of work refusal. This was echoed by OPSEU, CUPE, the United Steelworkers and Canadian Paperworkers locals, just to name a few. The NDP in 1990 moved an amendment to Bill 208 to ensure that where there is no work for a worker when there's a refusal to work, the worker shall not be paid less than 100% of the worker's regular premium rate.

That amendment unfortunately was defeated by the Liberal majority of the day. We do have a few collective agreements that cover worker in these situations. I need to be very precise on this point. The decisions coming out of the Ontario Labour Relations Board indicate that where a worker refuses unsafe work, he or she will likely be paid, but all of those other workers who are sent home on account of that work stoppage are not entitled to be paid unless there's a provision in the collective agreement. That's what Bill 157 is designed to address.

We have several documented cases that I've been informed of where the plant, due to shortage of a part or slow sales or a heavy repair inventory, will send workers home without pay while a health and safety refusal is resolved. However, if there is a need for high production and overtime, these health and safety concerns tend to be resolved very quickly.

In the absence of collective agreements covering these situations, Bill 157 would amend the act to ensure that workers will continue to be paid if an employer shuts down all or part of a workplace because of a worker's refusal to work in unsafe conditions or pending correction of those conditions. This gives the workers a meaningful right to refuse unsafe working conditions free of pressure from peer workers who may not get paid as a result of being sent home during a work stoppage.

Some may say, what if a worker refuses to work frivolously? We know the worker will be subject to discipline which would be upheld, I'm confident, by an arbitrator or by the labour relations board.

We've seen a decrease in the number of immediate job-related deaths over the last five years, and lost-time injury rates in the industrial sector have decreased over this same period. With a meaningful right to refuse conferred on a worker, to refuse unsafe working conditions free of peer pressure, I expect there will be fewer workplace accidents and deaths and fewer claims for workers' compensation once this legislation is enforced, which would nicely complement some of the initiatives recently announced by the Minister of Labour to reform our workers' compensation system.

I note that among the spectators in the members' gallery east are Joe Zsoldos, Bill Gilmore, Percy Nelson and Deb Graves of CAW 1520, and other people who have since arrived whom I've been unable to add to the list.

This bill has the support of the CAW provincial; it has the support of the Ontario Federation of Labour; it has, very importantly, the support of the president of Local 1520, Rick Witherspoon, who I don't think was able to make it today; it has the support of the London and District Labour Council and many locals all across the province, including the Steelworkers. So I'm pleased that this bill has this broad measure of support and I look forward to hearing other comments from my colleagues in the House.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member will have two minutes in wrapup after the debate. Further debate.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Perhaps I'll spend a little more time on some of the positions that our party took in the Bill 208 debate and on dealing with some of the issues in a recent report put out, referred to as Back to the Future, which is the result of an outreach tour that was conducted by myself, as the Labour critic, and our staff. I'll spend more time on that than I will in commenting on the member's speech, but there are a couple of things that I just cannot leave unsaid.

I find it fascinating to hear the debate from the members opposite, talking about the wonderful accomplishments that were arrived at through the implementation of Bill 208. With due respect to the member, I recognize that he was not in this place during that debate, nor were, I believe, any of the members who are currently here this morning. But it was quite a rancorous and acrimonious and difficult debate, with the NDP fighting every single aspect of Bill 208.

Of course, they've now taken the result of Bill 208, which is the health and safety agency, and turned it into one of the greatest boondoggles in the history of this province, putting their friends in charge of it, Mr Forder particularly, but others who have gone around and completely destroyed the principles that were put in place in Bill 208 that would have made health and safety training better in this province.

It's really very fascinating to hear the debate today when they reopen perhaps some of the wounds of Bill 208 and deal again with some of the issues surrounding frivolous shutdowns, parts not arriving on time, equipment breaking and the right to refuse work.

I would take the member and you, Mr Speaker, back to the debate and the concerns of both labour and management. One of the most important principles of Bill 208 was exactly what the member putting this bill forward has said, and that was to place emphasis on cooperation between management and labour.

The great fear, perhaps unfounded, of management was that with a unilateral right to shut down the workplace without any kind of consultation, a worker perhaps could use it for purposes other than health and safety: perhaps.

Interjections.

Mr Mahoney: Well, that was their fear. I'm not asking you to agree with it; I'm making a statement of reality, that this was their fear, that if someone were running to be shop steward, they could perhaps create an issue on the floor of the plant and use that for their purposes.

Interestingly enough, what was overlooked was that if they made a decision to shut it down, pay stopped for everybody involved, previous to 208. Interesting. The business community said, "We don't care. We think if there's enough political interference and manipulation" -- and we've all seen the kind of manipulating the NDP is capable of -- "they will take the workplace and turn it into a political forum for the gain of their philosophical bent," as you hear Bob White -- and it's very nice to see many members of the Canadian Labour Congress in the audience today -- standing up and saying, "We've got to fight the corporate agenda."

This nonsense has to stop in this country. We have to get labour and management working together again the way they used to and stop the political rhetoric. I don't care if Mr White wants to run to be the leader of the federal New Democratic Party. Why doesn't he have the guts to stand up and do it? Why doesn't he have the guts to stand up and face the electorate? That's what he should do. That's where he should be fighting his political battles.

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): What has this got to do with it?

Mr Mahoney: This has a lot to do with it, because this is the same type of thing.

I just want to say that it's really, really important that we deal with issues that work in the workplace. What this bill is attempting to do is to tilt the playing field even more in the direction of the radicals such as Mr White and others in the labour movement. I find that regrettable. I wish members of this government could take some time to put forward private members' bills that would do something about getting the economy going again, that would create jobs, that would make health and safety work in this province, instead of the kind of nonsense that's going on under the leadership of Mr Forder and the agency.

I made a number of recommendations which I'd like to share with you. Just before I do that, let me go back to Bill 208. Bill 208 says, "A worker may refuse to work or do particular work where he or she has reason to believe" equipment or a machine could endanger himself or someone else, the physical condition of the workplace is not acceptable and could endanger himself or someone else, any equipment that he or others are using could endanger him or someone else -- I'm paraphrasing, but that's the principle.

"Upon refusing to work or do particular work, the worker shall promptly report the circumstances of the refusal to the worker's employer or supervisor, who shall forthwith investigate the report in the presence of the worker, and, if there is such, in the presence of one of" a committee member, a health and safety representative, a worker who has particular knowledge or experience and has been selected by workers to represent them.

"An inspector shall investigate the refusal to work in the presence of the employer or a person representing the employer, the worker and, if there is such," a person as mentioned before.

"Pending the investigation and decision...the worker shall remain at a safe place near his or her workstation" during normal working hours etc. The employer may "assign the worker reasonable alternative work" if there is a problem, and subject to

section 50, where an assignment has been made of reasonable alternative work, if it is not practicable to do that work, the employer may give other directions.

"A person shall be deemed to be at work and the person's employer shall pay him or her at the regular or premium rate, as may be proper," for the time spent during the investigation and for the time spent carrying out the duties under subsections (11) and (12).

The principle here was that when a worker finds a problem, whether it's a shop for the CAW or Steel or wherever it is in the province, they contact their supervisor and say: "We have a serious problem. We want this investigated immediately." The employer is to move immediately to conduct, along with the worker, those investigations, and they are to correct the problem.

The concern and fear that the business community has put forward, with some justification, frankly, has been that if a worker can simply decide they're going to try to shut down the particular segment of their operation and continue to get paid for doing so, there could be frivolous complaints laid from a worker about health and safety issues.

Why don't we deal with the issues here? Why don't we deal with better health and safety and make the employers and the workers work together for better health and safety?

I'd like to quote from the Outreach report, which recommends some 36 changes to the WCB, which of course is tied very directly into health and safety and into the principles behind this bill:

"During the Outreach consultations many small and large employers expressed frustration with the efforts of the Workplace Health and Safety Agency in the delivery of health and safety programs, primarily in the area of certification training."

The agency was created, as you know, in 1991, by changes to the Occupational Health and Safety Act. It was "to be responsible for the establishment of health and safety committees comprised of workers and employers in the delivery of certification training in Ontario workplaces.

"To date, the certification exercise has proven to be controversial at best and a disaster at worst. It has become increasingly evident that the responsibility for the delivery of health and safety programs must rest with the Workers' Compensation Board.

"Bill 208," referred to by the previous speaker, "was a Liberal initiative that established the creation of [this agency]. The agency oversaw the creation of joint workplace health and safety committees in the delivery of core certification training for Ontario workplaces. [It] has proven that bipartism has failed, and it will continue to fail as long as an adversarial component rests within the process. Many Ontario employers have expressed deep frustration with the degree of 'empire-building' that has become commonplace at the Workplace Health and Safety Agency."

This report makes a number of recommendations about how we can better deliver health and safety training, and that should be the goal of all of us, all of us in this place, in the workplace, in management, in organized labour. That should be our number one goal, because that is the way, ultimately, that we will make true reforms to the workers' compensation system work.

The first recommendation is that the agency "be reorganized into a separate department under the auspices of the Workers' Compensation Board, complete with a vice-president and staff...to ensure a stronger link between the delivery of health and safety programs and the prevention of workplace accidents."

The second recommendation is that "a bipartite occupational health and safety advisory committee" -- stress on the word "advisory" -- "be established to assist and advise the occupational health and safety department [of the WCB] in the analysis and implementation of health and safety programs. Members of the advisory committee will receive a per diem of $1 per day," which should take away the opportunity for this government or any other government to simply pay off their friends with $300- and $400-a-day jobs in health and safety.

Interjection: There's no money left. You spent it all.

Mr Mahoney: There is no money left, buddy, and you know it, because you've spent it all. You keep spending money you don't have.

The Acting Speaker: Interjections are out of order.

Mr Mahoney: The next recommendation -- you might be interested, you might learn something, but I doubt it -- is that "corporations that have training programs in place which satisfy the health and safety standards established by the proposed health and safety department be recognized and given credit for this training."

I had an interesting visit from some people from Inco, who said: "We have to send our workers to the worker centre in Hamilton, at an incredible cost, for three weeks of training, and we would classify the level of training delivered to them to be about grade 7 in educational terms. And for many years now," he said to me, "we at Inco have been running what we would classify as PhD health and safety training right in Sudbury. Why do we have to go to the worker centre in Hamilton?"

Well, you know the answer: because this is all about power. This is not about health and safety, this is not about reducing accidents. This is about political power of the NDP, using their friends in the labour movement to further their philosophy. If only you would stick to the issues that really matter, the issues of preventing accidents.

The next recommendation came as a result of offers that were put forward, that "the health and safety department seek out corporations and trade unions willing to provide specific training for small business at a cost pass-through basis." I think the trade labour movement should be actively involved in providing training right across this province --

Mr Hayes: Where have you been?

Mr Mahoney: I know they do now, and we should continue to do that through this kind of system. There are corporations that are willing to share their expertise and work with small and medium-sized businesses, who can't afford to take somebody off the job for three weeks and pay for some certification course and have them travel to Hamilton and stay in a hotel. I think we should be willing to accept the offer of those people to do that. That's one of the recommendations here, that they would "provide videos, literature and/or software...on a cost pass-through basis for health and safety training."

The final recommendation is that "the health and safety training provided by large and small employers, in addition to their accident experience record, be used in the setting and calculation of their rates."

Instead of dealing with an issue that was defeated by the former government and will be either defeated or repealed by the next government, why don't the members here deal with real reform to health and safety and do something about better training?

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I am going to join in the debate this morning concerning the bill that's been put forward by the member for London South. Obviously, what we're talking about today is the objective, which we would all agree with, to make our workplaces as safe as possible.

However, in this area of occupational health and safety we've seen a tremendous amount of controversy in recent years. We've seen a consultation process which has not considered the input of all the parties concerned. I personally am concerned and our party is very concerned about Bill 157, this Act to amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act, because again there has been absolutely no consultation with all the workplace partners. If we're going to make any changes whatsoever, it's absolutely essential that this consultation take place and that the views of all the partners are taken into consideration.

Unfortunately, this entire issue has done nothing but create a very uncertain climate within this province and has given us some very negative publicity outside of the province as well.

I believe what is being done here is again a very deliberate attempt by the government in power to destroy the delicate balance of power we have always enjoyed in this province between labour and management. We have tried to ensure that all parties have been taken into consideration. However, we have seen this government now on the issue of Bill 40, on the issue of WCB reform, on the changes to the Workplace Health and Safety Agency. We see a constant shifting of power towards the union leaders, with a complete disregard for management and the employees.

What is happening is that this government continues to put its own political agenda ahead of the interests of the people of this province. I continue to believe, as does our party, that occupational health and safety issues should be cooperatively worked out at each work site. I am very opposed to the introduction of this bill, which again introduces an adversarial aspect into the process of resolving workplace health and safety issues.

I just want to share some of the concerns this morning. I've had an opportunity to survey some of the groups and companies that are going to be impacted by this legislation, and these are some of the comments I have received.

This is from the Employers' Advocacy Council:

"This bill is going to interfere with the collective bargaining process between workers and their employers.

"Many employers already have provisions in place to provide employees with alternative employment where there is concern about the safety of a particular operation.

"Introduction of this bill will encourage abuse of the unsafe-work stoppage rights that are contained in

section 43. It will create a financial incentive for workers to refuse to do work until an investigation is completed," by the way, "a refusal that may be unfounded and will have absolutely no consequence to the worker. A worker could," if he or she chooses, "maliciously impose additional costs on the employer for circumstances that are unrelated to safety, where no unsafe work condition exist." That could happen as a result of the introduction of this Bill 157.

This bill, I can also tell you, "would be one more reason for business not to relocate or stay in Ontario," and this government has already given the business community sufficient reason not to stay here or expand its operations or to move into the province. We have effectively built a wall around this province, and unfortunately it's the people in this province who are suffering the consequences, because we just do not see the economic recovery and the new jobs that are happening throughout the rest of the Dominion of Canada.

In my own community, I have had in the past couple of years two companies not expand in Kitchener-Waterloo, but they're expanding in the southern United States. I can tell you it's because of legislation which destroys the balance between labour and management and tends to give all the power to the union leaders.

"This bill will continue to erode the ability of the employer to manage the workplace in a safe, effective and efficient manner," and it is, according to the Employers' Advocacy Council, "one more unnecessary intrusion into the workplace by government." That's another thing that's happening. The red tape, the regulation in this province is so great, imposes such a burden on the employer at the present time, that it is another reason for people to seek to go elsewhere, and as a result, our own people are losing their jobs.

This government seems to be totally unaware of the fact that the legislation it's introducing -- and this Bill 157 is just another piece -- is having a negative impact not only on people who are presently employed but on future jobs, jobs for our children and our grandchildren. They simply won't be here.

A good example yesterday was the reform of the WCB. The government totally refused to recognize, didn't acknowledge, that there's a financial problem at the WCB, and the supposed reform yesterday didn't address that problem one iota. There was no recognition that the unfunded liability stands at $11.5 billion. Again that legislation puts in jeopardy not only the benefits the injured workers enjoy today but any future benefits people might receive in the future.

I go ahead with another employer:

"We are concerned about the proposal in Bill 157 to oblige employers to pay workers in all situations where there is a work refusal. Our collective agreement provides for the ability to send workers home with pay under certain conditions, such as material shortages, inclement weather, equipment breakdowns, and where it has been determined that there are unsafe conditions.

"However, removal of any discretion would substantially alter the balance in the employment relationship and would allow the Occupational Health and Safety Act to be used more frequently in labour disputes."

I guess that's the key. That is the leverage this bill would give. It would be used not because of unsafe working practices; it would be used in labour disputes.

"The health and safety of our workforce is of paramount concern. We recognize and respect the right of workers to refuse work where there is imminent risk of harm. However, we experience work refusals reasonably frequently where the imminent risk is not apparent. Particularly in component facilities which produce parts on a just-in-time basis for assembly or in assembly plants where we are attempting to maximize output to meet market demand, the loss of production where the risk is not imminent is extremely expensive." Anyone who knows anything about just-in-time knows you've got to get your product out.

We also can see that the safety concerns are being recognized by management. They go on to say:

"Where a worker refuses work and the risk to health or safety is apparent, it is our practice to compensate all affected employees. However, where the risk is not apparent, the fact that a refusal might impact a large number of employees' compensation can be an effective motivator for the worker to seek alternative methods to resolve the issue."

Again there's opposition, because this Bill 157 can be abused and not used for the purpose for which it's intended, and that is to address the issue of unsafe working conditions. I think you will find that the majority of employers in this province are very committed to workplace safety.

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): Yes, and they did it all of their own free will.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Waterloo North has the floor.

Mrs Witmer: Another comment:

"The present legislation, Bill 157, does not provide a balance between the employer and the employee in that it does not provide for sanctions in cases where employees frivolously exercise their rights to leverage their employer relative to other issues." Again you can see that Bill 157 destroys that delicate balance.

"In such cases, the employer and, where assembly line production is involved, other employees may be adversely affected by employees who abuse the rights provided for under the act. The employer loses the production units which otherwise would have been manufactured or assembled, while the employees may lose wages they could have earned in those situations where production operations have to be suspended while the dispute is adjudicated by the ministry inspectorate.

"The bill will increase the leverage which a union or an individual may apply upon an employer by essentially eliminating all consequences related to a frivolous refusal except those to the employer," who loses production.

"The bill conflicts with the widely accepted collective bargaining principle that the employer pays for hours worked and does not promise or guarantee that any particular number of hours worked will be available to the workforce.

"The bill does not provide for sanctions against employees who abuse their rights under the act." So again, there's no balance.

"The bill could obligate the employer to continue to pay wages in situations where operations are suspended, even when the reason for the refusal is determined to be unfounded." How unjust; unjust, unfair.

Another comment here from a person opposed:

"There's a danger of work stoppages based on frivolous complaints about unsafe working conditions, and this bill will only make the frivolous complaints more obvious. Unions could make such complaints as a means of pressuring employers during collective bargaining discussions.

"Why is this bill even necessary? There is no widespread problem with regard to this issue and there is no need for such legislation. The current process has not caused unnecessary hardship for workers."

"What is Mr Winninger's interest in this issue?

"If it is to resolve a single instance in his own riding, perhaps the Ford plant in St Thomas, which I notice has an abnormally high number of work stoppages in comparison to all of the other Ford assembly plants. For example, in 1986, St Thomas had 138; the others had 45 and 59. If I take a look at 1993, the St Thomas plant had 229 incidents; the other plants had 33 and 30."

Maybe the suggestion that Mr Winninger has an instance in his own riding -- if he does, I would suggest to Mr Winninger that if there is an isolated occurrence, it's not necessary that you impose a law on all employers in this province. I would suggest to you that you should deal only with the issue in your own riding. Certainly if I look at the history from 1986 to 1993, that particular plant has an abysmal record as far as work stoppages are concerned, yet when we take a look at when the Ministry of Labour was called in, they were certainly not all justified. So there seems to be a particular problem within your own riding. I think we need to put that on the record as well.

In conclusion, I would just like to say that there is concern in this province about workplace health and safety. I think it's extremely unfortunate that there is such bitterness between the employers and the labour union leaders regarding workplace health and safety issues. I think there needs to be consultation. If there are genuine concerns, if there are genuine issues that need to be addressed, then I think we need to sit down at the table and we need to address them.

I can tell you, personally, I'm not seeing that happen. I'm seeing a very negative climate. I'm seeing a very adversarial climate. I find that personally very disappointing, because we need to all be concerned about workplace health and safety issues. We need to make sure that our workplaces are safe, but if we continue to name-call and if we continue to put legislation in place which creates a more adversarial climate, which continues to give power to one side or the other that isn't balanced, we are not going to be meeting the needs of the people in this province.

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I'd like at this time to thank the member for London South for bringing forward this timely piece of legislation. I know on April 28 I was back in my riding for the workers' day of mourning, and the two co-chairs from the Workplace Health and Safety Agency were there.

While the opposition are talking so negatively here, I notice that they're always so outraged when a murder happens out in the community. This is one of the things that was brought forward. If they could direct that same outrage every time a worker gets killed on the job, then we might finally get something. So while they talk about the fine balance here, this is something we have to do.

What I've been quite pleased about over the past two years is that there have been employer representatives at the workers' day of mourning, because they are buying into the certification training program and they are coming on side.

I think what we have to do is sort out where this legislation came from. I know in 1974, the Royal Commission on Health and Safety of Workers in Mines was established in response to concerns of miners in Elliot Lake, and as a result the Employees' Health and Safety Act was passed.

Last year I was up in Thunder Bay at the mine rescue competitions. At that time there was a delegation there from the Australian mine rescue team, and they said in the past 12 years they've had one fatality. This is excellent. I asked, "Well, how come?" They said, "Well, it's because of legislation." That's the one and only reason why the incidence of death and accidents is so low in Australia in the mines.

I'd like to commend the miners for continuing to raise this issue. I know we could solve some of the things that have been talked about by getting it into contracts. This doesn't address the unorganized, so legislation is the way to go, obviously by the delegation from Australia.

What I would hope is that this would be one of the few options that the Ministry of Labour would pick up when it is addressing the problems of the Occupational Health and Safety Act. What we have to do is protect the workers of Ontario. If we can get the people opposite, on their law-and-order agenda, to express the same outrage for injured workers as they do for the people working out in the community to get the big media, then maybe we could get something done.

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): I'm very pleased to be able to get the opportunity to speak on Bill 157 and also compliment the member for London South for bringing this much-needed bill forward.

Many of the members here talked about the history of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, but I can tell you some of the history that they haven't spoken about. As a matter of fact, the member for Mississauga West talked about Bill 208 and going Back to the Future. Some of the comments that individual made -- and he's supposed to be the critic for Labour; he sounds like the critic against labour.

The critics for the Conservatives and Liberals both talk about the balance of power. Every time we talk about any kind of labour legislation -- be it Bill 40, giving workers the right to organize and to join a union, or improving on health and safety -- they're always so afraid that it's going to tilt the power and chase corporations out of this province. I just wish those people would have fought as hard against things like free trade, the GST and the inflated Canadian dollar, which chased the jobs out of this country over the years.

One of the things that bothers me is that these people -- and especially the member for Mississauga West when he criticizes and calls Bob White and others in the labour movement and my friends from the CAW over here -- and I am very proud to be a member of the CAW -- radical because they want to protect the health and safety and the lives of the people they represent in the workplace. That's totally ridiculous.

One of the problems is that when these people talk about the balance in power, it's very interesting that the member for Waterloo North gets up in this House and starts quoting on the number of work refusals in some of our plants in this province. But it's also very interesting that she doesn't talk about the numbers of injuries and illnesses and deaths that we have had simply because some employers have failed to take action and correct unsafe and unhealthy conditions.

One of the things about Bill 157 is the fact that if we don't have Bill 157, which the member for London South has introduced, it really undermines some of the other things that are in the Occupational Health and Safety Act. It's been a little while since I've worked in health and safety, so I can't quote all the acts in particular, but one of the sections states that a worker shall not be intimidated, coerced or threatened to be fired or fired, words of that nature, as long as they exercise their rights under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

But they are intimidated. They certainly are intimidated now, and sometimes they pit workers against workers, because one worker feels they have the right to refuse because of an unsafe condition and other workers get upset because they know that if the plant or that operation is shut down, they would not be paid. We have also had employers who abused our supplementary unemployment benefits system, for example, just so they wouldn't have to pay these workers who were refusing.

I don't know how much time I've got; I know there are three more speakers. Do you guys want to let me go on or do you want to -- two more? Okay.

I think this is really a fundamental right to workers, and the sad part here is that the opposition's biggest argument is about how it's going to affect the employers, how it's going to affect their production. It's quite obvious that those members feel that production comes ahead of the workers' health and safety, and it's really a shame to hear these kinds of things today. The member for Mississauga West was talking about Back to the Future.

I can tell you, when I was a union rep in the plant and the government inspector used to come in, he'd turn his head the other way and wouldn't look into the union office for fear that he might have to talk to them to correct an unsafe condition. Is that what we call going back to the future? That's the kind of message that I'm receiving today from some of the opposition.

This bill is really long overdue, and I think at the same time, when people fear -- we talk about frivolous work refusal and all these kinds of things. I can say very proudly, as a member of the UAW and then later on the CAW, that we spoke to the workers and we educated our workers and told the workers: "You have the right to refuse. Use it but don't abuse it." That was done, but then on the other side there has been some abuse. I've been in situations where the supervisor would say: "Well, if you don't like it, I can't get that fixed. You refuse." Even that supervisor in some cases has been frustrated because his bosses wouldn't let him shut down the job to fix it and fix it properly.

I just hope that some of these people will change their minds over there and support this bill. It's what's needed.

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I find it very ironic, some of the comments that were made by the opposition on this bill, especially the member from Waterloo North who talked about the unbalance.

Let's put things in perspective here. The rights that workers have are only those rights that are entrenched in legislation. Anything that is not in legislation becomes the employer's total right. So when you read through the Employment Standards Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Act, if they don't clearly identify the employee, those are the only rights that they have. If it's not mentioned in legislation, it becomes totally the employer's right. So in order to put the balance in perspective, you have to put things in place to protect employees who work in workplaces for employers. That's called balancing the system out.

When I hear the Liberals talk about Back to the Future, I'm sure we can find their column in the fiction

section where we'll probably find the Back to the Future movie ad. I listened to the member opposite talk about helping workers and everything else. I could go on on the length of this. You were right, Mr Mahoney; we were out there with coffins. We were presenting an issue to you, the Liberal government at that time, on Bill 208, which we needed to toughen the laws up in this province to protect people from being killed in workplaces. When I see your deputy leader stand up in this House and talk about killings that occur in communities, and especially in my own community, and when you mention the issue about a worker, you go silent on it. You never hear a word about incidents that occur.

When you talk about protection, it is in here. It is in this bill. When you allow individuals to start making decisions without being coerced in workplaces, you allow the worker the right to express his views without being intimidated. The only people who have true protection in workplaces are those with collective agreements. Those employees who do not have collective agreements are totally violated by their rights, because you refer to the Employment Standards Act, the Labour Relations Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Act. Those are the only rights workers have that are not covered by a collective agreement.

But when I sit here and listen and read about workplace shutdowns -- and I heard employers like Ford, GM, Chrysler, all those people in Windsor, make their big presentations on Bill 208, saying that all the unions are going to do is shut down everything -- let me tell you, unions in this province have made plants very productive. They have been very productive through the 1980s and still are productive today. That's why Ford and others continue to invest in the province of Ontario.

The important thing that we're trying to get across with this legislation, Bill 157, is to make sure that employees, whether they be affected in the workplace, have the right to make decisions based on safety. I think it's very important that a lot of employers neglect to identify that in order to have a safe workplace which reduces their workers' compensation -- and we hear employers yell about the cost -- they have to make sure that we have production down to put in place preventive programs.

If they're not going to respect and have the obligation to put preventive maintenance programs in place, then we must make sure there's protection for employees who identify unsafe working conditions in their workplaces.

To the members opposite, I've listened with concern to the views that you express, but I must say, I'm going to be supporting this legislation. Mr Mahoney, I will look your document up in the fiction

section to find out the fantasies that the Liberals have with their legislation.

Mr O'Connor: The member for London South brings in this piece of legislation that deals with people's rights. They're family members for a lot of us here, they're working people, people who roll up their sleeves and who have built the country.

I remember back in the early 1970s, when I was going to work in the summertime to pay my tuition to go to high school, working in a foundry in Oshawa. I remember working in that foundry, and half the people in that foundry had back braces. If the people had had the chance then to have some protection, to have refused to do that unsafe work, I wouldn't have seen all those back braces there.

We hear from the opposition that the employees are just going to frivolously go out there and shut down this and shut down that. It hasn't happened. It's about time that they got their heads up in the air, took a deep breath and found out that it just doesn't happen. The workers are out there. They know that they need to have a paycheque. They know that they're out there to help the employer.

Look at General Motors in Oshawa and the CAW. They're expanding again, and the reason is because there's a balance. The two of them are sitting down and they're working things out. But not every workplace in the province of Ontario has the ability to sit down and negotiate, because not all of them are in organized workplaces.

What do you do? You say: "That's okay, you can work in an unsafe condition. It doesn't matter about your fingers, your toes, your arms, your legs, your back." Is that okay? I say, no, it's not okay.

The members think that this is rhetoric. Let me tell you, go out there on the day of mourning and talk to some of those workers. Go out there and talk to some of them. Go out and see the ones who are coming up, who are walking on crutches, the ones who have got bandages and back braces and everything else. Talk to those people and ask them, "If you'd had a chance to refuse to do that work, would you have done that?" Of course they would have. The problem is, "You could do that, but we're going to take the pay right out of your pocket, we're going to take the mortgage payment away from you, we're going to take the groceries off the table for your family."

We've got our family, our brothers and sisters, our mothers, our children who are going to be out there in unsafe working conditions until some of this gets amended. The time has come, and I applaud the member for bringing forward this very important piece of legislation.

The Acting Speaker: The member for London South has two minutes in conclusion.

Mr Winninger: I certainly appreciate the impassioned and supportive comments from my colleagues from Kitchener-Wilmot, Essex-Kent, Chatham-Kent and Durham-York. I listened very carefully to what the member for Mississauga West had to say. He may have some constructive thoughts in his mind about how he would choose to reform the Workplace Health and Safety Agency, but quite frankly, to put down completely an agency that has operated in many difficult areas through consensus between labour and management and has already certified many, many employees and management representatives to go back and make their workplaces safer is beyond belief.

The member for Waterloo North stretches the bounds of credibility as well. She says, "This will create an adversarial working environment." When you remove workplace health and safety hazards, you tend to create a more cooperative and collaborative working environment. We already have a few examples of collective agreements that provide for what this bill is establishing. For the member for Waterloo North to suggest that this will bring business investment to its heels is totally ill-conceived.

In fact, Bill Van Gaal, president of Local 707 CAW representing 4,300 hourly workers of Ford, said in a letter to the Minister of Labour that production is needed for their current demand for Windstar vans -- they have over 100,000 on order -- and when there is a complaint about an unsafe working condition, action is taken virtually overnight to keep that production going.

This is good for business, it's good for jobs and, most important, it's good for workers and their continued health and safety.

The Acting Speaker: This completes the time allotted for ballot item number 58.

RECALL PROCESS

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): We will now revert back to ballot item number 57, Mr Cousens's private member's notice of motion number 41.

Are there any members opposed to a vote on that motion? If so, please rise. Seeing none, is the pleasure of the House that Mr Cousens's motion carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Call in the members; a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1202 to 1207.

The Acting Speaker: All those in favour of Mr Cousens's motion, please rise and remain standing until identified by the clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Cousens, Cunningham, Eves, Jackson, Johnson (Don Mills), Runciman, Sterling, Turnbull, Witmer.

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed to Mr Cousens's motion, please rise and remain standing until identified by the clerk.

Nays

Abel, Akande, Bisson, Carter, Charlton, Cleary, Cooper, Crozier, Eddy, Fawcett, Fletcher, Frankford, Haeck, Hansen, Harrington, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Kwinter, Lessard, MacKinnon, Mahoney, Malkowski, Martin, Mills, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Rizzo, Sutherland, Wessenger, White, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood.

The Acting Speaker: The ayes are 10; the nays are 40. I declare the motion lost.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA SANTÉ ET LA SÉCURITÉ AU TRAVAIL

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): We now are dealing with ballot item number 58. Are any members opposed to a vote on ballot item number 58? If so, please stand.

It is second reading of Bill 157, private member's Occupational Health and Safety Amendment Act by Mr Winninger. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members; a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1211 to 1216 .

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. Members take their seats.

All those in favour of Mr Winninger's bill please rise and remain standing until identified by the clerk.

Ayes

Abel, Akande, Bisson, Carter, Charlton, Cooper, Fletcher, Frankford, Haeck, Hansen, Harrington, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Lessard, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Marchese, Martin, Mills, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Rizzo, Sutherland, Wessenger, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wood.

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed to Mr Winninger's bill please rise and remain standing until identified by the clerk.

Nays

Arnott, Cleary, Cousens, Crozier, Cunningham, Eddy, Eves, Fawcett, Jackson, Kwinter, Mahoney, Miclash, Offer, Sorbara, Sterling, Witmer.

The Acting Speaker: The ayes are 33; the nays are 16. I declare the motion carried.

Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Mr David Winninger (London South): I would ask that the bill be referred to the standing committee on resources development.

The Acting Speaker: Is the majority in favour? We'll see if we have consensus. Those in favour of going to the standing committee on resources development, please stand. The majority is not in favour. The bill will therefore go to committee of the whole.

We have now completed the time allotted for private members' motions. I do now leave the chair and the House will reconvene at 1:30.

The House recessed from 1220 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On May 17, 1994, I appeared before the federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Ontario to make a request that the proposed change to the electoral boundary of the federal constituency of St Catharines, which would remove that area bounded by Scott Street on the north, the abandoned CNR right of way on the west, the QEW on the south, the Welland Canal on the east and include that area in the federal constituency of Niagara Falls, not be recommended to the Parliament of Canada by the commission.

As the member of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario for St Catharines for almost 17 years, I have represented the area to which I have made reference and have worked with federal members who have represented the same territory and have been designated as member of Parliament for St Catharines. At no time during that period has the area in question been associated with Niagara Falls or Niagara-on-the-Lake as part of a federal or provincial constituency, nor has it been included in a municipal boundary that included Niagara Falls or Niagara-on-the-Lake.

As St Catharines has developed north of the QEW, the residents of the area under consideration have established and maintained close ties with the remainder of the community for purposes of education, recreation, commercial activity, transportation and social endeavours.

The utilization of the abandoned CNR right of way as a proposed western boundary of the area in question would be the utilization of an artificial boundary,

whereas the Welland Canal would be a recognized, established and geographically significant boundary.

The city of St Catharines has made a submission to the commission; it has made reference to the geographic area to which I have referred. I endorse the comments of the city in this regard.

While I understand the difficulty and challenge associated with the task the commission has at hand, I believe that the people of the north end of St Catharines would be prepared to have a larger population within the federal electoral district of St Catharines than the adjacent federal electoral district of Niagara Falls if the area to which I have made reference were to remain within the federal electoral district of St Catharines.

ROYAL WEEK

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): The week immediately prior to Victoria Day is Royal Week, which is held annually to celebrate and increase awareness of Canada's heritage as a community living under the crown.

Canadians have derived great social, cultural and political benefits from their constitutional monarchy, such as the rule of law, parliamentary democracy and a society that unifies multicultural diversity within a framework of fairness and equity. We remember that it was this Parliament, under the leadership of Lieutenant Governor John Simcoe, that in 1793 abolished slavery in Upper Canada, 75 years ahead of the US.

The Monarchist League of Canada, of which I am proud to be an honorary life member, is holding a series of public events throughout Royal Week that culminates on Victoria Day, which celebrates the birthday of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, the Queen of Canada, as well as that of Queen Victoria, the mother of Canadian Confederation.

The Queen's birthday parade, the largest of its kind outside of Britain, will include more than 100 bands, historic and modern military units and ethnic groups, who will march up University Avenue at noon under the leadership of D-Day veteran Charles Martin, of course to be reviewed by His Honour the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario.

Royal Week is a time to celebrate what we owe to our Canadian identity through the monarchy. I call on Bob Rae once again to show his pride in that heritage by reinstating the name of the Queen into the police oath of service. I also urge the Liberal Party to do all it can to ensure that the federal Liberal Immigration ministry halts its attempt to remove the name of the Queen from the Canadian citizenship oath.

I wish all members in this House a happy Royal Week. God save the Queen.

MOTORCYCLES

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I rise to tell the House about an exciting event that will take place right here at Queen's Park at 1 pm on Sunday, June 5. There will be a rally of motorcycle riders from all over Ontario, riders who are fed up with being abused by the insurance industry. The rally is being sponsored by myself and the member for Kitchener-Wilmot.

As most of you have already heard, insurance companies are refusing to write policies for supersport bikes. The decision is based on models, not on driving records. Insurance companies that are offering coverage are in some cases doubling and tripling rates.

This has had a negative effect on motorcycle dealers. Most have not been able to sell their supersport bikes. As a result, hundreds of jobs are threatened at dealerships and in the motorcycle industry itself.

But the repercussions go even farther afield. According to a study by the Motorcycle and Moped Industry Council, the sale of 6,000 motorcycles each year has a $241-million impact on the provincial economy: $60 million spent purchasing the bikes, $32 million for parts and accessories, $23 million for lodging and meals for travelling riders and, get this, a whopping $40 million spent on insurance, and don't forget the $24 million in provincial taxes.

The council predicts that this year a full one third of sales will be lost, totalling $20 million. That's $66 million sucked out of the provincial economy and $5 million less in taxes. The insurance industry is claiming that it can't make money off riders. Well, that just isn't true. Is $40 million a drop in the bucket? I think not.

Once again, we're calling on the government to look into launching public motorcycle and snowmobile insurance. Why? Because the insurance industry doesn't seem to want to act in a fair and responsible manner.

I would ask all members of the House to attend this rally.

GREAT LAKES ALIVE

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): Later this month TVOntario is launching a very important event entitled Great Lakes Alive, which aims to educate and provide greater opportunities for those living within the Great Lakes ecosystem to become involved in preserving and protecting our Great Lakes.

Great Lakes Alive will kick off with a special one-hour documentary on May 24 at 8 pm entitled The Great Experiment. This featured documentary examines how toxic contaminants have been introduced into the Great Lakes over the past few decades, their movement within the ecosystem through bioaccumulation and the risk that these chemicals now pose to humans as a result.

In addition to this, the event features the Great Lakes Challenge, an Ontario-wide call to action designed to increase awareness and provoke citizen response to the problems of Great Lakes pollution. Through this segment of the event, participants will be challenged to choose one of 10 action ideas, carry out that activity in the challenge week following the program broadcast and report back on their efforts to a special action response line on Sunday, June 5, which is World Environment Day.

Creating a water quality ethic among the citizens of the Great Lakes basin is the overall goal of the Great Lakes Challenge. This event is being undertaken in association with 12 PBS stations in the United States.

It is with pleasure that I rise today to commend the efforts of those who have invested so much time and energy into the planning of this important environmental awareness campaign throughout the Great Lakes basin. I am sure that my colleagues in this Legislature will join me in looking forward to this event next week.

G.A. WHEABLE CENTRE FOR ADULT EDUCATION

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): On May 9 Mike Harris and I met with representatives from the G.A. Wheable Centre for Adult Education in London. The G.A. Wheable Centre for Adult Education is an all-adult secondary school that offers a unique selection of programs and support services designed for the adult learner: 25% of the students have young dependent children; 30% have older dependent children; 66% receive some type of government support payment; 60% are single or separated. More than 5,000 adult learners per year register at Wheable.

This year more than 450 graduates are applying for places in our universities and colleges. Just remarkable. The centre provides an adult atmosphere and the opportunity to take academic, business and technical courses which lead to further education and jobs. They provide services onsite, such as day care, counselling, a resource library and a career centre.

There are a number of success stories that have occurred as a result of students attending the Wheable centre to upgrade their skills. One in particular: A young mother who was receiving welfare benefits escaped the system by attending the Wheable centre seven or eight years ago. She is now running her own employment counselling business.

The Common Sense Revolution supports a program that allows people that are able to work or be retrained in return for their benefits. In the next few months, we will be asking charitable groups and other community organizations to meet with us and talk about ways in which this vision can be realized.

I would like to congratulate the staff at the Wheable centre for their hard work and dedication and thank them for a very informative and worthwhile meeting last Tuesday.

POLICE SERVICES

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I rise today to inform the members of the Legislature of a community policing initiative taking place in Waterloo region.

As we all know, this is recognized as Police Week, and I would like to take this opportunity to commend all individuals involved in policing for their efforts in all of our communities.

Last week I had the opportunity to attend one of the Waterloo Regional Police services community meetings. Over the past several years the Waterloo Regional Police services have been building many new partnerships within the community. These partnerships include auxiliary police units, the Children's Safety Village, Citizens on Patrol, Crime Stoppers, the high school liaison program, neighbourhoods association liaison, Neighbourhood Watch, the student co-op education program, the task force on youth violence, the Toyota search and rescue team and police ventures.

Their mission statement is as follows: "The Waterloo Regional Police services is committed to a leadership role in crime prevention and law enforcement in a community partnership to improve safety and the quality of life for all people."

Their goals are to "promote an open and accountable partnership with the community for effective participation in determining how our community is policed; to achieve a safer community by developing, promoting and evaluating crime prevention, law enforcement and community programs; to continue to develop human resources and systems to ensure the availability of competent, qualified people representative of our community."

I want to take this opportunity to thank these individuals for their efforts. Just to prove it they're handing out a sheet which says robberies are down by 43%, breaking and entering is down by 18%, dangerous operation of motor vehicles is down by 46%. I'd like to commend them for their efforts in making our community safer.

LEADER OF THE THIRD PARTY

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): All good things must come to an end, and we in the Liberal caucus are truly sad to see the American Revolution conclude. While we wish the revolution would continue, I know that for Conservatives this day could not have come soon enough.

Like Pearl Harbor, the American Revolution was a sneak attack on the ideals and beliefs of the Progressive Conservative Party. The Tory troops were shocked as the revolution was forced upon them with little or no warning. The red Tories never had a chance; their planes never left the ground.

Today the once-proud party of Bill Davis and Leslie Frost has faded away. From the ashes has emerged a pathetic attempt by Mike Harris and his new no-name party to run away from their past and hide their record. Like a political chameleon, Mike Harris has even tried to change his colours.

This failed experiment, the dream child of American consultant Mike Murphy, has again taken the Conservative Party's debt above the $3-million mark.

Even more disturbing for red Tories is that this foolish adventure has driven Mike Harris even farther to the right than many Conservatives thought possible.

Today there are more Conservatives who wish to start a bloodless coup than wish to join the American Revolution.

As we lower the flag on this revolution, I cannot help but reflect on what Mike Harris's American Revolution has accomplished. It shows that the only alternative to Bob Rae and the New Democrats is Lyn McLeod, the next Premier of this great province of Ontario.

MAYFIELD SECONDARY SCHOOL

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I stand in this House today to acknowledge the 25th anniversary of Mayfield Secondary School in Bolton. The school will be celebrating this event Friday, May 27, and Saturday, May 28. Reunion organizers have asked both current and former staff members and students to attend the grand reunion weekend where 25 years of Mayfield excellence will be remembered.

Located near the town of Bolton in my riding of Dufferin-Peel, Mayfield Secondary School has been a part of the academic tradition of this constituency since its opening in 1969. Throughout the school's 25-year history, Mayfield has also been very proud of the school spirit that administrators like principal David Craig, staff members and students have worked hard to cultivate and maintain. Such spirit is all too often a rare commodity in educational facilities today due to financial restraints that limit sport and club funding, as well as the social and attitudinal changes of recent years.

However, the fact that Mayfield staff and students have maintained a positive outlook has allowed for the cooperation of the school with the surrounding community. Such teamwork has yielded some unique projects that have benefited all those involved.

I would like to acknowledge the hard work of the reunion organizers as well as those former students who have successfully completed their secondary education at Mayfield in the past 25 years. I would also like to wish the current staff, students and administration well as they lead Mayfield Secondary School into the next quarter century. I hope they will continue the tradition of academic, sporting and attitudinal excellence that has characterized the school since its opening 25 years ago.

NORM JARY

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): Recently, long-time Guelph broadcaster Norm Jary signed off Guelph's CJOY/Magic radio after 40 years on the air.

Norm delivered the news and sports to generations of city residents since 1954. He's been the voice of some of the biggest news events of the past four decades: Terry Fox, the FLQ crisis, Roberta Bondar and the election of this government in 1990.

I joined guests at a roast recently to pay tribute to Norm. One of the guests was CTV's national news anchor, Lloyd Robertson, who recalled his early days in radio, working with Norm in the early 1950s at CJCS in Stratford. Robertson credited Norm with launching his national broadcasting career.

Norm was the television voice of the New York Rangers hockey club in 1966 and he announce