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

May 29, 1997

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L196 - Thu 29 May 1997 / Jeu 29 Mai 1997

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

COURTS OF JUSTICE AND MINISTRY OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES TRIBUNAUX JUDICIAIRES ET LA

LOI SUR LE MINISTÈRE DES SERVICES CORRECTIONNELS

EMPLOYEES' RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LES DROITS ET LIBERTÉS DES EMPLOYÉS

COURTS OF JUSTICE AND MINISTRY OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES TRIBUNAUX JUDICIAIRES ET LA

LOI SUR LE MINISTÈRE DES SERVICES CORRECTIONNELS

EMPLOYEES' RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LES DROITS ET LIBERTÉS DES EMPLOYÉS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SCHOOL BOARDS

WOODGREEN COMMUNITY CENTRE

BRUCE TRAIL

GOVERNMENT'S AGENDA

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

SCARBOROUGH ECONOMY

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

ACCESS TO PROFESSIONS AND TRADES

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

HOUSE SITTINGS

OPPOSITION DAY MOTION

ORAL QUESTIONS

EDUCATION FINANCING

EMERGENCY SERVICES

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

WATER QUALITY

GOVERNMENT SERVICES

SEXUAL HARASSMENT

RENT REGULATION

YOUNG OFFENDERS

SMALL BUSINESS ENTERPRISE CENTRES

ASSISTANCE TO FLOOD VICTIMS

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

VISITORS

QUESTION PERIOD

PETITIONS

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITALS

RESTRUCTURATION DES MUNICIPALITÉS

TAXATION

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

HOTEL DIEU HOSPITAL

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

TAXATION

EMERGENCY SERVICES

TVONTARIO

NON-INSTRUCTIONAL SCHOOL EMPLOYEES

SPECIAL-NEEDS PRESCHOOL

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CHINESE CULTURAL CENTRE OF GREATER TORONTO FOUNDATION ACT, 1997

YOUNG WOMEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF NIAGARA FALLS ACT, 1997

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

The House met at 1001.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

COURTS OF JUSTICE AND MINISTRY OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES TRIBUNAUX JUDICIAIRES ET LA

LOI SUR LE MINISTÈRE DES SERVICES CORRECTIONNELS

Mr Ouellette moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 130,

An act to amend the Courts of Justice Act and the Ministry of Correctional Services Act / Projet de loi 130, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les tribunaux judiciaires et la

Loi sur le ministère des Services correctionnels.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes to make his presentation.

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): Before getting into the bill I'd like to thank all those groups and organizations, and particularly my staff, who took the time and made the commitment to this bill, and Darrell for his dedicated hours of work.

I had met, as many members do, with a large number of groups and organizations within their community and found that there seemed to be a commonality of areas of concern. It appeared that we certainly have a large number of judges in the judicial system who perform their job adequately, and not only adequately but with great ability, and make decisions that make a great number of individuals happy.

However, as in all cases, there are a few bad apples that spoil the bunch. Through that, I had tried to find a commonality in an area where these groups from all different sectors could come to be aware of how to deal with the situation. I had met and come up with groups such as the one I am about to read here:

"The occurrence of violence against women and children in all of our communities is epidemic and systemic.

"The current disparity in the rights between victims of offenders, as well as judges appointed without mandatory performance evaluations to serve and be accountable to the community, has created a systemic endorsement of prejudice, bias, ignorance and the potential for abuse of power.

"The lack of accountability and discretionary power of judges is unjust.

"Parole boards who do not hear from the victims of crime about the effects and consequences of the crime(

s) committed against them are unable to make informed decisions regarding the release of inmates.

"Prior to the release of any inmate into society, all sides must be heard. The safety and personal rights in accordance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms must be upheld for the victims whose rights and freedoms have already been violated by the inmate.

"Without this process justice will not prevail.

"Bill 130 is a serious attempt to create what has been missing for too long, mandatory performance evaluations for judges and the right for victims to actively participate, without the presence of the inmate or the inmate's representative, in parole board hearings.

"We endorse Bill 130."

That's signed by Laurel Hansen, the public education coordinator for the Oshawa Durham Rape Crisis Centre.

The first aspect is that judges are subject to a performance evaluation every three years. The Chief Justice of Ontario is the individual who establishes the performance evaluation, so it is removed from the political realm in that aspect, and then it is approved by the Judicial Council. I must stress that in no way does this bill allow the Legislature or politicians to question the decision of any judge. What it does is evaluate their ability to make those decisions.

One area of concern that I'll bring out now is subsection 3(4) under "Scope of evaluation." "In a judge's performance evaluation, a decision made in a particular case may be considered." It doesn't say "shall" or "will"; it says "may be considered." The concern is that if one case is part of a performance evaluation, then the decision on that case made by the judge could be considered by politicians to be influencing how a decision is made.

The reality is that in a performance evaluation of the last three years -- and as has been mentioned to me, there are some cases that actually last three years -- if a judge only handles one case in three years, I believe that case should be a part of the performance evaluation; also the fact that if a judge actually does one case that lasts an entire year or a three-year period and takes up one third of the judge's time, then quite possibly that one third of the time should be looked at as part of the performance evaluation.

As I said, it is the Chief Justice who establishes the performance evaluation; it is reviewed and approved by the Judicial Council; and it specifically states "in a particular case may" -- not "will" or "shall" -- "be considered."

Therefore what I'm hoping to see or hear, and possibly we'll hear from others on this, is that a judge's performance is based on their actual ability to make decisions. Through the committee process, should the decision be made that this aspect appears to take too much control of the judicial system, I would be more than happy to review that, so long as we get the opportunity to hear input from different groups.

As I said, every three years all the judges in the province have a performance evaluation done on them. What takes place then is that the performance evaluations are referred to a committee of the Legislature. The reason that takes place is because the current system is completely internal. We have no idea of all the details of what takes place with any consideration of evaluations being done as a result of public complaints. The current process only allows for a review of a judge through a public complaint. It's all kept internal and we have no idea of the results, of punishment or of any action that's taken place.

In order to remove it from the secrecy of the judicial system, to make sure that there is proper performance evaluation and that judges are reviewed in a manner that is acceptable to the public of Ontario, we move it into a standing committee of the Legislature for review at that time. At that time the committee reviews those evaluations, and this allows as well the opportunity for judges to be praised for their good work. As I'm sure will come out later on, there are a large number of judges out there who do their job with exemplary performance. Those can be subjected to responses and the public can know exactly where their positions are and how they're doing.

Then those judges who do not meet the standard of performance evaluation as established by the Chief Justice are referred by the committee. For those the committee feels should be removed from the bench, it is recommended to the Attorney General at that time that this individual be removed from the bench, thereby giving the province the ability to remove those judges who are not performing in the manner they should be.

We've been receiving faxes and letters from a large number of organizations. Here's another one:

"On behalf of the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime, please accept this letter of support for your private member's bill entitled Courts of Justice and Ministry of Correctional Services Statute Law Amendment Act, 1997."

That is, as I said, from the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime, signed by Steve Sullivan, the executive director.

Here's another one:

"Over the years, we too have become increasingly frustrated with the lack of judicial accountability within our criminal justice system, and it is a notion that is echoed by many crime victims in the province of Ontario. This lack of accountability serves nothing more than to magnify the public's already dwindling faith in the justice system. Establishing a performance evaluation for provincial judges would not only ensure that the integrity of the law is upheld, we feel it is a vital step towards restoring the public's faith in the justice system."

That was sent to me and signed by Gemma Harmison, research director from the Victims of Violence Canadian Centre for Missing Children out of Ottawa.

Now, it did state in there that there was a lack of faith in the judicial system. The Canadian Bar Association's Systems of Civil Justice Task Force Report of 1996 states that the actual public confidence and trust in the judicial system is only 16.7%. That is not only by the public; that's by lawyers as well.

As well, I'm very happy to see the former chief of police from Thunder Bay here today to support the legislation, as well as the former deputy chief for the region of Durham, because I feel, as I've taken input from them, that their input was very significant.

I see that time is winding down. I have another letter here:

"I am in full support of any initiative intended to address inadequacies and flaws in our justice system and due process. Obviously, this includes the need to ensure accountability of everyone entrusted with responsibilities for the administration of justice."

It goes on to say that this bill actually does not go far enough. What they are asking for is to include justices of the peace. That is signed by Julian Fantino, the chief of police of the London police services.

As well, I think there's been a lot of support -- over 95% of the complaints that come forward are dismissed at the subcommittee level.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. The time has expired. Further debate?

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): Let me begin by commending the member for Oshawa for the good intentions behind this private member's bill. I think we all agree that the issue of violence against women and children is a very serious one in our society. In fact, numerous studies have indicated that the system does not always work well for victims.

There was some attempt to make some changes in that regard. You may remember that early on in the session I introduced a private member's bill on victims' rights legislation. The government subsequently introduced its own. I find it curious to look at this particular piece of legislation in light of that piece of legislation. That particular piece of legislation gives no particular rights to victims of crime. It's a permissive bill. It has no positive obligation to inform anybody of anything. If the particular individuals in the justice system want to, they certainly can, but there's no onus on the judicial system and on the legal system to inform victims of crime.

I want to deal with the two issues separately, and unfortunately, for my liking, they would be better off as two separate pieces of legislation.

Dealing with the latter first, there has certainly been a great deal of discussion as to how much victims ought to be involved. I for one am very much in favour of having victims totally involved in the system because they, after all, have paid the highest price when a criminal inflicts the kind of hardship that they do on ordinary citizens. The difficulty, however, with this particular piece, this

section of the bill, is that it doesn't truly attempt to understand what the current practice is. I think if a bill is going to be introduced, some attention has to be paid to that.

First, at the moment what happens with respect to parole board hearings is that two days' notice is given. We can agree that's simply not satisfactory. Two days' notice with no public announcement, which is the current practice, is certainly not enough. It's certainly not sufficient for victims first to be informed and then to respond.

I suppose one way victims could keep track, although it's their obligation to keep track, is that we know that under the system one third of a sentence has to elapse before a parole hearing will be scheduled. But that too is not sufficient, because it means the victim has to stay abreast of a particular criminal and what sentence that individual has served.

The difficulty is that at the moment the parole board takes a fair bit of time to collect the information that's required for a hearing. We're told that even one month before, they are still collecting information that will be presented to the parole board.

There are two competing interests here and a balance needs to be found. I would agree with the member for Oshawa that the balance has to be found in favour of the victim. Clearly there has to be notice given to victims in order to be able to present their case; 45 days may be too long, but two days is certainly not enough. So I applaud the spirit of this particular

section of the bill and I urge the member to perhaps consider something that is more reasonable. In many pieces of legislation, 14 days is the time period that is given to inform. That may be a time limit you might want to look at as sufficient time to actually mail out a notice and receive a response from a victim. I agree with you in principle that two days' notice without any positive requirement to inform the victim is simply not enough.

The other issue is more difficult because it involves a long-standing parliamentary tradition and it involves our history as a constitutional entity. We have to remember that the independence of the judiciary is critical to the functioning of a democratic society. It is so fundamental that when the Stuart kings in England back in the early 18th century and the 17th century tried to remove judges because they ruled against them, there was a revolt.

You may remember that when Mary and William ascended to the throne of England, one of the conditions was the Act of Settlement of 1701 that said they could not do just that, that the judiciary was independent and the monarch had no power to control the judiciary and to fire them under normal circumstances.

Our constitutional provisions in

section 99 of the British North America Act closely parallel the Act of Settlement of 1701. So we have a tradition that dates back 300 years precisely because of the abuse of power of the majority: in that case the King; in future generations a majority of Parliament.

I want to just focus a little bit on

section 99, because it is an important section. It states: "Subject to subsection (2) of this section, the judges of the superior courts shall hold office during good behaviour, but shall be removable by the Governor General on address of the Senate and House of Commons."

That provision exists in order to be able to remove judges in extreme circumstances, and I would point out to the assembly that in all of the time since

section 99 was enacted, the procedure to remove judges has been instituted twice by the federal Parliament and never, ever brought to a conclusion, and never has it occurred at the provincial level.

What you are asking to do by way of this bill, however well-intentioned, is to allow a majority to thwart the independence of the judiciary, and I would argue to the member for Oshawa that the last thing we need in the judicial system is the interference of political power.

We can talk about performance evaluations; we can talk about how important it is to have a judiciary that functions well; we can talk about the importance of having the kind of training for judges that makes them aware of what happens on the streets of our cities and our towns; we can certainly talk about making them more sensitive, more compassionate, more understanding of the realities and the diversities that come before them. That's a far cry, however, from insisting that any Legislature, any government, any majority would have a final say as to whether a particular judge could be removed or not.

That is an abuse of power. It is no different than the situation in which the Act of Settlement was first instituted in 1701.

Lest you think it could not happen, I would certainly point out to the assembly that we've had numerous instances in this House where legislation has been put through, the will of the majority of this assembly has been upheld contrary to the wishes of the populace. I need mention only the megacity legislation which, frankly, was against the wishes of the people upon whom this particular legislation will be exercised.

You will remember that 76% of the people who voted in the referendum with respect to that particular piece of legislation voted against the bill, yet the majority of this House, despite the wishes of the people, chose to enforce that legislation. It is not farfetched to believe that the same kind of extraordinary power could be wielded against the judiciary, which is for the citizen the last appeal.

That's what we really have to remember, that in our haste to ensure that we root out abuses, that we root out the incompetent, that we root out what appears to us to be deficient in the system, we do not take away the rights of citizens to appeal to an independent judiciary against the excesses of government and against whatever situations may be in society at that particular moment.

I would like to say to the member for Oshawa that truly his heart is in the right place. This particular provision, however, is not in keeping with how we expect a democracy to function. I'm sure that's not his intent. I can't believe that would be his intent. I think it's simply a question of being so keenly interested in this issue that some of the history of the independence of the judiciary has been lost.

In extraordinary circumstances there is now a possibility to remove the judiciary. At the federal level, as I've indicated, it requires an address of both the Senate and the House of Commons, and that still exists. I've indicated that with respect to the provinces no such obligation exists, but it could be argued that this precedent existing at the federal level could be imported at the provincial level.

What that provision does is imposes a very high standard on legislatures to ensure that judges are not removed arbitrarily from their position. When you subject the judiciary to a legislative committee, you really are playing with our democratic system and what you are doing is exercising your right as a majority to undermine a fundamental aspect of what makes our system work, and work very well.

With that, I want to say to the honourable member that in general I agree with the spirit behind the legislation but I cannot in conscience support the parts of the legislation that would seek to undermine the independence of the judiciary. I worry that the kinds of decisions that judges would have to make would not be as impartial and as fair as we would like them to be, that judges would be forever looking over their shoulders thinking about what their political masters -- because that's what we would become -- would think. That's not the kind of system that I think would benefit any of us.

With respect to the second element of the bill, it's certainly very good. I wish it had been imported in very strong terms in the victims' rights legislation. I would urge the member opposite to speak to the Attorney General and bring forth an amendment which would make it a positive requirement to involve the victims at all stages of the process and not simply as convenient within the process. I would also urge him, particularly with the parole provisions, to think about the time limit he has imposed. Maybe a shorter time period would still be effective to protect the rights of the victims and not hamper the process as it tries to prepare for parole hearings.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): It's with pleasure that I have the opportunity this morning to speak on behalf of the New Democratic Party on Bill 130,

An Act to amend the Courts of Justice Act and the Ministry of Correctional Services Act. I have to say part of the problem is that there are two separate issues we're being asked to deal with this morning in passing this legislation: one dealing with judges and the other with giving notification to victims of crime of when the perpetrator of that crime comes up for a hearing before the parole board.

If those issues were dealt with separately, I would have no difficulty in saying that our caucus would have no problem in supporting the second issue, the amendments to the Ministry of Correctional Services Act. I'll speak to that first and then I'll speak to the judges act, because I had an opportunity yesterday to speak to the member who put forward this act and have done quite a bit of reading and thinking about what you're asking us to do in the first part.

Very succinctly and very quickly put, in the second part of the act the member is asking that if a person goes to jail because he or she has been responsible for a crime against a person, whenever that inmate comes up for parole, the victim of the crime be notified within, I think it's 30 or 45 days -- I would argue 45 days is maybe a little bit too long -- to know when that parole hearing is going to happen and have the ability to appear before the parole board. On that, no problem. I think it's high time, I think it's a step in the right direction and I'd have no problem supporting that particular part of the bill.

However, it's unfortunate that you've put this together with what you're asking us to do in the first part of the bill. What the member is asking is that judges could be fired by the members of this Legislative Assembly. There is a very long tradition, for good reason, within our British parliamentary system, and that is that the judiciary is separate from the Legislature. It is like that for a very good reason. We do not want politicians, we do not want the political process -- I see the judge from Ottawa hiding when I say that; well, grimacing then.

But it is very true that we do not want to have politicians or the political process being mixed up in when a judge has to be removed from the bench, because quite frankly the judiciary has to have the independence it has for it to do its job and not worry, not for a judge to be on the bench every second minute worrying, "Am I going to get fired?"

Let's talk about how you become a judge and where we find ourselves now, because I think the actions of this government might be why this bill has come forward. Ian Scott, one of the former attorney generals of this province, in the David Peterson government, took great steps in order to start de-politicizing the appointment of judges. I think it's been fairly well recognized that the work Mr Scott did moved the province of Ontario quite a way in taking away that political interference when judges were appointed.

Succinctly put, in the past, the way you got appointed to a judgeship is just how it happens in the federal government: If you know Jean Chrétien, you're a judge, period. It's not who's most qualified. It's not who's the best judge. It's not the person who would be best qualified to do the job. If in the federal case I've got a Liberal Party card in my pocket and I know the Prime Minister and I've been at the proper number of fund-raisers, I get appointed to the bench as a judge. There are all kinds of examples of what's happened federally. Provincially that used to be the case. Thank God that Ian Scott, under a former government, said, "We need to put an end to that."

Now, we shouldn't say that just because the person who wants to be judge is a member of the governing party, he or she should not become a judge; of course not. But that should not be the sole determining factor. What Mr Scott did was to say, "All right, we're going to have an interview process that's set in place where an independent body will interview those applicants who become judges and they will make a recommendation to the Attorney General about who will be appointed as a judge." The Attorney General, in effect, got a short list and then chose from that short list who was going to be the judge.

That really cleaned things up quite a bit. It didn't clean it up as much as we'd like, but it was a good step forward.

That process was then improved upon by a former Attorney General, Howard Hampton, and by the last Attorney General, Marion Boyd, when that whole interview process was not only strengthened but also expanded to cover justices of the peace. That was one of the areas Mr Scott had not touched when he had talked about this interview process.

What has happened is that a lot of the appointments that are being made to the bench -- I wouldn't say all -- on the part of this government tend to be political.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): No.

Mr Bisson: The member says no, but I've watched with a certain amount of interest some of the appointments of judges that have made it to the bench, and what ends up happening in a lot of cases is that a number of those judges have fairly strong attachments to the Tory caucus. In fairness to the members across the way, I'm not saying that every appointment has been that way, but it has certainly been a lot more political than I would like to see it, and that brings me to this point.

Judges have to be independent. Once they are appointed by the Attorney General to sit on the bench, they then need to be independent from the political process. We do not want to be in a situation where a judge is making a decision on whatever case or whatever individual is before the judge and has to worry: "Boy, am I going to be offending somebody? Will the Chief Judge refer me for an evaluation to a standing committee of the Legislative Assembly?"

We don't want to be walking down that particular path because, for very good reason, for many years we have separated the role of the state, the role of the executive powers, the legislative powers, from that of the judiciary; they've been made independent. In the United States they have a system where there is quite a bit of interchange between the judiciary and the executive powers. I don't think we'd want to be going in that particular direction.

The other point is that in reading the bill, one of the parts -- I hope the member across the way can respond to is this, because if I'm reading this correctly, this would be extremely problematic. Subsection (6) of the bill reads, "Beginning in January and every third year after 1997, the standing committee" -- that's a standing committee of the Legislature, for those people watching -- "shall review the performance evaluations that it has received" -- that's from the Chief Judge -- "and shall recommend to the Attorney General that a judge should be removed from office if it is of the opinion, based on the judge's evaluation...."

Two points: In the opinion of who? If you read that legislation, it almost sounds like the members of the standing committee would have to accept the recommendations on the judge. That's what I'm reading. If that's what's happening, that's not at all what you want to do with the bill.

The second point is, "Beginning in January and every third year after 1997...." Does that mean that if a judge is sent before the evaluation committee in 1998 or 1999, he or she would have to wait till the year 2000? I'm not quite sure, the way the language is written, that would even work.

I would just end on that point to say I will be voting against this bill on the basis of what's in the first part of the act. I don't think we need to be mixing the political process with judges. On the second part, I wish I could vote for it, but it's a package. There's no way of splitting it.

Mr Jim Brown (Scarborough West): I'm pleased to speak on my colleague's private member's bill in the Legislature today. I commend his concern for victims of crime. This bill sets up a mechanism to notify crime victims if the offender who victimized them is scheduled for a parole hearing. This government has shown a strong commitment to victims' rights. The Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services supports providing victims with notification of parole hearings and enabling them to make submissions to the parole board.

The Board of Parole currently provides victims who request information with advance notice of hearing dates. This advance notice is given as soon as an offender's scheduled date for a hearing is determined. Victims who register with the victims' support line will also be notified of parole hearings through the automated notification service.

The Board of Parole policy already enables victims to make a submission to the board in advance of the parole hearing and to obtain information about the offender's parole decision. The Board of Parole accepts written submissions such as victim impact statements in their current policy. This allows the victims to submit their arguments without having to attend the hearing, where they would have to see the offender and go to a correctional facility, as this is where the parole hearings are held. Presently, the rooms where parole hearings are held are small. To have the victims attend the hearings would present concerns with both security and space.

In principle, the ministry supports this legislation and fully agrees with my colleague's cause of furthering victims' rights. The ministry also acknowledges some limitations to the bill as it currently stands. For example, it may not always be possible to give the victims advance notice of 45 days.

This government has made several highly effective changes to the parole board and its policies. Thanks to a variety of measures, the Ontario parole system is experiencing the lowest rate of granted parole releases in 10 years. This involves changes in policy and it involves appointing people to the parole board who have a strong commitment to law and order, people who aren't going to endanger public safety by granting parole to people who do not meet stringent guidelines. We have rebalanced the parole system to ensure that in all cases victims' rights come before offenders' rights.

Parole is a privilege, and this government has worked to ensure that it is treated as a privilege. Parole is no longer the inherent right of any prisoner who serves the allotted fraction of their sentence. It is a privilege that must be earned and that is not handed out lightly. The ministry has undertaken some important steps in making the parole system tougher and more demanding. It has pushed for more attention to victims' rights.

In conclusion, while the ministry strongly supports the intent of this bill, the parole board has policy to address the concerns of victims' notification and of victims' rights to make submissions at parole hearings. The ministry cannot support the bill's passage without amendments. It is the ministry's conviction that the issues raised are better dealt with on a policy level than on a legislative level.

I invite my colleague to meet with me to discuss changes to parole policy and I congratulate him for his concern for victims.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): It's an interesting bill that mates an amendment to the Ministry of Correctional Services Act with one to the Courts of Justice Act.

I'll concur with Mr Bisson in saying that there's no quarrel whatsoever with the proposition of advising victims of a pending parole release and an opportunity for victims to respond to the decision or direction being taken by the parole board. At the same time, I have great concern about whether this government indeed has given effect to protection of victims or consideration of victims' rights.

The Victims' Bill of Rights, much touted, seems to have fallen into the wastecan of legislative efforts. Most recently, this government should be aware of the case of Linda Evans, for instance, in Welland, for whom the Victims' Bill of Rights meant diddly-squat to this government. A plea bargain was struck in contravention of the spirit of the Victims' Bill of Rights, and she has a strong sense that this government has little regard for victims.

In a case just prior to that, one which we raised here in the Legislature, and it was raised by the member for St Catharines as well, there was again another plea bargain -- in this case it dealt with a young offender, and so be it -- where victims' rights were totally disregarded, notwithstanding that the matter happened to be brought to the attention of the Attorney General.

This government wants to talk a big game about victims and certainly hopes to exploit an undercurrent running through all of our communities, one of fear of crime and fear of victimization. At the same time, it underresources police forces, it underresources crown attorneys' offices; it is a party to the destruction, the demolition of the legal aid plan. It's our view that the role of defence counsel is as important to the maintenance of justice and the acquisition of justice, for victims as well as those accused, as effective, trained and resourced crown attorneys.

So I'm not going to take the hook here. This government has failed victims. It has failed victims of crime by virtue of its abandonment of police forces, its abandonment of courts, its abandonment of crown attorneys and its abandonment of adequate funding for a legal aid plan, which is essential if justice is going to be done.

I'm going to move to the former part of the bill. This is oh so strange coming from a government which, as you have already heard, again from my colleague Mr Bisson, has circumvented the arm's-length screening and appointment recommendations process that was established -- and we acknowledge -- by one of our finest attorneys general, Ian Scott, and maintained and built upon by Howard Hampton and Marion Boyd respectively.

This government again talks a big game about eliminating red tape and bureaucracy. Horsefeathers -- all meaningless, hollow words. This government very much wants to politicize the judiciary. I have far too much regard for the quality of the judiciary in this province. We are the envy of the largest part of the world in terms of the quality of our bench here in Ontario. That quality, I believe very strongly, as I believe most Ontarians do, was enhanced by the appointments process as it was revised through the period of 1985 to 1995.

For this member to suggest that a standing committee of the Legislative Assembly -- and we know what that means: a committee that's dominated by the government. That means that for the next year and a half or so it will be this government; after 1998, 1999, it will be by another government.

For a majority of those members to review the so-called performance of a judge I believe is absurd and seriously undermines the long tradition of independence of the judiciary, an independence that is crucial, essential if we're going to maintain a justice system that reflects the values of a democratic society and reflects the interest in obtaining justice, as much as justice can be obtained in any given system run by human beings.

I'm concerned that there's a code language here, because it speaks of the "review of performance" of a particular judge. I'm not certain there isn't a desire here to turn judges into mere mechanics in a sausage factory so that they pump out justice, as it would seem, at an increasingly higher rate, to the detriment of the quality of decision-making that's taking place.

We have in place a system which has worked well for the removal of judges who have not met the standards we expect of members of the bench. I'm not going to endorse a concept of performance evaluation overseen by political taskmasters which expresses disdain for the quality of the bench -- a disdain I'm not about to share because I have too much regard for the bench in this province -- and which attempts to politicize by creating political supervision of the performance of judges. That type of interference is repugnant to our long-held judicial traditions and our traditions of meting out criminal justice.

It contradicts long-held values which, I tell you once again, are the envy of most, if not all, of the balance of the world.

Notwithstanding our endorsement of the amendments to the Ministry of Correctional Services Act contained in this bill, the presence of the amendment to the Courts of Justice Act and the attack on provincial judges makes it impossible for me to support this bill.

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): I too would like to commend my friend the member for Oshawa for his initiative. My time today will be devoted to the issue of judicial accountability, and I'm prepared to admit that there are some aspects of

part I of the bill that will require some fine-tuning when referred to committee. But the issue of judicial accountability being reviewed at this point in time is both fitting and appropriate. I believe a number of reasons will be advanced by the departmental people with regard to the first

section of this bill, and not to support it. I have but one reason to suggest that the time has arrived for the accountability of the judiciary to be reviewed, and that is that it is a fitting and proper thing at this point in time.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this issue because of the many misconceptions that exist with regard to the nature of work and the hours of work and indeed the working conditions of the judiciary of this province. There are many misconceptions about the quality of service provided by the vast majority of the men and women who labour in those positions.

In 1978, when I was appointed, there were very few rules of procedure which existed with regard to judicial complaints. A person could complain anywhere in the system, and upon that complaint, the Judicial Council would either dismiss the matter summarily or might consider the same and reject the issue or consider certain evidence and then make a decision as to proceed or reject. But it was at that time, then and only then, that the Judicial Council would bother to inform the judge about whom the complaint had been received. It was then and only then that the judge would have an opportunity to defend himself or herself.

There were no rules of natural justice in this system, rules which the judge was obligated to observe and extend in court to any person charged with murder, rape, manslaughter. These were not extended to the members of the judiciary. Those changes which have taken place in the last number of years were brought about by the diligent work of the provincial judges' association, and they now apply to all judicial complaints.

In the very near future, in the next 30 days, a book authored by a local Toronto-based law professor will be launched on the trials and tribulations of the Honourable Leo Landreville. In the 1960s he became the first justice forced to resign from the then Ontario Supreme Court. This book will cause some embarrassment to those who favour decisions being taken behind closed doors. I believe it will cast some serious doubt on the fairness of judicial hearings of that period.

The late Leo Landreville was a native of Ottawa who practised law in northern Ontario, became mayor of his city and was later appointed to the bench. I came to know Leo when he joined the firm with which I was articled. Partners of that firm are both members of the Ontario Court of Justice at this time. They virtually took him in and provided employment after he had depleted his life's savings attempting to clear his good name. I had occasion to hear from the horse's mouth his side of the story and read the Judicial Council's side of the story. I'm not so naïve as to think that I heard it all.

You practise matrimonial law long enough, you know there are always at least three sides to the story: his, hers and the truth. But I look forward to that book, though it might be 30 years too late, and I commend it to each and every member of this Legislature.

I suggest to this Legislature that over the past 30 years not very much has changed. We have to ask ourselves, if the accused in the Airbus scandal had not had the resources to mount a defence, and indeed an offence, would that person have cleared his name? Had it been an indigent person on a legal aid certificate, would the results have been the same? Everybody is watching the evidence coming forward in the Morin commission at this time. Are we all completely satisfied with the Somalia inquiry? These were public matters.

I could stand here for a lengthy period of time and defend the work that my former colleagues do on a daily basis. I don't have that time. I wish in another debate I would be afforded that opportunity. I can tell you that the respect and admiration that I hold for my former colleagues is tantamount to the most I could hold for any group of individuals in this province. I think the 98% or 99% of the judges in this province who perform their duties in a professional and responsible manner will have no concerns with regard to judicial accountability or about the lifting of the judicial veil of secrecy.

There are problems, as with any other organization, in that 1% or 2%, but those are not the people who are going to be identified; those are not the people who are going to be reported; those are not the people the Judicial Council is going to deal with.

I would simply say, in the few seconds allotted to me, that what we're doing here with regard to judicial accountability is taking the efforts of a former Attorney General, Mr Scott, who was lauded here earlier, who made it possible, allowed the Chief Justice of the Provincial Court to take this action. No Chief Justice has taken it in that period of time. What this bill is saying is, require it to be mandatory. These are the 1990s. Everyone else, particularly the people in this Legislature, are challenged to be responsible every four or five years. What is so different about people doing the job that the people who labour in the judiciary do?

I concur that there are changes that must be made at the committee level, but I commend my friend from Oshawa for bringing this matter forward. It is altogether timely and appropriate, and I thank you for the opportunity to speak on it.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): The bill allows for some interesting problems to be dealt with, and I will be supporting the bill on that basis. But I should point out that if you're going to do these things, you have to actually fund them, and they have to operate. You can't just have the press conference and the noise that goes with it.

In St Catharines, for instance, Bill Taylor, whose daughter had been murdered, contacted my office recently. His wife was at the hairdresser's and someone there told her that Elio Caputo, who was alleged to have murdered their daughter, Cara, was back in St Catharines in the detention centre and was going to be in court soon.

Obviously this constituent was very upset because the family had been told they would be notified if a situation like this arose. The Victims' Bill of Rights is supposed to guarantee they will be notified. Mrs Taylor wanted us to know that there was no cooperation, in her view, from the police and she was unable to speak with a detective she wanted to speak with until the Tuesday after. She contacted Mike Harris's office and was told, "It's not Mr Harris's job."

What I'm pointing out is that when you pass this kind of legislation, you have to ensure that you're going to have the financial resources to back it up and that these matters are going to be dealt with appropriately.

In terms of the review of judges by a legislative committee, I'm wary of politicians second-guessing judges, but I've disagreed with many judges' decisions over the years and I think the Judicial Council should look into that.

In terms of the victims being allowed to have a say in whether someone comes out on parole, I think it is very important that that be the case. I just regret I don't have more time to express it.

Mr Jim Flaherty (Durham Centre): In the four and three quarter minutes that I have to speak to the bill, I would like to make a couple of points. First of all, I compliment my colleague from Durham region, the member for Oshawa, on bringing Bill 130 forward, which addresses a concern which many of us on this side of the House share with respect to the necessity of all persons in authority in the province of Ontario being accountable, including all of us as legislators and members of the judiciary.

There's no question that we on this side of the House are concerned about the importance of fighting crime. Indeed, the member for London South and the member for Scarborough West and I, in our capacities as parliamentary assistants, are addressing some of those issues now and will be making certain recommendations with respect to crime control in the province. So it is a well-directed bill.

There is a system in place in Ontario with respect to complaints concerning judges. That system involves complaining to the Ontario Judicial Council. There is an annual report which the Ontario Judicial Council is obliged to file, which has been filed with this Legislature, in this House, which sets out all the complaints made with respect to judges in the province over the past year and how they were dealt with. I say this with respect to the comment by the member for Ottawa-Rideau concerning judicial secrecy: This is a public report. It is tabled in the Legislature.

It is the obligation of the Judicial Council to do so and it is done each year. It is there for everyone and anyone in the province to read and review, particularly with respect to the complaints procedure and the results of particular complaints. So that procedure is there.

There is also an education procedure for judges which is supervised by the Chief Judge. He has an education secretariat -- that is, the Chief Judge of the Ontario Court of Justice (Provincial Division) -- and that is followed, particularly with respect to new judges, and then continuing education for judges as they continue their careers on the bench. So those systems are in place.

Now what happens if there is misconduct by a judge of such a degree that the judge should be removed from office? The Courts of Justice Act provides that the Judicial Council may make a recommendation to the Attorney General for the removal of a judge from the bench. That's the law in Ontario. The Attorney General brings that recommendation here to the Legislature and tables it, and then it is the power of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, on the address of this assembly, to remove that judge from the bench. So we have a system in the province now for the removal of judges, should it be necessary for a judge to be removed from the bench.

The difficulty with the bill -- and here's the major problem -- is that it interferes with the independence of the judiciary. It's fundamental in Canadian constitutional law, in British tradition, in the Charter of Rights, all three sources, that we as legislators do not interfere with the independence of the judiciary. That is not an abstract legal concept.

It's important that our constituents have the right to know, when they go into a courtroom, whether they're in a civil dispute or they're charged with a crime, that the person who is going to acquit them or convict them, or the person who is going to charge the jury in a jury case, is an independent person, that the person is not beholden to the politicians of the day, to us or whomever may have been the government five years ago and appointed that person, or in the future.

That is an absolute entitlement that every Canadian, every citizen of Ontario, has; that is, that the person before whom they appear in court is independent and is not reporting to politicians concerning their conduct.

That's the difficulty with the bill. The Attorney General is strongly opposed. As his parliamentary assistant, I am strongly opposed to Bill 130 with respect to the proposed amendments to the Courts of Justice Act.

Mr Bob Wood (London South): I would like to rise very briefly to strongly endorse this bill. Virtually everyone in this province is regularly accountable for their job performance and I think it's a great step forward that this should be applied to the judiciary. It will help the good judges, and the small number who are not good will be able to get help.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Oshawa, you have two minutes.

Mr Ouellette: There are a number of points I need to bring forward, but due to the limited time that I have I will just deal with the ones I am able to.

First of all, 95% of all the reviews that come are dismissed at the subcommittee level for the current evaluations that are done. There are a number of jurisdictions, including Germany, France, a large number of states, Manitoba and Nova Scotia which are currently considering this legislation.

This legislation in no way has any jurisdiction over federal judges, nor does it give it the Legislative Assembly, politicians, the ability to overturn any judge's decisions. What is does, as I said before, is allow us to review their ability to make those decisions.

The bill allows for the recognition of problem areas within the judiciary, so if there's a common problem, special training can be brought out. First of all, the Chief Justice of the province of Ontario is the individual who establishes the review program. The Judicial Council approves the program. Why not allow it to go forward if there are problems with it and, at the committee stage, amend anything that needs to be done?

What the third party is asking for is to allow bad judges out there and poor performance to continue in Ontario. The province is the one which currently appoints the judges, the province is the one which makes the laws, yet no one has the ability to question those individuals once they're in that position. What I'm asking for is the support of the Legislature to allow this to go through. If there are difficulties with it, I have no problem at the committee level to account for those difficulties. We can do it.

What some of the members opposite were asking for is the status quo. That's unacceptable.

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

EMPLOYEES' RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LES DROITS ET LIBERTÉS DES EMPLOYÉS

Mr Sheehan moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 131,

An Act to provide rights and freedoms to employees with respect to membership in trade unions or employees associations and representation by them / Projet de loi 131, Loi prévoyant des droits et des libertés pour les employés en ce qui concerne l'adhésion à un syndicat ou à une association d'employés et leur représentation par ceux-ci.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Frank Sheehan (Lincoln): As the title implies, this act will define freedoms or rights for workers by enacting what are known in other jurisdictions as right-to-work provisions: the freedom for the worker to decide if they want to join or remain a member of a union or employees association; the right to work without the condition of being compelled to become a member of a union or an employees association; the prohibition of unions or employees associations from collecting dues either directly or indirectly from non-members; and finally the protection from coercion by the employer or the union to join or not join a union or employees association.

Succinctly, Bill 131 would entrench in law the fundamental right of workers to decide whether or not they want to be represented in the workplace without coercion from either the employer or the union. The bill would apply to new and renegotiated collective agreements.

The realities of the changing economy in the modern workplace demand we re-examine how Ontario's labour relations are structured. More and more, we see that individuals and not the state are taking ownership of their rights and their future. Currently, in a union shop, employment is contingent upon union membership. Because of the Rand formula, Canadian workers are privately taxed by trade unions to the tune of $1.1 billion per year.

The closed shop forces workers to belong to a union. It started in Britain in 1906 with the Trade Union Act, where it was implemented in exchange for the surrender of the right to strike. The concept was duplicated in the United States under the Wagner Act in 1935 and in Canada in 1948 in the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. Since then, all have enacted laws protecting the employee's right to work.

Bill 131 is an attempt to bring Ontario's labour relations into the modern world, to put Ontario on a par with some of the more successful jurisdictions. Canada and Australia are the only two major economies that no longer protect the citizen's right to work. Bill 131 recognizes the right of the individual workers to decide what is best for them and their families.

Section 2(

d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms allows for freedom of association. It implies and includes freedom from coercion to join an association the citizen does not want to join, nor the obligation to pay dues the citizen does not want to pay.

It is a fundamental concept that an individual has the right to negotiate for his services and has the right to be employed by anyone who offers him employment. Opponents of right-to-work laws often cite the Merv Levigne Supreme Court decision which compared the compulsion in the closed-shop arrangement to the compulsion to pay taxes set by a democratically elected government.

I point out that the decision was predicated on an assumption that workers are better off because of the compulsion to join or pay union dues. Current evidence from New Zealand refutes that assumption. The process began initially with the Labour government's decision in 1986 to re-regulate labour, which predictably squeezed profits and increased unemployment.

The National Party campaigned on and implemented the Employment Contracts Act in 1991. This allowed contracting parties to choose the type of employment contract. Membership in unions was made voluntary, closed shops prohibited. Workers are free to contract their labour subject to a few limiting constraints such as minimum wage. Only after the end of the contract period are strikes and lockouts permitted.

Leading figures, business and labour, predicted the following: falling wages; new low-quality jobs, mostly part-time to suit employers; anarchy; strikes and confrontation; gangster unionism would spread; rising unemployment among women and young people; suppression of workplace democracy; and, widespread abuse by employers. The Council of Trade Unions up a "sweatline" for aggrieved workers.

What happened? The "sweatline" soon lapsed for lack of interest. Average real wages have risen, wage structures now reflect reward for increased skill acquisition. Strikes have dropped to near zero and new contracts are settled with little fuss.

Employment is up 20%, or 250,000 jobs, or 4.5% per year, and forecasts indicate this will continue. Unemployment fell from 11% in 1991 to under 6% in 1996, compared to Australia, where that is not the case. Seventy-five per cent of new jobs are full-time.

The greatest benefactors of change were the socially disadvantaged: the indigenous population like the Maoris, women and youth.

Climate in most workplaces improved. People felt a sense of empowerment.

Initial opinion surveys indicated a 2-to-1 opposition to the ECA. Now, 41% of every 1,000 New Zealanders surveyed approve or strongly approve of the right to work. Eighty-five per cent now feel high or very high job satisfaction. Seventy-five per cent of those surveyed want direct employment and wage negotiations with their employer. Workers now determine negotiation strategies, not union heads.

In the 1996 general election the opposition party campaigned to repeal the ECA. They lost the election; 60% of the electorate voted for parties that promised to retain the current system.

Who are the losers? Union membership is down 30%, union officials have lost some jobs and some unions have evolved into service organizations helping to sell services and improve members' competitiveness. Industrial relations departments at universities have disappeared. Funnily, union political contributions seemed to have declined.

A 1996 global competitive report rates New Zealand as the third most competitive economy out of the 44 countries surveyed; Canada ranked eighth. New Zealand also is ranked second on "willingness to accept change" criteria, such as labour force restructuring and ability to avoid social costs of employment.

Overall, labour productivity has risen 2% per annum from 1991 to 1996. Combined output of capital and labour rose by 2.3% versus 1.3% in previous upswings. New Zealanders have translated economic upswings in demand into more employment and modest wage increases.

Right-to-work laws have produced a palpable improvement in workers' satisfaction. New commitment to quality and productivity has replaced the notorious attitudes towards performance that were the result of distant and remote authorities' wage-fixing. Workers are now rewarded for effort, skill and attention to quality.

What's happening in Canada? The Canadian public agrees that compulsion to join a union is unacceptable. A recent national survey of 1,504 Canadians by the Angus Reid survey group found that 90% of respondents believe a worker shouldn't have to be a member of a union in order to be hired; 61% of respondents believe that both union membership and the payment of union dues should be voluntary; 80% of respondents who are currently union members believe that workers should not have to be union members to get a job.

In

summary, Bill 131 is about restoring the fundamental right of Ontario workers to exercise the Charter of Rights to freely associate, or disassociate, as the case may be. Times have changed since 1948. We have a better-educated and a more independent workforce. We have employment standards and labour relations legislation that now provide workers with protection from abuse that occurred in the past.

The New Zealand experience effectively refutes the court's presumption in the Lavigne decision: that the worker is better off as a member of a union. Obviously, the people of New Zealand are enjoying prosperity and benefits, especially those people critics claim should have been most severely affected because of social disadvantage. It's time for right-to-work legislation in Ontario. I urge you to support this bill.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): This is as dangerous and evil and mean-spirited and vicious an attack on working people, on their families, on their parents, who as seniors expect some decency in their retirement, as has ever been presented.

The people in Welland-Thorold, across Niagara and across this province don't need lessons in workers' rights from the likes of the sponsor of this bill. Too many people in my own community of Welland-Thorold, across the region and across this province worked too hard, struggled too long and paid too high a price to build some modest rights for workers in this province to have them attacked and abolished in a single stroke, in one bill, by a government that's only going to serve one term.

If you want to take a look at some of the history, read Reverend Fern Sayles's book, Welland Workers Make History, and learn about the struggle of working people, new Canadians, immigrants on those picket lines. Learn about the time they spent in jail or the times they were bloodied up by company goons as they struggled for the right to build trade unions, as they struggled for some decent wages and some decent pensions, as they struggled, with great sacrifice, their spouses and kids on those picket lines with them, to build a better Ontario -- and by God, they did.

Let the sponsor of this bill take this message to the workers at Gallaher Thorold Paper Co, who have won their jobs back because it was the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union that was singularly responsible for negotiating with the purchaser of a company that Noranda had every intention of shutting down, and to hell with the workers whose livelihoods depended on that place.

Let the sponsor of this bill go to the workers at Stelpipe Page-Hersey, the Canadian Auto Workers members who have been on their line for seven months struggling for some equity, some parity in wages with other Stelco operations and some modest improvements to pension plans.

The trade union movement is the single most important institution in our country in terms of the development of workers' rights, protection for workers in the workplace; protecting workers against the savagery of unsafe workplaces and the injuries and deaths that flow from that; protecting workers against the mean-spiritedness and the greed of, as we increasingly witness, multinational corporations that want to pick workers' pockets to enhance profits at any cost and with no regard for the welfare of workers and their families and their communities.

Let the sponsor of this bill talk about right-to-work jurisdictions. We know what they are. We witnessed them in the southern United States, we witnessed them throughout Third World countries, where the wealthy become that much wealthier but where working people and working standards drop lower and lower.

"Right to work" means the right to work for youngsters so we can restore child labour; it means the right to work for lower and lower wages, so we have a low-wage economy.

Let the sponsor of this bill talk to small businesses about what it means when you gut workers' wages so workers don't have the resources, the income to spend and invest in local businesses.

I couldn't be more opposed to any piece of legislation than I am to this, and I'm confident that I speak for the vast majority of people, not just across Niagara but across this province. As for me, I tell you, I'm sticking with the union. All of us owe too much to the struggle and the efforts of the trade union movement in this country. All of us owe far too much to abandon the trade union movement now.

As a New Democrat, I'm committed, as are other New Democrats, to building trade unionism so that more and more workers who now don't have the protection that a trade union provides in their workplace will acquire that protection; so that women workers perpetually exploited, all the more so under this government's regime, will obtain some modest protection; so that workers in unsafe workplaces will obtain some modest protection; so that seniors who expect to retire with dignity and decency can do so.

We'll be voting against this bill and arguing against it across this province. This is a government that betrays the legacy of Bill Davis and former Conservative governments.

This is a Reform policy, and I say now to working people out there who may have felt somewhat attracted to some of the hot-button issues that Preston Manning has been raising across the province and the country, you're looking at the real agenda of Reform, and that's to gut workers' rights and to place workers at the bottom of the pile so they can be exploited unmercifully and so they can be used to make bigger and bigger profits to satisfy more and more greed from the corporate and banking world. We're going to be voting against this bill.

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): Just a few words about this bill. We were elected on a clear mandate to repeal Bill 40 and to restore balance and stability in labour relations, and Bill 7 fulfilled this. We were elected on the clear mandate to democratize the workplace by introducing secret ballot votes, and Bill 7 fulfilled this commitment. The results of decertification votes now more accurately reflect the individual wishes of employees.

Speaking of stability, over the last year and a half since the passage of Bill 7, investors and employers have consistently expressed a desire for stability in Ontario's workplaces. In 1996, under our labour legislation, Ontario saw one of the lowest total number of strikes in the last 10 years: 134. The year before that under this government there were 136. So that points to stability. Also, we're in a period of much shorter strikes. In the early 1990s strikes were of an average duration of 40, 43 and 42 days, and now after Bill 7 we're down to a shorter duration of 33 days. Even that is higher almost exclusively as a result of the OPSEU dispute.

Directly to the bill, I think the fundamental question is one of a union shop requiring that a member must become a member of the union if he's an employee at a unionized workplace. To me the underlying philosophy is based on the wishes of the majority. If the majority of the employees in the bargaining unit want to be represented by a trade union, then the bargaining rights apply to all employees in the union. If 55% or more of the people vote for a union, then the rest of that workplace -- the majority rules -- should be represented by that union.

If the majority of people in that workplace don't want to be represented by the union, then we have decertification as a possibility for those people to pursue.

With regard to dues checkoff, the argument that employees do not vote for the union should nevertheless pay for representation by the exclusive bargaining agent, I'd agree with the Supreme Court of Canada, which ruled that "There is not distinction in principle between our overall system of government and the role of taxation within it in the mini-democracy of the workplace."

If 50% of the people vote for a governing party in Ontario, then they have the right to tax and spend tax money and pass laws, and the rest of the population, even those who didn't vote in favour of that government, still abides by those laws. I think it's a similar principle, in this case for both dues checkoff and union shop, that if the majority votes to be members of that union, the other 45% shouldn't say, "We're not going to abide by the rule of majority."

I won't be supporting this bill. Those are my thoughts on it.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I'm pleased to hear the comments of the previous speaker across the floor. I do not support this bill in any way, shape or form. Its intent is clear. What you see with this proposed bill in front of us is simply a blatant attack on unions and trade movements across this province. It's an attack that started on June 8, 1995, and it's occurring every single day.

If one follows theoretically what this bill says, if you apply the same argument, then the people in this province who did not vote for the Progressive Conservative government, which is about 55% of the people of Ontario, should feel they're not bound by the laws, by the tax policies, by the policies of this government, because they were not part of that; they didn't support that. That is not how our system works.

I have never belonged to a union. In the situations where I've worked, it was not there. But there have been situations where family and friends of mine I know very well have been protected by unions, have gained tremendous rights by unions, and I have family and friends who have paid a dear price for working in places that were not protected by unions.

My father was injured in an industrial accident. He remained in a wheelchair for 23 years, until he died. The reason that occurred was because the owner of the place where he was working, a small, non-unionized company, did not spend $2 to put a wooden barrier around an elevator shaft. He fell 40 feet down that elevator shaft.

That blatant health and safety violation could have been avoided, but you know what? The owner wasn't accountable to anybody. There was nobody putting the pressure on; there was nobody putting the heat on. There was nobody to make sure he followed the laws of the province. I venture to say that if my father had worked in a company that had a union and he had been protected by the rights and support of that union, that accident would not have occurred. There are many other cases.

Health and safety standards across this province have improved tremendously because of unions, wages for workers have become more fair because of unions, but you'd like to bring it back to the good old days, as you see it, of Reform mentality, where people who owned the companies ran the show, where there was no balance, where health and safety was only an aside to doing business.

Your Bill 7 has done that to a great degree. You took labour legislation that had been put in place by previous NDP, Liberal, even Tory governments and you've gutted it. You've made it open season on union workers across this province. You've allowed scab labour in every part of our society. You have taken away the basic protection that working men and women had across this province, and this bill only does that further.

I don't understand why this government is so obsessed about taking rights away from working men and women across Ontario, people who simply want to go to work in the morning, earn a decent living and go home, back to their families, in one piece at the end of the day. Any of us would wish that. I don't think that's evil, I don't think that's wrong, I don't think that's bad, but you obviously seem to think so.

This legislation is another attack on those people across this province who work in conditions that are often difficult, who work often under some very dangerous situations and who have health and safety protection in place as a result of gains that have been made over the years. You want to take all that way.

By doing this, you are simply weakening the role of unions, and it's nothing else. Don't hide behind it. Come out and say that's your case. Don't play games with this. Don't word it as something balanced and fair, with privileges and freedoms and rights and all that, because you love that. That's the typical crap we hear all the time. Come out and say what it is. Call it what it is: union busting. You don't like unions. You want to get rid of unions. You do not feel unions serve a purpose. Come out and say that is your intent here. Don't skate around it with some cutesy wording.

Most people in Ontario believe there's a role for unions to play, that unions provide leadership in the workplace and protection for workers. And yes, you know what? They may be inconvenient sometimes to the corporate ownership of a company, because they may force them to do things that are in the best interests of the worker. That's tough, but there has to be a balance and there's got to be protection.

Your government has not offered that and Bill 7 has not offered that. This bill only goes one more step in bashing and destroying unions in this province, and I'm sure not going to be part of it. I believe most Ontarians disagree with you and most Ontarians can see right through your anti-working agenda that you've put forward today again.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): The Tory-Reform Party of Ontario is again today showing its true colours. They are anti-worker, they are anti-union; they are pro-management, they are pro-employer. Let us make no bones about it and let us not kid each other. Those people out there who are looking at the Reform Party as a possible way to vote in this federal election, let this be a lesson to you.

What you get is a party that, yes, pushes some hot-button issues, that says, "We're tough on crime," and "We're tough on welfare bums," and a whole bunch of other stuff, to use their language, but what the real hidden agenda is all about is tipping the scales of balance to where those with money and those with power have it all and the rest of us be damned.

The member, Mr Sheehan, comes before us today with this particular bill and proposes that we undo what has been built in this province over a period of time, not by NDP governments, not by Liberal governments, but legislation that was first pushed by workers in this province through their blood, sweat, toil and tears. They had to be able to get the government of the day, a Conservative government, to recognize that unions and workers have a right to coexist, and if you don't have unions and you don't have the ability for workers to form unions, in the end it will not be a good thing for workers and it will not be a good thing for the economy.

The member proposes to do what? To do away with the Rand formula. The Rand formula is what allows unions to exist to a great degree in this province and across North America. The member comes before us and says, "Let's get rid of the Rand formula; let's do what they do in the United States, in places like Mississippi and Atlanta," where they have right-to-work states, where basically workers don't have the ability to form unions in the way that we do up in this part.

What really is happening here is that the government is trying to make a change to our economy in doing so. They want to move from what we have today in Ontario and Canada, what is determined and called a high-wage economy, where unions and workers get together and negotiate with their employers. They get a fair return in wages for work done for the employer, the employer still makes a dollar, and because we have a lot of consumers in our economy who have a good salary, we have what's called a high-wage economy.

They want to turn that high-wage economy into what you have in the United States, in the southern states especially, which is a low-wage economy, where workers are lucky if they're able to get a job for minimum wage; where workers don't have rights within the workplace when it comes to health and safety issues or whatever it might be; and where the way you attract capital into your community is to say, "Come to our community and we'll allow you to exploit the workers of our community so that you may profit." That's what this government is all about.

I say to those people who are watching, I say to those who are paying attention to this debate, beware of what this Tory-Reform government is doing. There is a hidden agenda here. Yes, the Mike Harris government, like the Reform Party, got elected by pushing some hot-button issues, but there is a hidden agenda and that agenda is, "We will transfer over the power to individual employers and individuals with money and we will take that power away from workers," and people like you and I. You have to have in every economy a balance. What we have in our Ontario economy is a balance, and the government is trying to get rid of that.

I also want to say to the government, and I want to say it directly: Don't think for one second that the people of Ontario are not paying attention to what you are doing and don't think for one second that the unions and the labour movement are not paying attention to what you're doing, because they are.

We have with us today in our gallery James Moffatt from the Ontario Sheet Metal Workers' union. He is but one representative of the labour movement.

I tell you, you pass this legislation today and it won't be just James Moffatt who will be here; you will have thousands of workers protesting in front of Queen's Park, going before your constituency offices and saying: "Stop these tactics. Stop these attacks on workers. You were elected the government on behalf of the people of Ontario, not against them," and that's exactly where you're going with this piece of legislation.

I say to the government, think well before you vote on this piece of legislation. Yes, you were elected to govern, but you have to stop this attack on workers. If you pass this legislation, what it basically means is in a short period of time the labour movement, as we know it today, will cease to exist, and that's exactly what you guys are trying to do. If you vote for that today, if this bill passes today at second reading at private members' hour, it sends a very direct message out to the people of this province.

I want to thank you very much, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to speak. I know that the member for Nickel Belt wants to have a few words on this bill. Again, I urge all members of this assembly to vote against this legislation because it is purely and simply an attack on workers and workers' rights, trying to move our economy to that of a low-wage economy such as what's found in the United States, where they have the right to work such as the member Frank Sheehan is trying to get people in this Legislature to accept. That I will not do.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Further debate.

Mr Jim Flaherty (Durham Centre): I'm pleased to speak in support of the private member's bill by the member for Lincoln, who, as you know, has been responsible on behalf of our government as chair of the Red Tape Review Commission for numerous pieces of legislation, helping to simplify the process for businesses and job creation in Ontario, to get rid of red tape and to make it easier for business to invest and do business in the province, thereby creating jobs for all of us.

There are other initiatives also. There's a new front-counter operation at the registry office in Whitby now in my riding of Durham Centre which provides services, not only the registry service, the traditional ones, but also gives the ability for people to apply for passports and for birth, marriage and death certificates. All of these are initiatives that our government has taken in order to make Ontario a better place to do business, a more convenient place to do business, less paperwork, less red tape. Certainly the member for Lincoln has played a prominent role in all of that.

In this bill the object is not, as the member for Cochrane South describes, something about affecting the right to unionize. It's not that at all. It is about taking away any compulsion or any coercion or forcing of a person to belong to a particular association in order to work in Ontario. That's a very important individual right, I'd suggest, that people in the province ought to enjoy, and that is the thrust of this legislation, this proposed act brought forward by the member for Lincoln.

Competition is important. In my riding of Durham Centre we have large international businesses, we have small businesses. Even the small businesses have world mandates. I visited one of them recently and their major competitor in the world isn't in the United States and it isn't in Australia. Their major competitor is in northern Italy. They compete all across western Europe and all across the United States, not against a low-wage jurisdiction in the southern United States, as the member for Cochrane South alleges, but rather against a firm in northern Italy.

Similarly, we have businesses in my riding of Durham Centre that compete internationally, that have world mandates from their large international businesses to compete from Canada, from Whitby, across the United States, across western Europe, across Asia, indeed across the world.

When we look at that context and we look at the competition for investment, investment means jobs across the world. I think we have to be cautious about taking away individual rights, coercing persons to belong to associations in order to work and earn a living for themselves and their families in the province of Ontario. Governments don't create jobs of course, but governments can get in the way. By red tape and by laws, governments can inhibit the creation of jobs and get in the way of those who would create jobs in this jurisdiction and in other jurisdictions.

My colleague from Lincoln has pointed out that the public expectations in Ontario are that people, by a large margin, take the view that everyone in the province should have the right to work, to earn a living, to support their family, without being compelled, without being forced to belong to an association in order to have that workplace available to them.

When we look across the world -- and I do mean across the world, not just the United States, as the member for Cochrane South refers to -- the European court in Strasbourg was involved. In Great Britain, they passed a law back in 1990, some seven years ago now, making it unlawful to refuse a person employment because they would not join a particular association. In Switzerland such a compulsion is null and void. In Belgium such a compulsion of an individual is null and void. The same in France.

Since 1956, if we go back that far, my goodness -- closed-shop provisions to coerce an employer to hire or maintain employment of only union members have been null and void for many years now, 40 years, in France.

In Japan, New Zealand, Ireland, South America -- the American Convention on Human Rights provides in

section 8(3): "No one may be compelled to belong to a trade union." The African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, affecting 49 African countries, similarly provides: "No one may be compelled to join an association." So we see the pattern across the world.

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): This is about the Third World, isn't it? Down to the Third World. Here we come.

Mr Flaherty: This is the world that we compete with. My friend from Nickel Belt says, "The Third World." Switzerland is not the Third World, the last time I heard. Belgium is not the Third World. France isn't the Third World. Western Europe isn't the Third World. The United States isn't the Third World. We have to compete for jobs and the people in my riding want jobs. They want work. They want an opportunity to work in the province of Ontario so they can raise their families and have a decent life and a decent living here and educate their children.

In

summary then, I'd like to compliment the member for Lincoln for bringing forward this bill, which will create a better climate for investment in Ontario, which will create jobs for the people of Ontario, which will put us on an even keel with most of the other jurisdictions with whom business and industry in the province are obliged to compete.

I support the bill and I congratulate the member for Lincoln for conceiving, developing and bringing this bill forward in this House for debate.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): May I say at the outset that I will not be supporting this private member's bill this morning and I encourage all members of the House to seriously consider that they too should not support the bill.

I would especially encourage members, like the member who brings this private member's bill forward, to go out into the world and gain some experience on both sides of this issue. If I speak from some of my experience as a member of a union for about eight years, and many of the members of my family as well, people in my family who are part of the business community, you look at the relevance of unions and there is no question that this bill strikes at the very heart of what matters most to unions, and that is the development of the Rand formula.

Coming from Windsor, we probably have a little more history with the Rand formula. It was developed by a judge in 1946 and it was developed specifically to follow one of the most worldwide-renowned strikes in the history of the world. That was the strike at General Motors, which lasted for a very long period of time, involved a huge number of people, hundreds of them, members of the labour force at General Motors.

It was a strike that had tremendous ramifications in the community of Windsor, the result of which was a judge making a decision that when the union negotiates a package for its employees, if all of the members benefit from that package, all of them would then pay union dues. In my view, there is a sense of fairness.

Now, the private member brings forward a bill today in the name of fairness, allowing fairness for all members of the community. I would ask the member to tell me what is not fair about every member of a workplace also benefiting from all of the good that the union and employer negotiation results in. That in fact is a sense of fairness.

The greater concern I have is that here is another example of the Progressive Conservative-Reform government of Ontario, another attack on unions, which this becomes, and yet so many of them, in the last election, actually voted for this Reform government. My concern is that you keep putting one over on workers in Ontario as if you're doing them a favour. In the case of the election, it was this tax cut that they all bought into. Frankly, if you listened to the news this morning, the increase in coffee prices alone has eaten up my tax cut; I don't know about the rest of you.

It was so minimal, and yet the effect of the $5 billion that you borrowed at a time when we could hardly afford to borrow more billions of dollars -- you offered the cut.

Yesterday we heard that Standard and Poor's released its rating again for Ontario. This Conservative government, viewed by the members themselves only as being so pro-business, now has the same rating of AA- as the Bob Rae government had for the last two years of its term, so your economic policies don't work. You are not here to help the workers in Ontario.

Another example: One of the members from Durham speaks about wanting to help workers find jobs. We have a larger number of health care workers without jobs today than ever, and we're going to have more as this trend continues. The more you close hospitals, the more you download and dump, the more we lose workers. You say you want to put these people to work, and you cancel the HSTAP program for training, the very thing that workers will need to change and become part of this new world of work. You've cancelled the very programs that offer the training for them to do so.

You can't here in private members' hour talk about fairness for workers and say that you want to do this because you want workers to have every opportunity for work, and in the afternoon session introduce legislation that has your health minister eliminate some of the most basic training needs for workers that you, by your own government policy, are displacing. You just can't have it both ways.

This government clearly is not on side with the majority of people who are working in Ontario. This private member's bill is a clear indication of that. The people in Windsor and Essex county have grown up with unions, where the Rand formula began in 1946. Judge Rand made an historic decision when he came down with the ruling and the creation of the Rand formula, which then went across North America, and the result was the development of very good negotiations between employers and unions across North America. All I can tell you is that I personally don't support the bill.

I encourage all members of the House also to look at the wider scope of what this government is doing, which is very much against workers.

Mr Laughren: I should make note first of the fact that our labour critic from Hamilton, Dave Christopherson, is not able to be here. He's out of the country. He would dearly love to have been involved in this debate, I can assure you, and we know what position he would have taken.

I have mixed feelings about the introduction of this bill because part of me sees it as simply another manifestation of the ugly, disgusting face of Reform that surfaces within the Tory caucus every now and again. But the other part of me wants to say to the member for Lincoln, "I'm glad you brought this forward." You know what? It would be fascinating, and I would challenge the members of the government to vote for this bill. I dare you to vote for this bill and make it the law of the province, because you know what? You haven't got the guts to do it.

You know and I know that if you ever made this bill the law of this province, there would be utter chaos across the land. You think that encouraging scabs through your replacement worker legislation made the labour movement angry. If you did this, you would be the laughingstock. This bill itself, even without that happening, will be in every union hall in Ontario; you can be absolutely sure of that. It will be raised at every all-candidates meeting in the next election. You just watch.

I want to see, when it comes to five to 12, how many cabinet ministers are in here supporting the member for Lincoln on this bill. Any takers? How many cabinet ministers do you think will be supporting this bill? Any at all? I think not, because all you're doing is pushing a hot button for some of your friends. You don't have the courage or the conviction to proceed with this bill because you know, and I know, that you would be in deep, deep doodoo if you ever did. You couldn't sustain yourselves in your government if you enacted the legislation that's reflected in this bill. You would not be able to do it.

All you're doing is setting up poor little Mr Sheehan from Lincoln, sitting in the back benches, to bring forward something that will make the Reform people happy. He's a stooge for you. That's what he is. I hope you understand that, Mr Sheehan. How does it feel to be used like a stooge on the part of the Reform Party of this country? That's all you are. We'll see.

Interjections.

Mr Laughren: I could be totally wrong. Just get down off your hind legs for a minute. I'm almost finished. I just want to say to you that we'll see. I could be wrong. Maybe the cabinet will come in and support Mr Sheehan's bill. I would venture a guess that they no more have the courage to do it than they have to bring in the bill and make it the law of the province of Ontario.

I want to tell you, this is a disgusting anti-worker piece of legislation, absolutely disgusting. I never thought I'd see a Tory party bring it into the House, even in the form of a private member's bill. I would simply say to you, I'll bet you whatever you want to bet that you won't get support for this.

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): I'm not quite sure which way the member for Nickel Belt is planning on voting on this after that, but I would say that if cabinet ministers don't vote for this, it will be because they have a very important cabinet meeting this morning that they may be at.

I'm privileged to speak to this and I will be speaking in support of my colleague for Lincoln, who I believe recognizes the importance of bringing this matter forward for debate, because it is not as the member for Nickel Belt has said, nor the member for Windsor-Sandwich, nor any of the other speakers who have spoken against this bill. This is not about an anti-union positioning of this government. This is very much a pro-worker bill that is simply saying to the people of this province that it's high time that the focus be placed on the workers and that workers are given an opportunity to express their free will as to what they want to have happen in the workplace.

I think it's important that we put into context what the situation is in this province now. Employees and unions are free to enter into agreements in this province today whereby all employees are required to be union members. What we're saying here with this legislation, what my colleague intends, is that when such a discussion takes place, there should be the opportunity for individual employees to say, "No, I choose not to be a member of this union."

Mrs Pupatello: You didn't think that when you were running in Essex county. You didn't think that in Leamington, when you were down in the Windsor area. That is not what you believed when you ran three times.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Windsor-Sandwich, order.

Mr Klees: I can tell you just from personal experience that I've had many people in my constituency office who have come to me and said, "I do not appreciate the fact that in a democratic society I lose my democratic right the minute I become a member of a particular workforce in a particular company." What is it? Why are we so fearful in giving the right to individual workers to take a position that may well be contrary to a union position? This is simply what the member is trying to achieve here.

As I said before, this is really about what is in the best interests of workers. Let's take a look at some of the facts in other jurisdictions where we have right-to-work legislation.

Mrs Pupatello: But you ran in the Windsor area. That's not what you said.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Windsor-Sandwich, come to order.

Mr Klees: Let me just share with you some of the facts. The truth of the matter is that in the United States, it is interesting that of the top 20 job-creating states, 19 of them have right-to-work legislation. If we're interested in workers, if we care about workers, should we not be interested in ensuring that we create an environment in which jobs can be created?

There is extensive evidence that the average after-tax annual income in right-to-work states is $3,000 higher than in non-right-to-work states. Why is that? If we're concerned about individual workers, the quality of life, job creation for men, women and young people who are coming into our workforce, is it not incumbent upon this government and members of the opposition to do what is right for workers in this province?

Mrs Pupatello: You have never seen a correct analysis of those numbers. In the end, Ontario workers cost less in those studies.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Windsor-Sandwich, come to order, please.

Mr Klees: The other fact is that the gap in right-to-work legislation states is considerably less between the rich and the poor than it is in non-right-to-work states.

What we have to do is come to the focus of what this is all about. What this legislation is about is putting the focus on people and away from organizations. I find it interesting that at a time when the opposition waxes eloquent in their defence of the unemployed, of the vulnerable in our society, on this particular issue you come out in favour of the large, monopoly union organizations rather than advocating on behalf of the men, women and young people who need jobs, who deserve jobs and who, many times, are prevented from having their say in the workplace simply because they're a member of a union.

We believe that unions are important. We also believe that the rights of individuals are important.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): What is most interesting about this bill is that the extreme right-wing members of the government caucus are the ones who are most enthusiastic about it. That sends a little bit of a message out there.

I see certain political parties right now that are appealing to blue-collar workers across the province and, with some hot-button issues, have had an opportunity to resonate well on some of these issues. But many of the people who are industrial workers and those in other workplaces must recognize that the real agenda of the right-wing conservative -- I'm speaking of a small-c conservative this time -- begins to appear when you see legislation of this kind: anti-labour legislation.

Let all of those who are working in industrial plants, let all of those who are working in workplaces where the union has won for the employees some substantial benefits and decent wages and working conditions, let all of those workers know what these right-wing parties are really about.

Yes, they may sound good on certain issues, they may resonate well on certain simplistic issues, but when it comes down to protecting pensions, when it comes down to protecting social programs, when it comes down to protecting health care, when it comes down to protecting the rights of workers, these parties are prepared to begin an assault on the rights of those workers.

It's very instructive to see that you're not seeing the moderate members of the Conservative caucus up speaking in favour of this bill; you are seeing people who have extreme right-wing views. As I say, for some I understand it; for some people out there who have these views because it would be beneficial to them, I can understand it. But let workers out there know, workers who might be tempted to vote for right-wing parties because one of these right-wing parties might be bashing somebody somewhere or bashing a group in the country, that the real agenda of those parties is to look after the wealthiest and the most influential people in our society and not so-called ordinary Canadians.

You can dress up the leaders of those parties in certain uniforms, the denim and the open collars and so on, but when it comes down to it, they really represent the interests of the wealthiest and most powerful people in our society. Any moderate member of the Conservative caucus who would vote for this legislation should be ashamed of herself or himself. Bill Davis, when he was in power, brought forward legislation that he believed to be balanced.

He had some arguments with members of the trade union movement and some of those members had some arguments with the Premier, but what you found was that at least they could engage in a meaningful dialogue with that Conservative government -- Premier Davis and Premier Robarts; I can look back to at least those two premiers -- so we saw this legislation come forward.

What the member for Lincoln is in fact attacking is previous Conservative legislation. What he really wants is for people to be able to get all the advantages of a collective agreement without having to pay the union dues. The people have an opportunity to vote for certification or not vote for certification of a union. If they don't want one, they can participate in that process.

But this represents an attack on something on which I thought there was a consensus among moderate people of goodwill right across this province, and now we see extreme right-wing legislation being proposed that must really make some of the members of the Conservative caucus very uncomfortable, having been part of a government where that government tried, didn't always succeed, but tried to provide a sense of consensus and balance in labour legislation.

I will certainly be voting opposed to this. I will be voting against this bill, as I'm sure many of the moderate members of the government will be voting against this legislation, which is anti-worker, which is anti-employer, which is not about providing rights except to those who wish to exploit people within the workplace. I think it would be extremely dangerous and send out a bad signal for this government to approve of this kind of legislation. I hope some of the government members will vote against it.

The Acting Speaker: Mr Sheehan, you have two minutes to respond.

Mr Sheehan: It's always interesting to hear the opposition talk. Always in the theoretical, never do they advance any solid facts to support their position. This is not anti-labour. This is not anti-workers' rights. It's about protecting their rights. It's about advancing their cause. It's about advancing the standards and advancing the cause of the consumer.

Nobody's going to dispute the contribution the labour unions made. I suggest to you it was made in a different time and a different place prior to what we are now confronted with in world-class competition. We suggest that they no longer require hothouse protection and right-to-work legislation. I suggest that the labour union movement would be well served if they started to figure out how they can help their workers advance into the 21st century and accept reality where they find it.

This legislation is not about protecting General Motors or TRW. The big unions and the big corporations are equally balanced and they deserve each other, all right? But it is about protecting the small businessman who is not up to the large well-financed attacks of the union on their rights to exist and continue. We are not about beating up on the working man. We are for the working man. We are talking about advancing his freedom and his right and the necessity that he become responsible for his activities.

COURTS OF JUSTICE AND MINISTRY OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES TRIBUNAUX JUDICIAIRES ET LA

LOI SUR LE MINISTÈRE DES SERVICES CORRECTIONNELS

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): We will deal first with ballot item number 79, standing in the name of Mr Ouellette. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will you please rise.

Mr Ouellette has moved second reading of Bill 130. 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. Carried. The bill shall be referred to committee of the whole.

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): I would ask that it be referred to the justice committee.

The Acting Speaker: Is that agreed? Is there a majority in favour? All those in favour, please rise and remain standing. A majority in favour. The bill will be referred to the justice committee.

EMPLOYEES' RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LES DROITS ET LIBERTÉS DES EMPLOYÉS

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): We will deal next with ballot item number 80. Mr Sheehan has moved second reading of Bill 131. If there are any members opposed to this bill being voted on, will you please rise.

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

Those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

The division bells rang from 1201 to 1206.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. To the member for Nickel Belt, I can't take a point of order in the middle of a vote.

All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing until recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Baird, John R.

Galt, Doug

Sheehan, Frank

Beaubien, Marcel

Hudak, Tim

Skarica, Toni

Chudleigh, Ted

Klees, Frank

Stewart, R. Gary

Flaherty, Jim

Leadston, Gary L.

Tascona, Joseph N.

Fox, Gary

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Wood, Bob

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

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Hastings, John

Maves, Bart

Arnott, Ted

Kormos, Peter

McLeod, Lyn

Bisson, Gilles

Kwinter, Monte

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Boushy, Dave

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Pupatello, Sandra

Bradley, James J.

Lankin, Frances

Ruprecht, Tony

Brown, Michael A.

Laughren, Floyd

Sergio, Mario

Crozier, Bruce

Marchese, Rosario

The Acting Speaker: The ayes are 15; the nays are 20. I declare the motion lost.

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I know it's a bit unusual but I wonder if we could have unanimous consent to extend the length for voting for another five minutes to allow some cabinet ministers to get in here to support Mr Sheehan's bill.

The Acting Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? No. I hear a no.

All matters relating to private members' public business have now been completed. I do now leave the chair and the House will resume at 1:30 this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1208 to 1331.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SCHOOL BOARDS

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I want again to express my strong concerns about Bill 104, the bigger school boards bill. It was and is my contention that the people in northern Ontario will not be represented adequately on these mega-boards encompassing in many cases tens of thousands of square kilometres.

Further, Hornepayne, which requested an isolate school board designation or, failing that, to be included with district school board number 1, has been included with district school board number 2 and will be totally without any board representation.

The bigger school boards act is the problem, and the implementation of this act is becoming a nightmare. At a minimum, the minister must give the communities minimal representation, because this school board is an area of 70,000 square kilometres. Minister, use some common sense: Expand the representation.

WOODGREEN COMMUNITY CENTRE

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): This June, Woodgreen Community Centre in my riding of Riverdale celebrates 60 years of service to east Toronto neighbourhoods.

As many of you will be aware, Woodgreen is a fixture of east Toronto life. Woodgreen Community Centre, whose motto is "A partner in community building," is a neighbourhood-based, multicultural, non-profit organization providing a range of services to our communities. These include but are not limited to children's services such as day camp and child care; community support services and programs for new Canadians, seniors and persons with disabilities; various counselling programs, home support, employment and training services; and non-profit housing. They also offer legal services and programs for persons who are socially isolated or have a history of mental illnesses.

Woodgreen has a long history of service to east Toronto. Founded in 1936 by Rev Ray McCleary, it was run out of his house until a centre was built in 1947. Since then, it has continued to add and expand its programming to meet the ever-changing needs of east Toronto communities.

I'm proud of Woodgreen's record of service and commitment to a healthy, safe and inclusive community. Again I ask members to join me in thanking the staff, board and volunteers, past and present, for 60 years of service and to wish them all the best for the challenges that lie ahead as they continue to contribute to the health of our city. Thank you, Woodgreen.

BRUCE TRAIL

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton North): I'm delighted to remind the House that next month marks the 30th anniversary of the opening of the Bruce Trail.

As a resident of Milton for most of my life, I have a long-standing appreciation for the natural wonder and beauty of the Niagara Escarpment.

We're all very fortunate that in the early 1960s a small group of people had the vision to imagine a walking trail that stretched the length of the escarpment, from Queenston to Tobermory, and the determination and spirit to make their vision a reality. In June we will be celebrating that spirit.

We are renewing the commitment made 30 years ago to ensure that the natural environment of the escarpment along the Bruce Trail is protected and conserved for future generations.

We're also acknowledging the generous cooperation of local landowners who have given permission for the trail to cross their property. Without their kind collaboration, the dream of an unbroken trail across the escarpment could not be realized.

Finally, we are recognizing the hard work of the Bruce Trail clubs whose members have made the dream come true. They are the volunteers who are building this trail mile by mile. Their efforts have given thousands of people an opportunity to experience first hand the natural splendour of the Niagara Escarpment.

In closing, I want to commend all the volunteers for their tireless dedication to one of Ontario's natural wonders, the Bruce Trail, and invite all members of the House to come out to the trail and discover its wonders for themselves.

GOVERNMENT'S AGENDA

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): It is always interesting to observe how hot-button issues that stir anger against some groups in society or play upon the emotions of the electorate in reality serve to mask the real agenda of political parties.

How many senior citizens who voted for the Harris team, the Conservative Party that was imitating the Reform Party, thought the new right-wing government would cast seniors, students and other vulnerable people to the wolves by killing rent controls and making conversions of rental buildings to condominium buildings so easy?

How many seniors would have imagined that the party whose television commercials bashing social service recipients or employment equity programs, encouraging resentment against certain people in our society, would force senior citizens to pay user fees for prescription drugs or close hospitals so necessary to our older population?

Once again there are politicians who are purveying a message of hate and resentment to voters and offering simplistic answers to complicated questions. These messages that provoke anger so often cloud the real intentions of political parties of protest, parties which portray themselves as spokespersons for the average, ordinary individual when in fact they are the servants of the rich and powerful.

Workers in our factories and plants in Ontario should take note of the dismantling of the Workers' Compensation Board and the kind of anti-worker bill that was introduced by a government MPP this morning.

Those simple and inflammatory slogans are so often a smokescreen for an extreme right-wing agenda which would place pensions, health care and social programs in jeopardy. We should always look before we leap.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Yesterday my colleague from Dovercourt and I went to the rally to save Doctors Hospital. They were chanting to this government, "Take the bricks, keep the mix."

Doctors Hospital has a long and proud tradition of responding to the needs of its communities, and in this case Doctors Hospital responds to the various needs of the linguistic communities in their languages, because it serves Chinese Canadians, Portuguese Canadians, Spanish-speaking Canadians, and a lot of African communities as well, in their own language. That to me is important.

What they're doing and what is being proposed is to subsume Doctors Hospital in the Toronto Western. The fear is that the long and proud tradition of responding to the communities will be lost unless they have an independent board that will be there to ascertain that the history they have had with those communities is there. They are afraid, in spite of what the minister says, that the restructuring committee will not respond to that basic demand. What they want is an assurance from the minister that if the restructuring committee fails to heed that advice, he, as the boss of the health care system, will intervene to make sure Doctors Hospital and its services are maintained.

SCARBOROUGH ECONOMY

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): It gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today as the member for Scarborough Centre. Scarborough's economy, like Ontario's economy, is booming. Investment is coming to Scarborough; jobs are being created. This is good news, and the people of Scarborough and the people in my riding are letting me know that they support the decisions of this government.

Here are some examples of companies that said they are investing in Scarborough: Eli Lilly Canada further expanded, bringing 75 new, high-value, high-tech jobs; Novopharm is creating 200 new jobs; Clearnet, Cinram, Cosmetica, Leyland Industries have all said yes to Scarborough and they have said yes to Ontario; Lees Development is building its third new residential tower; a new textile manufacturer is coming to Scarborough, bringing 600 new jobs.

Millions of dollars are being invested commercially at Cedarbrae Mall at Markham Road and Lawrence Avenue in Scarborough Centre. Cedarbrae Mall is getting more than a facelift. It's becoming a whole new service centre for people to shop and get the services they require. Coffee Time Donuts, a Scarborough company, Loblaws, Reitman's, CIBC and others have all made a further commitment to Scarborough and to the people of Scarborough Centre.

This is not government money. It is private enterprise investing in our community. All these companies have said they are committed to Scarborough, that they want to be located in a thriving community and in a prosperous province. Why? Because our plan as a government is working. The business and investment climate is being created; taxes are being lowered; jobs are coming; investment is coming. These are not just numbers from Statistics Canada. This is something that people can see. They are able to see it in the riding of Scarborough Centre.

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): I'd like to read a letter that I just received in the mail, which I think is very typical of all seniors across Ontario.

"Sandra Pupatello:

"I don't know if you're the person I'm supposed to write to, but I hope you can give me an answer.

"I have to pay the first $100 on my prescription and $6.11 after for prescriptions.

"Last September 11, I paid" the drugstore "$100 and was told that was for a year, which would be good until September 1997. Well, I went to have prescriptions filled today...and they told me I had to pay another $100, as the new year started April 1.

"Doesn't Mike Harris get enough of our seniors' money? As I was told, a year is 12 months and I should have been paid up until September 1997. The way they're figuring from September to April is just seven months.

"When I asked the girl in the drugstore why, she replied, `I guess it's a short year.' Maybe for government, but I feel that's my money. I should have five months' credit on the $100 I paid. If they were going to start their new year in April 1997, why didn't they just collect for those months, not a year?

"I would appreciate you looking into this, as I know I won't be the only one getting cheated by Mike Harris. Thank you.

"Marion McAuliffe" -- a resident and constituent of mine.

Marion, I just want to say you are not the only senior being cheated, and on Monday, voting Reform or Conservative gives you more of this.

ACCESS TO PROFESSIONS AND TRADES

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I rise to once again bring to the government's attention, particularly to the attention of the Minister of Citizenship, the lack of progress by this government on the issue of access to trades and professions.

The problem is essentially this: We have in Ontario thousands of people who are trained in various skills or professions in their country of origin. When they come to Ontario, they continue to face roadblocks in getting those credentials assessed and recognized and translated into Ontario equivalencies in a way that will allow them to have fair access to the various trades and professions in this province.

The answer, and the minister knows it, is to establish a credential assessment service to ensure that those roadblocks that now stand in the way of many residents of Ontario are removed. Because it hasn't been done, we have thousands of people in this province who, rather than practise their profession or use the skills they have in a particular skill area, have to do menial jobs, other low-paying jobs -- and that's if they're lucky to get those jobs. More often than not, they have to rely on social assistance.

For a government that says it's committed to giving people a hand up, it has shown very little progress in this area in the two years it has been the government. Once again, I want to say to this government, take the steps necessary to establish in this province a credential assessment service and give all Ontarians fair access to jobs.

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex): Three Ontario students, Mike Soley, Steve Windle and Mark MacDonald of Brantford, Ontario, recently won medals at the Ontario Technological Skills Competition in Kitchener for excellence in their respective fields of carpentry, automotive mechanics and print technology.

Today Mike and Steve, who have been involved in the Ontario youth apprenticeship and cooperative education programs at Pauline Johnson Collegiate, are going for gold at the national competition in Red Deer, Alberta. The national event has competitions in a variety of technical skills, ranging from bricklaying to automotive repair and cosmetology.

The accomplishments of these students show the real benefits such programs have in improving both the knowledge and skills levels of students. More important, it's giving them practical work experience in addition to a sound education, as well as exposing them to valuable career opportunities in our trade sector.

These partnerships with outside business have strengthened the ability of schools across Ontario to help our students achieve their goals. I trust that the reforms our government will be making to the apprenticeship system in the future will increase success stories such as these for Ontario students.

Today, along with my colleagues from Brantford and Brant-Haldimand, I'd like to invite the members in the House to join me in congratulating these students on their accomplishments and wishing them the best of luck as they represent Ontario at the National Skills Competition today.

HOUSE SITTINGS

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It's my understanding that when you make your rulings -- and I hope you'll hear me out on this -- you look to the standing orders, to precedent and to traditions of this place. It's on the latter issue that I am concerned and ask you to make a ruling.

The last time that the Ontario Legislature sat on a federal election day was 1874. It seems to me that's a long-standing and legitimate tradition in this assembly. I think for that reason, since many members want to be and indeed should be back in their ridings on election day, Monday, June 2, you -- and I hope you will consider this seriously -- should rule a Monday sitting of this Legislature to be out of order.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Let me say to the member for Nickel Belt, you're right about how rulings are made in this Legislature from the Speaker's dais. Let's be clear. First, we will check with the standing orders. If you don't find it in the standing orders, then you begin to move on, and you move on, obviously, to practice and precedent, and then you move on to the authorities.

The fact is that we find the answer to your particular concern in the standing orders. The standing orders strictly state that unless there's a motion or unanimous consent, then we should in fact be here on Monday. In the absence of a motion from the government and in the absence of unanimous consent, I can only say to you that I need g