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

May 1, 2008

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2008-May-01 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 1 May 2008 Jeudi 1 er mai 2008

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

AND HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

AMENDMENT ACT (ASSISTANCE

TO MUNICIPALITIES), 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR L'AMÉNAGEMENT

DES VOIES PUBLIQUES

ET DES TRANSPORTS EN COMMUN

(AIDE AUX MUNICIPALITÉ

S) LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT

ACT (CERTIFICATION), 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL

(ACCRÉDITATION)

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

AND HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

AMENDMENT ACT (ASSISTANCE

TO MUNICIPALITIES), 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR L'AMÉNAGEMENT

DES VOIES PUBLIQUES

ET DES TRANSPORTS EN COMMUN

(AIDE AUX MUNICIPALITÉ

S) LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT

ACT (CERTIFICATION), 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL

(ACCRÉDITATION)

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

AND HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

AMENDMENT ACT (ASSISTANCE

TO MUNICIPALITIES), 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR L'AMÉNAGEMENT

DES VOIES PUBLIQUES

ET DES TRANSPORTS EN COMMUN

(AIDE AUX MUNICIPALITÉ

S) LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT

ACT (CERTIFICATION), 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL

(ACCRÉDITATION)

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

WORLD CATHOLIC EDUCATION DAY

OIL SPRINGS

ETHEL GARDINER

POVERTY

SQUARE ONE FARMERS' MARKET

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY

OF SIMCOE COUNTY

ANNIVERSARY OF

POLISH CONSTITUTION

GUELPH DAY

HAMILTON ECONOMIC SUMMIT

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE

AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

VISITORS

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

ONTARIO ECONOMY

ONTARIO ECONOMY

ONTARIO ECONOMY

ONTARIO ECONOMY

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

RESEARCH AND INNOVATION

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTING PRACTICES

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

CORPORATE TAX

NATIVE LAND DISPUTES

SCHOOL POOLS

ROAD SAFETY

VEHICLE SAFETY

ABORIGINAL RIGHTS

PETITIONS

LORD'S PRAYER

SCHOOL POOLS

DAVID DUNLAP OBSERVATORY

LORD'S PRAYER

HOME CARE

FIREARMS CONTROL

LORD'S PRAYER

HOSPITAL FUNDING

POPE JOHN PAUL II

HOSPITAL FUNDING

HOSPITAL FUNDING

FIREARMS CONTROL

LORD'S PRAYER

HOSPITAL FUNDING

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LEGISLATIVE REFORM

PAYDAY LOANS ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 CONCERNANT

LES PRÊTS SUR SALAIRE

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

AND HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

AMENDMENT ACT (ASSISTANCE

TO MUNICIPALITIES), 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR L'AMÉNAGEMENT

DES VOIES PUBLIQUES

ET DES TRANSPORTS EN COMMUN

(AIDE AUX MUNICIPALITÉ

S) Mr. Yakabuski moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 38,

An Act to amend the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act with respect to the assistance that the Minister provides to municipalities / Projet de loi 38, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'aménagement des voies publiques et des transports en commun à l'égard de l'aide apportée aux municipalités par le ministre.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): The member has up to 10 minutes for debate.

Mr. John Yakabuski: It's a pleasure to introduce–I should say reintroduce—Bill 38,

An Act to amend the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act, for the third time to this Legislature. This act, if passed, would essentially compel the Ministry of Transportation to share the provincial gas tax rebate with all municipalities, not simply those that have a public transportation system.

I believe, and people in rural Ontario believe, that this is a fundamental issue of fairness. They ask, "How can gas tax be collected from everyone but only given to those who have a public transportation system?" It has even become more discriminatory recently with the price of gas here in Ontario.

If you look at the logic, someone who lives in rural Ontario has little choice on most occasions, even to go out for a quart of milk, but to get into a vehicle and drive to that store to pick up that product. They don't have the option of getting on a bus or on the TTC, even if it isn't on strike. They don't have that option. In fact, in rural Ontario—and I say this with all the deepest respect to those who live in the cities, and recognizing the importance of public transportation and the importance of government to fund those systems in the urban areas—the importance of your own vehicle is just as paramount for them being able to get around.

In fact, in most cases, in families where both spouses work, it's necessary to own two vehicles in rural Ontario, because the odds of them working in the same place on the same shift are quite small. So the fact is that they have to drive these vehicles and they have to pay those gas taxes. On a proportional basis, on a per capita basis, they pay much more, a much higher share of gas taxes because of the fact that they're not driving around the corner to go to work. In fact, if they were around the corner they'd walk, but they sometimes drive many, many kilometres.

In my case, just for the sake of argument, I live over 85 kilometres away from my constituency office. That's the reality of rural Ontario. I don't single myself out as being hard done by in that regard; that's just the reality of rural Ontario. The member from Algoma—Manitoulin would certainly recognize that. This is why I say it's a fundamental issue of fairness.

The reason that sharing the gas tax is something that would address this fairness is that the municipalities want it. One thing they've always asked for is sustainable, predictable funding from the government, not this hodgepodge of lottery systems that goes out and there are winners and losers every year. They want sustainable, predictable funding. That's in fact what the federal government has done. The predictability is what municipalities have asked for. The Eastern Ontario Wardens' Caucus, at the ROMA conference in the wintertime, addressed that as one of their highest priorities: gas tax funding from the provincial government.

I have here a plethora of support letters from municipalities in my riding. I can go through them all but I don't want to use up the clock. For example, the mayor of Petawawa, Bob Sweet, who used to be a warden of Renfrew county and also chair of the Eastern Ontario Wardens' Caucus, sent me a letter. One sentence of it: "We unconditionally support your bill for gas tax sharing." A letter from Raye-Anne Briscoe, the mayor of Admaston—Bromley; a letter from Sandy Heins, the mayor of Renfrew; a story in today's Daily Observer: County council "unanimously passed a resolution of support" for this bill.

People in rural Ontario want fairness. The Premier is going on about saying that he wants a new deal for Ontario. Well, people within Ontario want a fair deal from this provincial government. This is one way that they could address it.

They don't have to reinvent the wheel here. We already have a federal government that gives a share of the gas tax to all municipalities, not just those that have a public transportation system. I want to give you an example here. The county of Renfrew, in year five, year 2009-10, will receive from the federal government $2,688,605 in gas tax rebates. The city of Pembroke: $876,664. I can go down every municipality here. In Renfrew county, the five-year total is over $15 million in gas tax revenue from the federal government.

Why can one level of government understand and recognize the importance of fairness to all municipalities so that they can repair their public transportation system, which, as we all know, is their roads and bridges?

In my county of Renfrew, we have over 250 bridges. This kind of support would go a long way to allow them to devise a plan that would have an annual maintenance budget to ensure that those bridges were not only kept up but refurbished when necessary, not the idea that they have to go cap in hand to the provincial government, hoping that there might be some money; they might win the lottery.

Of course, what happens in those situations—and it is rather unfair in that regard—is that the government always plays politics with those things. They go out as the saviour of the day, getting all kinds of press releases, and the ministers go all around the province making announcements and telling the people in rural Ontario how wonderful they are—meaning them, the ministers—and how lucky you are—meaning the people—that we came here and left you a cheque, because we're going to look after that bridge.

All of that is appreciated; don't get me wrong. But what is needed is sustainable, predictable, annual funding so that these people can take care of those issues on their own, and so that they can determine where the priorities are and determine which bridge or road gets fixed in year 1, year 2, year 3, year 4 and so on. Not that a minister who is doing this—and I'm not going to impugn on motives, because I know that's not the thing to do here, but there's political motives as well as the intent to try to support municipal infrastructure.

We need to remove that political motive and give the communities the tools that they are asking for, that they are begging for, so that they can look after their infrastructure on their own and not rely on the political whim of the government, or throwing their ticket into the drum and hoping it gets drawn.

It was so apparent this year with the MIII how there were winners and losers. Every year with COMRIF, there's winners and losers. So I'm saying that some of that money that you're making winners and losers of, we need to ensure that there's sustainable funding. The fiscal review that's going on right now needs to address some of those things.

One other thing I also want to touch on, because the minister talked about a conference of small urban mayors. With respect to all municipalities, there has to be some consideration for small urban areas in this province as well: those—and I use the city of Pembroke as an example—that don't have the ability to grow their assessment because they're landlocked. What they're getting from the provincial government is very little relative to what they're getting from the federal government. The city of Pembroke got $118,000 this year from the province; from the feds, they're getting $350,000.

We have to look at situations like small cities that don't have the ability to grow their assessment because they're landlocked, and there has to be sustainable funding for them that addresses their needs, not just a one-size-fits-all formula across this province.

We have to start being a government and a province that looks at the problems and finds ways to solve them, not ways to generate political goodwill. We have to find ways to solve them. We can start here today by supporting, for the third time—and bringing forward to committee—this bill to support rural municipalities in the province of Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further debate?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: First of all, I want to say as a New Democratic transportation critic that we will be supporting this particular bill, Bill 38—I was going to say Bill 35, but we didn't support that one at all.

I want to just say a couple of things that need to be said, and that is what this is really going to mean to small, rural municipalities. In a lot of situations, as you well know, the population base in a lot of the small municipalities is fairly small. For example, I represent communities that are small, just 300 or 400 people. Let's be real: If you did give them the gas tax that they deserve, it may not be enough to fix some of the municipal roads, culverts and bridges that have to be fixed in our municipalities—

Mr. John Yakabuski: But it will help.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: —but it will help. That's the spirit in which we're going to support this as New Democrats, that we see this as a step forward.

The problem, however, is that it doesn't deal with the core issue. I'm glad the member from Renfrew—

Mr. John Yakabuski: Nipissing—Pembroke.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: —Nipissing—Pembroke, thank you. I'd never be the Speaker of this House, because after 20 years I can't remember what the heck all the names of the ridings are. I remember the members by name.

Mr. John Yakabuski: You're from Timmins—James Bay, by the way.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I remember mine; Timmins—James Bay I do remember.

He spoke about the need to have real, predictable annual funding. That's the issue. In the end, I really bemoan the fact that we've moved way from that. I remember when I was first elected in 1990, municipalities had a number of ministries that they could go to to apply for funding, everything from fixing the water mains under the streets to rebuilding roads that were under connecting-link funding, if they were a connecting link with the province; fixing municipal roads; if you wanted to fix an arena; if a municipality wanted to change a roof on a municipal building. There were all kinds of different programs that municipalities could apply to in order to get funding to build.

For example, where I live, in the city of Timmins, or any other municipality, they would probably make four or five applications a year on different funding applications, and they always got something. So every year there was some form of capital investment made in the municipality. You may apply for five projects and get two or three of them approved. Municipalities didn't generally complain too much because they knew that if two were not approved, they had a chance the following year and the third year to get them approved. So you were able to do planning in some form to make sure that our infrastructure was maintained.

Unfortunately, I just want to remind the member that under the term of the Mike Harris government, we got rid of that. I really bemoan that. I think that was a huge mistake. We basically collapsed all of the funding of the various ministries and we put it into SuperBuild. Then we said, "Look at that. We've got more money to give to infrastructure than at any time before." It was less money. We had more money when it was spread across more ministries.

One of the ways that the government decided to balance it's budget was to take money away from capital and call this thing SuperBuild, which is overall less money on capital now than we use to spend. About a month ago, I looked at the estimates binders from 1990—the year I was elected—to where it is now, and we actually spend less money on capital now than we did back then. People need to recognize that that is the fact.

Why are municipal infrastructures collapsing? Why is it that we have bridges in Chatham and different places across the province falling and collapsing; roads having huge frost heaves, especially in northern Ontario and other places, that are falling apart? It's because municipalities don't have the money to do the work they need to do.

I agree with the member that we need to have predictable funding. We need to have something that has a formula of some type that says, "If you're a municipality of 300 people or 300,000 or three million, there is a mechanism and a formula by which you're going to get some predictable funding every year. Then you can go out and plan."

For example, if I'm the community of Mattice and I have a formula that says I'm going to get X amount of dollars, and I know I'm going to get that every year for the next five years or whatever it might be, I can go out and do some planning with my council. Mayor and council can sit around the table and say, "Okay, let's prioritize. That road over there has got to be fixed. That's the biggest complaint we've got in our municipality. But, by the way, we've got to retrofit the windows in our municipal hall because our hydro bills are going through the roof." They can make some informed decisions about what needs to be done in their municipalities.

The problem we now have is that there's only one way to get money—two, actually, but really only one way to get money—and that's through this COMRIF thing that we've got. I call it COMRIF—I know there's another name for it—but this whole process of having all municipalities apply at the same time for the same pot of money. And there will always be people who are disappointed.

For example, in my riding, in this last MIII round, we actually got more money than most other ridings in Ontario. We got somewhere around $17 million, which was pretty good. The problem is, for some of the municipalities in our riding—Timmins and Kapuskasing had huge infrastructure projects that I think took up about $13 million of that, or almost $14 million. So the community of Hearst, which has some real needs when it comes to infrastructure, got frozen out again. Why? Because the province had to make a choice.

I don't blame or fault the province for this; I fault the policy. Do you fix a road or do you fix a crumbling waterline in Kapuskasing? Do you fix the road or do you make sure that the water system in Timmons meets the standard? That's the dilemma that municipalities find themselves in and the province finds itself in. So I say we need to go back to what we used to do before, where each ministry had a capital budget—the Ministry of Transportation, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, etc.—so that they're able to do their own capital funding.

For example, with the police, the Solicitor General's office used to have capital funding so that they could provide money to the OPP to fix their detachments and to do the capital work that needed to be done.

It used to be that way. I know Mr. Brown would remember that. Back in the 1990s and 1980s, when you got here, that's the way it worked. Again, it gave everybody an opportunity to at least plan, over a period of time, maintaining their infrastructure. Since getting rid of all that and moving to what was SuperBuild—now we call it COMRIF or MIII or whatever—it's become much more competitive for municipalities to go out and get dollars.

I just want to say to the member that we will support this legislation because we think it's a form of incrementalism. It will certainly assist; it's not going to hurt. Will it mean a lot of money for the town of Mattice? No, probably not, because they're a smaller municipality, but as the member says, every dollar you can put into their budget is a dollar they don't have. It's going to be welcome for sure.

The one thing that has driven absolutely everybody else crazy is the first program, which was the gas tax for the people who have transit in their municipalities. A lot of other municipalities have argued exactly what the member says, which is, "Hey, we may not have transit, but we have an infrastructure to maintain. Why are we being penalized?" On the basis of that, I'll support it. But I really think this Legislature has to go back and look at stable, predictable funding that municipalities can plan with; otherwise, we're always going to be chasing the tail.

Mr. Michael A. Brown: I want to thank the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke for bringing this bill before us today. I think it's important, because what it speaks to is providing the capital we need in small communities to do those projects on our roads and bridges. That's an important concept. My own view is that this does not help small communities very much, and I'll tell you why—I represent 37 of them, just so you know.

The largest municipality I represent, the city of Elliot Lake, has 11,000 people. It does have mass transit, so it does get the provincial money. I also have Chapleau, Blind River, Espanola and Wawa, which use the two cents they get. Although they don't have mass transit, they do offer service to people with disabilities, and that also qualifies for this money, even if you are a relatively small municipality. So those folks do it.

But the real reason the government provided gas tax money to mass transit systems was to take vehicles off the road, reduce our emissions and make sure the infrastructure of mass transit systems served all the people of Ontario, because my constituents come to places with mass transit, and we also care about pollution, we care about our environment and we care about greenhouse gases. Whether you're in Elliot Lake or Gore Bay or Chapleau, it makes a difference to all of us—to everyone in Ontario.

Do you know what? I was looking at some comments the Leader of the Opposition made here on Sunday, when we talked about the TTC. My friend Mr. Runciman said, "One subway line in Toronto takes 53,000 automobiles per hour off the road during rush hour. The TTC carries the equivalent of 365 million automotive trips annually, helping to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by more than eight megatonnes…." That affects not only everybody in Ontario; it affects everybody in the world. That is a useful thing, and that's why the two-cent gas tax goes to mass transit; it's fairly simple. That's why it's there.

That does not, however, deal with the fact that small municipalities and roads boards need funds to look after their own infrastructure. This year, the province of Ontario has provided $400 million for roads and bridges, and he can tell us how much his county received for roads and bridges. Every one of his municipalities would have received some of that money, and my guess is that it is more than the gas tax would have generated. My guess is that his municipalities also did fairly well under the MIII program, which provided significant help in my constituency, and I expect in his, for roads and bridges.

About $22 million or so flowed into the constituency of Algoma—Manitoulin through those programs—not all for roads and bridges, mind you, but most of it was for roads and bridges, and it helped those municipalities deal with projects that have been on the books, often for quite a while.

You know, it's passing strange for any of us who have been here for a bit to see a Conservative, who downloaded every road on municipalities in the province—he has roads in Renfrew that once were highways and now belong to the county. They did not used to be; they were paid for by the Ministry of Transportation. So I find it a bit disingenuous to see a member of a party that downloaded every road they could find, eliminated operational funding for roads, downloaded all capital funding from roads to the municipalities—

Interjection: And bridges.

Mr. Michael A. Brown: The bridges—which are usually expensive. That's what happened. So this is kind of a "Mike Harris repeal" vision of Ontario.

I think we do need to do something to provide smaller municipalities—and larger ones, for that matter—with capital funding for their roads and bridges. I think every member of this House recognizes that places like Thessalon or Massey are not going to be able to provide that kind of capital money out of the resources of their relatively small tax base.

But the federal tax money is based per capita. I was at a meeting of the Algoma District Municipal Association on Saturday last. When we were talking about that, they said, "Whatever formula the government provides per capita doesn't really work for us." Many of our municipalities—say, Wawa; population 3,500 people—does not receive the kind of assistance that they would receive through a per capita amount of money. What they're looking for is a mixture of assessment versus the cost of maintaining the infrastructure. That was done through the roads and bridges program.

I think that is something that benefits rural Ontario far more than any kind of gas tax. And by the way, Wawa actually gets the gas tax because they provide disability transportation.

The other thing that I find problematic with the bill is that it takes away money from mass transportation systems. The two cents of gas tax applies to all of Ontario. So if you take some of that money out to do things for other than mass transit, you're going to reduce the funding to mass transit in the larger cities and the larger communities that provide it. I'm not surprised that his party is in favour of reducing funding to mass transit. So on that level, I also have a great deal of difficulty.

What I hear when I am here in Toronto or in London, Sudbury or Sault Ste. Marie are appeals for more money for mass transit so that we can reduce emissions, we can reduce wear and tear on our roads and we can get our people moving around. This bill would have the effect of reducing it. I don't think that's what the member intends, but I think that would be the effect on support for mass transit through this particular bill.

I cannot believe that he would be in favour of putting 53,000 more cars per hour on the streets of Toronto. I don't think that's what he wants to do. I don't think he wants to create a situation where Ontario produces more greenhouse gases. I don't think he wants to produce more NO x and SO x and all those other things that we're about to hear about because we're coming into that season of the year where it's warmer and we have problems with smog days. We don't need anything that would aggravate that anymore.

From my perspective, this bill has merit in that it attempts to provide some stable funding to municipalities. I look forward to that funding for municipalities to come out of the provincial—municipal review that's going on. We're soon to hear about how they want to deal with that. I think that's the solution. I don't think this does it because, as I've expressed, it's a problematic issue.

I commend the member for bringing forward this resolution. I will not be able to support it myself. This is private members' hour; members can do as they will. I cannot support it because I believe that it's important to deal with greenhouse gases. I believe it's important to move against NO x and SO x and all of those pollution issues. I believe that it's important that we have stable funding for municipalities, which I don't think this does.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: I'm pleased to speak this morning in support of my Progressive Conservative colleague the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke and the legislation he has proposed, Bill 38. This is not a new issue for my colleague. In fact, today is his third try because he believes so strongly in the issue of fairness for all of us, and fairness is important for all of us in the PC Party.

During my inaugural speech in this House, I spoke of the need for immediate relief required by municipalities for transportation infrastructure in their ridings and, quite frankly, ridings all across Ontario.

This government prides itself on the fact that it spent $400 million on roads and bridges in March of this year. There's no doubt that this money was desperately needed by municipalities throughout the province.

Mayor Morrison, of the town of Caledon, cited the government's announcement as good news. However—there's always a "however"—she also made a very important point: "The only downfall I see is that if Ontario went into a recession, this money wouldn't be there." And what did we learn this week? We learned that Ontario is slipping into a recession and furthermore risks have-not status within Canada for the first time since Confederation.

Predictable funding is what our municipal partners are looking for. This is the issue that the Progressive Conservative member from Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke is trying to address. Right now, Mayor Morrison in Caledon and all of Dufferin—Caledon, with the exception of one—that being Orangeville—did not receive a portion of the gas tax revenue because they do not have a public transportation system. So if you're a commuter in Caledon or Dufferin, you are not being treated fairly by this government. This government has to realize that the only source of funding for many municipalities is general property taxes and user fees.

Yet ultimately, this is about fairness. How can you justify using gas tax on certain transit infrastructure but not on roads and bridges? Every time a resident of this province goes to the gas station, we all know that a large proportion of what they're paying goes to taxes. What many voters are surprised about is that gas taxes are not used equally across the province on roads, bridges and yes, transit. But be fair: Roads and bridges need to be included. Why, then, should we be funding the municipalities to receive transportation and infrastructure changes depending on whether you're lucky enough to have a transit system?

This Liberal government talks about treating municipalities as partners, but in fact they treat them quite differently. In past elections, the Ontario Liberals made a campaign promise that every municipality would get a share of the gasoline tax. Then again, they also said, "No new taxes," but they gave us the health tax.

Bill 38, the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Amendment Act, needs to be supported by all members of this House, not because they're rural or because they're urban but because it is an issue of fairness. It addresses the issue that the current system is not fair across Ontario and certainly is not fair for the rural municipalities of this province because of how they have unevenly distributed gas tax.

I will proudly support this bill, and I'm confident that my constituents will agree with me.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: It's a pleasure to speak on this bill. It's a bill that I'm going to support. It's sad that the member from Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke had to bring it back for the third time, but that's not unusual in this place. I know that on the benches of the government, the member for Niagara Falls brought in a very worthy bill three times, and he's a member of the governing party. It still hasn't seen the light of day in terms of committee time and being passed into law.

I wanted to make a general point about private members' business and the fact that this is a government that doesn't take any private members' public business seriously. And with the standing order changes, that's even going to be diminished. As little as it is in terms of import to this government, it's going to lose even that because, instead of Thursday morning that we discuss these bills, it's going to be Thursday afternoon. As you look around the chamber, you see that there are probably a quarter of the members here today.

Well, imagine, if this was Thursday afternoon, how many members would be here and how many would even be listening to public business here and private members' bills—certainly fewer than are here now. So we're moving in a dangerous direction. We're going to be moving in that direction as of Monday because of closure on behalf of this government.

But to the point at hand here: dealing with this transportation bill. I was listening to the comments from the member for Algoma—Manitoulin that it's either/or. Isn't it sad that we have to choose now in the province of Ontario between public transportation, validly funded, and an infrastructure in our municipalities, no matter how small or large they are? Isn't it sad that we have to choose between buses running and roads working? This is a sad and sorry state of affairs.

I know in the city of Toronto, where we're shortchanged about $700 million a year by this government in terms of demanding an upload of the downloads, we feel it, and we can only imagine what it's like to live in a small town and feel it there as well—potholes in the roads.

There used to be a time when you would drive down to the States from the province of Ontario and you would immediately notice a difference as you passed over the border from our wonderful road system to their not-so-wonderful road system, from a beautiful driving surface, for example, to potholes on the other side of the border. Now, I really challenge any member here to do that same drive, and they'll find the opposite. They'll find that the roads are better on the other side of the border than they are here, that the infrastructure, by and large, is better kept up in New York state than it is in Ontario.

Why is that? How has it come to that in the province of Ontario? It's because we don't have stable funding for our municipalities. It's because we are constantly underfunding the city of Toronto and constantly underfunding every small municipality. This is the situation. As the member said, you have mayors going hat in hand every year, hoping for crumbs from the master's table, hoping for just a dollar or two.

Let me tell you, they're not going to get it from Bill 35. Bill 35, that's just been passed, is a government bill. The only way, by the way, you get bills passed is if they come from the Premier's office, a Premier-generated bill. Bill 35, the slush fund bill, as we call it on this side of the House, doesn't mention municipalities or infrastructure, that supposedly gives the crumbs from the master's table, what's left over when all the other provincial bills have been paid to cities like Toronto and other smaller municipalities. It doesn't mention municipalities or infrastructure at all in that bill.

What it does say is that the government can give money wherever it sees fit to any non-profit. Well, we've seen what that looks like. We saw what that looked like last year: It looks like $32 million to friends of the Liberal Party. That's what it looks like, and that's what we're going to get again this year. If there's money left over whatsoever, it'll go to friends of the Liberal Party and whatever causes they support.

We already see that the problem here opens itself up to pork-barrelling of the worst kind, where some municipalities get more funding than others. I know in the case of housing, we looked at a map of where affordable housing is going, and guess what? Eighty per cent of those lucky enough to get the crumbs—and they are crumbs that go to affordable housing—are in Liberal ridings.

So without stable funding, without an uploading of the downloads across the province, what you get is this egregious situation, where it's "Be nice to us, and we'll be nice to you." Depending on who you are, where you are and whom you elect, maybe you'll get some money. I see the member from Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke nodding. Maybe you'll get some money, maybe you won't, right, John? Maybe you will, maybe you won't, depending on how close you are. We're talking about proximity—probably mileage here—between the Premier's office and the heart of Queen's Park and where you live. So it's very, very sad.

Public transport or small municipalities infrastructure funding: It's no wonder that it's crumbling. It's no wonder that bridges are in jeopardy. It's no wonder mayors are feeling increasingly like that child in Oliver Twist: "Please, sir, a little bit more." It's no wonder that across the province things are looking increasingly bad in terms of the upkeep of what we need to function, because there simply isn't the funding there. It's simply not there, and Bill 35 isn't going to help that.

It's sad that members have to come to private members' business with bills to support their own bailiwicks. They shouldn't have to use private members' business to do that, to beg for a maternity ward here, beg for a bridge there, beg for a road here or there, which is essentially what this bill does. It simply says, "We're not getting what we need. Please, sir, a little bit more. Please give us just what we need."

So it's with sadness that I stand and support this bill. I shouldn't have to. It shouldn't have to be brought forward, and certainly, as you can see from the numbers in the House, there's no great interest in supporting our municipalities, our small towns and villages. There's not a lot of interest in supporting the city of Toronto, not a lot of interest in supporting that.

But it's always a pleasure to stand, even in an empty House. It's going to get emptier, Mr. Speaker, it's going to get emptier. It's even a pleasure standing in an empty House supporting a member who supports the people that he represents—his own constituents—against a government that doesn't care.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Although the honourable member wasn't referring to any particular member's attendance, I would caution members to refrain from that line of debate. Further debate?

Mrs. Carol Mitchell: I am certainly pleased to rise and speak to the bill, which I do want to state up front I will not be supporting. Now I want to put forward why.

As many of you know, I represent the most rural riding in the province. It encompasses 18 municipalities. The largest urban area I have is just around the 7,000 mark. But one of the things that I wanted to talk about today was my smallest municipality, that being the municipality of South Bruce. Just for those who know my riding, it includes Teeswater, Mildmay and Formosa. They're all villages and hamlets.

I will remind everyone who is watching the TV today that we are hosting the plowing match in Bruce county, in Teeswater, in 2008, so I encourage everyone to come in.

One of the things I wanted to talk about was the federal gas tax that South Bruce receives today. In 2007, they received just $78,000; in 2008, $98,000; and in 2009, $197,000. For their allocation of roads and bridges this year, from this budget, they received $1.2 million. I know that across the way you know this, but what you have failed to understand is how what you have proposed will hurt my municipalities. When I look at how long it will take if we move forward in the same formula as gas tax, how long will it take my municipality to pay for a bridge?

We know today that there are a number of bridges in this municipality that need to be fixed. I hear from my farmers that they can't get their produce out. Because the bridges are in such a poor state, they can't go across them safely with the weight of the trailers that they are hauling. So I say to the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke across the House: $650,000 roughly, we'll say that's the cost of a bridge, roughly. So, by your calculations, if I use the same formula, it would take my municipality four years to do one bridge.

Now, when I look at what was allocated of the $400 million from roads and bridges, when we move forward with a formula that was weighted—had a weighted factor for northern and rural communities—my municipality: $1.2 million. What does this represent for my smallest municipality, South Bruce? This represents two new bridges that they can work within. They also understand that there will be other funding coming. This gives them the ability to work and to forecast where they need to go,

whereas your formula does not do that. Not only does it withdraw funding from public transit, it also inadvertently—I think it's inadvertently; I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt because, quite frankly, your track record leaves a lot to be desired.

You sit there and you laugh about this, but in my riding what you did was—there are only three provincial roads left—you downloaded every bridge. You downloaded every road. There was so much done. I tell you, when you were downloading, we had to pour water on our fax machines to keep them cool. You were downloading. There wasn't even any consultation that was done.

So, you talk about the relationship with the municipalities today. I can tell you, my municipality of South Bruce—they get it, and they understand.

We've talked about the $400 million; we've laid that out. Now, let's talk about the $450 million. This funding, if you will recall, was $140 million in the first announcement. It was dedicated to rural communities. It was $70 million, and at the plowing match, it was increased another $70 million, with a total capacity of $140 million.

What the municipalities wanted was a shortened application. That's what they asked for. They did not want to go into such an intensive application process, especially for rural communities. It places them at a disadvantage, because quite frankly, they don't have the staff who can apply themselves to do such extensive applications. So we did that: $140 million for that.

Then we came forward with $450 million—$300 million at ROMA, another $150 million announced; $450 million was the scope—that that was going directly to infrastructure. Not only a shortened application, but the municipalities wanted it to include arenas, libraries and much more. That was done, too. We heard, we listened and we acted. So that funding in Huron—Bruce represents over $10 million. The total asked was $14 million. What they received was over $10 million. My riding received $28 million from one budget.

In contrast to how the previous government treated my rural communities—and in rural communities we don't forget how people treat us—I say to you, I'm going to assume that you did not do this intentionally to once again put the boots to the municipalities.

Mr. Tim Hudak: I'm very pleased to speak on behalf of the bill in the name of my colleague, Mr. Yakabuski. I strongly support Bill 38, as I did its previous incarnation. Mr. Yakabuski has brought a substantial, sensible and far-looking piece of legislation to the House, and I'm pleased to strongly support it.

Listening to my colleagues opposite on the Liberal side—not to name particular names or ridings—you wonder how many are so keen to curry favour with the staffers that gather around the Premier, rather than fight for funding for their individual ridings. It's absolutely mind-boggling; we saw some cases just a few minutes ago. This is a no-brainer. Mr. Yakabuski's project would bring forward more funding for the ridings of the Liberal members who have spoken than the current funding formula, which spends almost half the money going to the city of Toronto.

Secondly, what I heard my colleagues opposite say is that municipal politicians in Blind River, South Bruce, Exeter or Espanola can't make responsible decisions. Mr. Yakabuski's bill would do the following: It would say to the mayor of South Bruce or the mayor of Espanola, "Do you want to spend the gas tax money on roads, bridges or transit; or a combination of both?" Mr. Yakabuski's bill would give them that choice.

The Dalton McGuinty Liberals and the sycophants opposite say, "They're not capable of making that decision. It can only go into transit, instead of roads and bridges." Huron—Bruce has a preposterous proposal—and I question her math—saying that Mr. Yakabuski's bill would mean that a bridge would be funded over four years. But, under the current funding formula, which dedicates every penny to transit, most of it going to the TTC, that bridge would take how long to build?

Forever; an eternity, because not one dime flows to that bridge under the McGuinty funding formula, which is heavily, heavily weighted to the city of Toronto and transit municipalities. I believe that municipal leaders in Niagara West—Glanbrook will make the responsible decision.

We see the federal gas tax bill, which allows them to decide whether they want to put it into roads, bridges or transit. Here's the comparison: Under the federal gas tax, Grimsby receives $1.7 million; Lincoln, $1.67 million; Pelham, $1.2 million; and West Lincoln, $997,000—almost a million over its mandate.

Do you know what those municipalities get under Dalton McGuinty's gas tax funding formula? Butkis, zero, zippo, goose egg, nada, nothing, because Dalton McGuinty does not trust municipal politicians to invest the money according to the priorities of those local municipalities.

Mr. Yakabuski's approach is the right one, it's a superior choice, and it would mean more funds for local transportation infrastructure in the riding of Niagara West—Glanbrook. I strongly support Bill 38.

Ms. Laurie Scott: I'm pleased to join this debate today and support my colleague from Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke on Bill 38,

An Act to amend the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act with respect to the assistance that the Minister provides to municipalities.

We are addressing this issue for the third time in this Legislature. Third time lucky, maybe, or third time, is the Liberal government going to listen to this? He's been very determined in representing his riding and the needs of his constituents, bringing much-needed assistance to rural municipalities, not only in his riding, but the whole province. So when the Liberal members opposite think they are treating their rural municipalities fairly, they've got it all wrong. The Kool-Aid that is being served over there—

Laughter.

Ms. Laurie Scott: I hear the member for Northumberland laughing. This type of system where you put in applications—the municipalities spend thousands of dollars filling out these forms and hoping their name is drawn out of the hat. What kind of responsible, predictable, sustainable planning is that for municipalities? You are not being fair to municipalities.

Interjection.

Ms. Laurie Scott: Some municipalities have been fortunate. They've been able to succeed in their application forms, but every year they sit there with their fingers crossed, thinking, "Okay, if I don't get it, what am I going to do? Let's hope we get it," and shifting monies. It's unfair to them. The federal government produced a program that gave them more money—

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: What program?

Ms. Laurie Scott: The gas tax program—we'll answer the questions. They can share that with municipalities, and they get a lot more money and it is sustainable and predictable every year.

Last week, the member for Nepean—Carleton brought forward a resolution about the importance of a bridge construction in one of her communities in her riding. One of the things she said was that bridges are about connecting communities; so are roads, so are highways. Rural Ontario roads, highways and bridges are our infrastructure, they are our public transit.

In my riding of Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, I've talked many times about the need for the four-laning expansion of Highway 35, which would benefit the whole area. It comes through Kawartha Lakes, but it would benefit all of my riding. This is what we need to advance the economic lifelines to our communities. County Road 24 in the Bobcaygeon area needs a bridge repair. It's an occurrence that came up suddenly. The price to replace that bridge—and the member for Huron—Bruce mentioned a price to replace a bridge and I've never heard of a bridge being replaced for such a low value as she mentioned.

These are high-value items of $1 million or $2 million. The price to replace that bridge on County Road 24 in Bobcaygeon is nearly equal to the municipality's whole annual transportation portion of their budget.

I have Algonquin Highlands in Haliburton county that has a bridge that needs to be replaced. They applied for MIII, but guess what? They weren't one of the lottery winners. What can I say? They're devastated. They've applied several times. It's just not fair what you're doing to municipalities. It's not fair to rural Ontario.

The gas tax money goes to the urban communities; nothing wrong with public transportation in urban communities. We're asking for rural Ontario to be treated fairly. This government laughs and says that they're not going to support it. I just wonder, are the rural municipalities in the Liberal ridings really going to be happy that you voted this down? I don't think so. Maybe we should do some press releases in your ridings and see how excited they are that you denied them their fairness in gas tax money in the province of Ontario. I support this bill and I encourage the Liberal members to.

Mr. Ted Arnott: I'm very pleased to have the opportunity this morning to speak in support of Bill 38,

An Act to amend the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act with respect to the assistance that the Minister provides to municipalities. I want to congratulate the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke for bringing this issue forward yet again. He's been persistent on this issue. He's spoken out on it repeatedly and the House should listen to him and support this bill today.

I'm very surprised and somewhat disappointed—well, quite disappointed, actually—that some of the Liberal members have indicated they are not going to support this bill. I would remind them that this bill has already received second reading support in this House and has gone to committee in the past. If some of them change their votes, I'm not sure how they're going to explain that to their constituents, because I understand this is the same bill, if not the identical bill—is it the identical bill?

Interjection.

Mr. Ted Arnott: It's the very same bill that was passed by this House at second reading some time ago in the previous Parliament.

The member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke is absolutely right: Provincial gas tax money should be shared with all municipalities, not just the cities. Actually, one of the most topical issues of discussion in the coffee shops today in Wellington—Halton Hills, and I dare say around the province, is the high price of gasoline, hovering at around $1.20 a litre. We see projections by experts who tell us that it may hit as high as $1.40 or even $1.50 this summer. We see the price of crude oil hovering just over $100 a barrel.

We see supply bottlenecks because of lack of refining capacity, and a worldwide surge in demand for oil. The price of gasoline is going to continue to stay high, it appears, for some time. It's a serious concern for people in my riding; it's a concern that I share.

But what's worse is the fact that the provincial government takes 14.7 cents a litre out of everybody's pocket in terms of their purchase of gasoline and refuses to share that with our small and rural municipalities, unlike the federal government, that takes some gas tax but that some time ago took a policy decision to share that money with all municipalities. Of course, the communities in my riding benefit from that. I can't understand why Liberal members from rural ridings are unwilling to stand up for their municipalities today with respect to this issue. I cannot understand it. I think they're going to have a very difficult time explaining this to their communities when they go home.

Of course, in their defence, what they have said is that the government has other programs to assist small and rural municipalities with their infrastructure needs. They point to the roads and bridges funding that was announced in the budget, and the municipal infrastructure investment initiative that was announced initially in the fall economic statement, and more details came forward. Some of the municipalities in my riding received support from the municipal infrastructure investment initiative. Two were shut out, unfortunately: the town of Erin and the township of Puslinch.

I'm still trying to get explanations and answers as to why those communities were shut out. There was no appeal process, unfortunately. There seems to be no debriefing process whereby municipalities can be informed as to why they were unsuccessful with their applications. I supported all the applications coming forward from my constituents, as I think all of us would have wanted to. The town of Erin, in particular, made good points.

Their roads superintendent, Larry Van Wyck, brought forward very important points about the cost of maintenance of gravel roads that I don't think the government has considered, and I hope they will in future rounds. Certainly, the roads and bridges funding, while it was appreciated—we cannot count on that money for next year, because we know that the province appears to be going into an economic downturn. It appears we're in recession right now. It's likely that we're going to have a deficit, so there isn't going to be any money, apparently, at the end of the fiscal year for municipalities.

That is why this Bill 38 is needed, to ensure that our municipalities do receive fairness and a sustainable and predictable stream of funding for their infrastructure needs. I have huge infrastructure needs in Wellington—Halton Hills that I will continue to bring to the attention of this government, insisting that more support be brought forward by the provincial government for those needs. I have a private member's resolution of my own that I hope to bring forward on roads and bridges funding. I would hope that all members of this House will support this bill, and I again congratulate the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Mr. Yakabuski has up to two minutes to reply.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I want to thank all of the members from all parties for standing and speaking on my bill here this morning.

I want to address a couple things that were raised by the members of the governing party, the member from Algoma—Manitoulin and the member for Huron—Bruce. They talk about an either/or. They talk about how this is going to cost municipalities that are currently getting gas tax. They use the example of the $400 million that all municipalities got earlier this year for infrastructure projects. But there are other ways of ensuring that public transportation in this province gets funding. In fact, there was $1 billion handed out at the end of the year. Toronto got $497 million of that—$497 million.

So they don't tell you the whole story. I'm really flabbergasted by these rural members who want to take that message back to their constituents, saying that they voted against a bill that would be sustainable. The MIII and the municipal funding that we got this year—I have already said we appreciate that. But what is on the table for next year? No one really knows. This is not sustainable. Rural municipalities have been asking for fairness. It's a fundamental issue of fairness.

The Premier says he wants fairness in taxation. What are you doing to rural people, those people who work hard in rural communities but have to drive to work each and every day? They pay gas taxes, but you don't give it back. You don't give any of it back.

You're talking about funding? The city of Toronto still got an additional $497 million. They still got all their gas tax. I'm not picking on the city of Toronto; I'm talking about fairness for rural municipalities. There's only one way to do it: Each and every municipality has to get a share of the gas tax that they pay. I encourage these rural members to stand up for their people.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT

ACT (CERTIFICATION), 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL

(ACCRÉDITATION)

Mr. Hampton moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 65,

An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act, 1995 with respect to certification of trade unions / Projet de loi 65, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1995 sur les relations de travail en ce qui a trait à l'accréditation des syndicats.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Mr. Hampton, pursuant to standing order 96, you have up to 10 minutes for your presentation.

Mr. Howard Hampton: Let me begin by welcoming a number of people who work out there, in workplace after workplace, helping workers to organize. Let me also thank the three young workers who came to the Legislature yesterday to participate in a press conference with me.

These three young workers—two of them young women, one a young man—know what it's like to work in a workplace where you're harassed, where you are often subject to verbal abuse, to threats of, "If you don't do this or you don't do that, you're going to be fired"; workers who had the courage to talk to other workers and say, "We deserve to be treated with dignity and respect," and who talked to other workers and persuaded them to sign a union card; workers who suffered further harassment, further abuse, because they dared to suggest that those workers should enjoy the democratic and constitutionally protected right of freedom of association.

I especially want to thank Jennifer Law, Denise Cachia and Sherwin Flight.

Let me briefly explain what this bill is about. For almost 50 years in the province of Ontario, if workers wanted to join a union, all they really had to do was to sign a card. They would sign a card and the law was that if 55% or more of the workers in that workplace signed a card, then they could have a union. The union could represent them and bargain for wages, benefits, pensions and job security, the things that I think most of us want to believe we should all enjoy in a country like Canada, one of the wealthiest countries in the world.

But implemented in 1996 was a change in labour law which said that workers could no longer, by signing a card, be recognized as part of a trade union. They would not only have to sign a card, but they would have to wait, in some cases a week, in some cases much longer, to hold a vote. What would happen in that time is the employer could resort to all kinds of tactics of intimidation, threats of firing, threats of, "We're going to get you."

I think most of us, if we think about it, would feel that there's something wrong with that. We're talking about a constitutionally protected right here, the right to freedom of association. All these young workers—in many cases they are young workers; in many cases they're women; in many cases they're new Canadians, vulnerable workers. All they're trying to do is exercise a constitutionally protected right of freedom of association. Why, in a country that prides itself, in a province that prides itself, as democratic, should they be subjected to abuse?

Why should they be subjected to threats of, "We're going to get you, we're going to fire you"? If most people thought about it for a minute, they'd say, "There's something wrong with that." But that is the state of things in Ontario today. Young workers, women, and especially new Canadian workers who seek to exercise the freedom of association in workplaces in Ontario today are frequently subjected to abuse, intimidation, threats of, "We're going to get you. We're going to fire you. We're going to push you out the door." So this bill is intended to help address that.

I'm not pretending that this bill will fix every one of those issues, but this bill will bring some balance back into Ontario's labour law situation and it will bring some balance in terms of recognizing what is supposed to be a constitutionally protected right in Canada: the freedom of association.

Before I go further, I just want to say—I know this might shock some members on the government side—that card-based certification is the law in the province to the east of us, Quebec; it's the law in the next province after that, to the east of us, New Brunswick; it's the law in the province to the west of us, Manitoba; and it's the law in the next westerly province, Saskatchewan. They believe in ensuring that workers should be able to exercise the constitutionally protected right of freedom of association.

I'm given to ask, what's wrong with Ontario? Why is Ontario the province where we are reticent to ensure that the most vulnerable workers—women, young workers and new Canadians—why are we so reticent in Ontario to recognize and to help implement this constitutionally protected right?

If it works in Quebec—and I notice that Quebec's economy is doing rather better than Ontario's; if it works in Manitoba—and I notice that Manitoba's economy is doing rather better than Ontario's in terms of sustaining jobs; if it works in Saskatchewan and New Brunswick, then why the reticence on the part of government members, Liberal members, to help sustain and implement this constitutionally protected right in Ontario?

I also want to point out this: As I said earlier, this was the law in Ontario, until that law was effectively changed in 1996. From 1950 until 1996, Ontario enjoyed annual economic growth of almost 4% a year. Our economic growth was actually better than in the United States, where there is no card-based certification. So for those who say, "Well, if you have card-based certification, it's going to harm your economy," you couldn't prove it by looking at what happened in Ontario and what happened in the United States from 1950 until 1996.

The other point I would make is that since Ontario did away with card-based certification in 1996, economic growth has averaged only 3%. So for those who say, "Oh, if you act to allow workers to better exercise their freedom of association, it's somehow going to hurt the economy and hurt jobs," you couldn't prove it by looking at the United States and Ontario, and you couldn't prove it by looking at Ontario when Ontario had card-based certification and now when Ontario doesn't have card-based certification.

In fact, the economic evidence indicates that it's the other way, and there are reasons for that. The people who benefit most from card-based certification are not your highest-paid workers. The people who benefit most are the lowest-paid workers: women, who often work in part-time jobs or who are often on call; students; younger workers; new Canadians; people who often work at minimum wage or just a little bit above. What the evidence shows is that those are the workers who benefit from being able to exercise their freedom of association through card-based certification.

Does it mean that overnight they get huge, whopping pay increases? No. What it means is that they can get, through collective bargaining, a decent wage. In many cases, they might be able to get a benefit package at work, so they can afford glasses for their children or maybe dental coverage for their children. It might even mean that they have a chance at a pension and won't have to worry about living in poverty as they grow older—all things that I think most of us would want most Canadians to have; all things that we would want to see most workers in Ontario enjoy.

This is about some social and economic justice. This is about ensuring that people who work very hard but often work for very low wages have an opportunity to implement more fully the constitutionally protected right of freedom of association and then effectively translate that freedom of association into a better life, not only for themselves and their families but for their community, because they'll be able to make a bigger economic contribution to their community.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further debate?

Mr. Vic Dhillon: I would like to speak to Bill 65. Our government supports fair and balanced labour relations. Ontario's prosperity has historically relied on a fair and balanced approach to labour relations. Fairness and balance promote confidence in the law, which encourages productive relationships. We brought forward the Labour Relations Statute Law Amendment Act in 2004 to restore Ontario's fair and balanced labour relations regime.

Over the years, Ontario saw a departure from those principles. Long-term stability was sacrificed for short-term advantage. The so-called advantage in labour relations swung back and forth—at one time in favour of the worker, at another in favour of the employer. This lack of stability caused confusion and had a negative impact on productivity in our province.

We restored balance. We got rid of irritants brought in by the previous government, such as the decertification poster and the requirement for unions to publicly declare salaries over $100,000. We strengthened the Ontario Labour Relations Board's historical, long-standing power to address the worst labour relations violations with effective remedies. We restored the board's power to certify a union where an employer had breached the province's labour relations laws during a union organizing campaign.

We balanced that by giving the board the power to dismiss an application for certification where the union violates the act during an organizing campaign in circumstances where no other remedy is sufficient.

We also restored the OLRB's power to reinstate workers on an interim basis who were fired or disciplined during a union organizing campaign because they were exercising their rights under the act. We recognized that dismissal during an organizing campaign can have an immediate negative effect on workers trying to make a decision about whether to seek representation. Restoring the power to order interim reinstatement enables the OLRB to respond to any potential harm caused by a dismissal in a timely way, pending a final ruling in the matter.

We believe that the government's role during a certification or decertification campaign is not to favour one side or the other but to ensure that the choice made is an effective and informed choice to the extent possible, free of undue pressure. Employees must be free to choose without fear of reprisals. They must be free to choose whether or not they want to be represented by a union.

In the Labour Relations Statute Law Amendment Act, we did add an additional means by which a union could be certified in the construction sector. In addition to a vote-based system, the act added a card-based system to this unique sector. From 1950 to 1995, a union certification system based on membership cards was the norm. Automatic certification would take place if a union signed up more than 55% of the bargaining unit.

We did not propose a return to that system for all sectors. Construction, however, is unique. The construction sector is characterized by workplaces that change constantly, and a workplace that is both very mobile and that can change size constantly. Attempting to accurately ascertain the wishes of the employees in such circumstances can be very, very difficult. For this reason, we added an additional means of certification. In doing so, we recognized that the law has long recognized the unique nature of construction.

We believe that our reforms have been effective in restoring and maintaining fairness and balance in our labour relations. We have restored confidence in Ontario's labour relation system.

I do not support Bill 65, because any changes to the current labour relations regime would only tilt the scales to favour one side over the other. This is neither fair nor balanced. Fairness and balance have been the historical guarantors of prosperity in this great province, the foundation on which the province's prosperity has been built. Fairness and balance promote confidence in the labour relation system, and confidence is essential to stability and success. Confidence in our labour relations system also encourages productivity, and that can only benefit both workers and employers.

Mr. Robert Bailey: I'm glad to have the opportunity to participate in today's debate on Bill 65,

An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act, 1995 with respect to the certification of trade unions.

As the member of provincial Parliament for Sarnia—Lambton, I'm proud to say that in the past, I have been a member of two bargaining units and have sat on the other side of the table as well. I've helped organize those unions in the past, and I am a strong believer in the unions.

In Sarnia, we are very lucky that we have a high level of co-operation between our unions and management, particularly when it comes to health and safety issues. In fact, they talk about that as the Sarnia model as far as health and safety. I've met with the chairman of the WSIB and the Minister of Labour as well, and it's a model they would like to take across Ontario to improve workers' health and safety.

I will start off by saying that I can't support this bill for a number of reasons. First, I don't believe in an automatic card-based certification of trade unions in general. Second, I think that taking away a worker's democratic right to have a secret ballot is wrong. Third, why would we as legislators want to radically change labour relations laws, given the current problems in our economy?

It is important that we understand what this bill would do. The bill amends the Labour Relations Act to allow the Ontario Labour Relations Board to certify a trade union as the bargaining agent of the employees in a bargaining unit without directing a representation vote by secret ballot if it is satisfied that more than 55% of the employees are in the union.

Also, the board may hold a hearing when considering an application for certification,

whereas under the present act the board is not allowed to hold a hearing under those circumstances.

As I said, I don't believe card-based certification alone is the way to go for such an important decision as forming a union. As has been pointed out, card-based certification is now allowed in the construction industry, and I believe that should be continued and maintained. It has led to some issues, I understand. I had some people in to see me the other day in my office. I understand that the city of Hamilton at this time is involved in a dispute with one of the unions that has effectively, in their opinion, put on hold a number of upgrades that they would like to do to their municipal infrastructure.

This dispute means the projects that the city of Hamilton is considering moving forward are going to cost a lot more, and in the end it will be the municipal ratepayers who will have to make up the difference.

I understand why the government allowed automatic card-based certification in the construction industry. No one on this side of the House, myself in particular, is advocating that we take that away at all. Our party just doesn't see a need to expand it to other sectors.

The second reason why I can't support this bill is that in 1995, when my party amended the Labour Relations Act and brought in the secret ballot for union certification votes, we introduced an element of democracy that we, as members of this Legislative Assembly, all take for granted. Each and every one of us, when we first ran, probably ran in a nomination process to become a candidate, and then, a few weeks or months later, also faced the voters in each of our respective ridings, where all of those voters cast their ballots to pick and choose each one of us.

In 1995, the current member for Kitchener—Waterloo introduced Bill 7, which was one of our key campaign commitments in the election campaign. When she introduced that bill, she stated: "Secret ballot votes will be made mandatory for union certifications, contract ratifications and strike votes. Each individual will now have the democratic right to vote on whether or not they want to be represented by a trade union."

The member, at that time, also stated: "What could make more sense than to allow the individual worker more democratic options in making one of the most important decisions of their working life, whether or not to be represented by a trade union?"

It was right to do then, and it's still right today.

What we found in a card-based certification process is that once you sign the card, you have no ability to change your mind later. We believe it is only fair to give workers that chance to express their opinion via secret ballot. When we offered ourselves for election in this place, we all trusted the secret ballot. To not allow our workers that same treatment just seems wrong to me. Forming a trade union is an important decision, and in our party, we believe that workers have a right to a secret ballot.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Standing up for democracy—those are the Tories I know.

Mr. Robert Bailey: That's right.

The third reason I can't support this bill is that if it were to pass, it would introduce more uncertainty into this economy at this time. That's the last thing we need to happen right now. We are bleeding manufacturing jobs in the province of Ontario. The member for Wellington—Halton Hills reminded us just yesterday that Campbell Soup is closing their plant in Listowel, and that will mean the end of 500 jobs in a community of 6,000 people. The government is doing nothing to stop this hemorrhaging. As the member for Niagara West—Glanbrook pointed out yesterday, the government is doing nothing to help save the CanGro jobs in Niagara.

We also saw a report yesterday from the TD Bank saying that Ontario is moving very fast into becoming a have-not province and will soon be eligible to receive equalization payments. To introduce an element of uncertainty at this time wouldn't make any sense. I agree with the government on this, and frankly, I was glad to hear the Minister of Labour admit, that the last thing the government would want to do is radically change any of our labour laws, given the current challenges in the Ontario economy.

Now that we finally have the government admitting that there is a challenge in the economy, maybe we will see some action.

For all these reasons, I will not be supporting this bill.

Mr. Peter Kormos: I'm pleased and proud to stand here with other New Democrats, speaking in support of Howard Hampton's Bill 65.

When we speak in this chamber, we don't just speak to our colleagues, we speak to the people of Ontario. So, I say now to sisters and brothers, working women and men across this province, this bill is designed to ensure that the right of people in a democratic nation, in a fair-minded society, to belong to a trade union is effected.

Look, I tell you this—I've had occasion to say it to people across this province over the course of many years, and I say it once again with as much passion and commitment as I've ever been able to muster—I truly believe that the trade union movement is more relevant today than it ever has been in the history of this world.

And I say this to you: The trade union movement, the trade unions—its membership and its leadership—have done and continue to do more to create social and economic justice than any other institution in our society.

We should be grateful for the courage, the tenacity, the sacrifice of working women and men in this province, in this country and throughout the world, who have built the trade union movement. It was a bloody fight; it was a deadly fight. People were battered and beaten, people went to jail, people died, people were ostracized and people lost families in their struggle to build the union movement.

My father was a steel worker, he was a trade unionist. He was an immigrant with a grade 8 education. All of his kids got to go to college and university, not because any of us were particularly brighter than anybody else, but because our father worked in a trade union workshop. He could afford to provide us with a lifestyle—we weren't rich by any stretch of the imagination, but as the children of a trade unionist who fought for better and fairer wages, for a fair share of the wealth that he creates—as every worker has the right to fight for a fair share of the wealth that working people create.

It's the work of people that creates wealth, make no mistake about it. It ain't the Bill Gates of the world. Lord knows it ain't the Conrad Blacks of the world. Conrad Black doesn't create wealth, he steals it. But working women and men create it, and they surely have a right to the fair share of the wealth that they create.

You know, I tell you, I grew up in Welland, born in Crowland. Welland was a UE town. I was inside the labour temple down on Ontario Road before I was ever inside any church. I tell you that without any hesitation. I was mentored by people like Mike Bosnich and John Trufal and, yes, Gordie Lambert from Local 199, one of Canada's great trade unionists; all of them.

I learned then what I strongly believe now, and that is that workers have never had anything given to them. Everything workers have ever acquired, be it a fairer wage, a little safer workplace, a little bit of a pension plan or some health benefits, they've had to fight for. I say it's time for workers to join with the NDP in fighting for the right for card-based certification here and now in the province of Ontario.

As a democratic socialist, I find myself unequivocally committed to worker's struggles and to their interests. New Democrats have never been afraid of standing together with working women and men, shoulder to shoulder, arm in arm, when they've been engaged in their struggles. Oh, it's easy for a politician to show up for the photo op with a trade union local president who wants to give a check to United Way, show up with those UFCW workers down in Port Colborne, who've been locked out of Horizon Milling—Robin Hood Mills—now for a year plus a day; denied their right to work and contribute their labour to the productive process.

The right to belong to a union can't be the right of some, it has to be the right of all. Agricultural workers in this province, working in some of the most dangerous, toxic and dirtiest of workplaces, have to have the right to organize, belong to a trade union and freely, collectively bargain as well. So do part-time workers in this province, whether they're in the public or private sector.

In a few minutes, my colleagues Andrea Horwath, the member for Hamilton Centre, and Cheri DiNovo, the member for Parkdale—High Park, are going to be speaking to this bill, too. I tell you, this modest caucus of 10 had to divide the scarce amount of time available to us, to the regret of a whole lot of other members, all of whom wanted to address this bill.

For the life of me, I can't understand why there would be those who would bemoan the loss of jobs in this province, yet not want to see the trade union movement prosper, because the trade union movement has been at the forefront of the fight to keep good jobs in their communities, in this province and in this country. It's never, ever wrong to fight to keep good jobs in your community. It's never, ever wrong to fight for a safer workplace. It's never, ever wrong to fight for a fair pension. And it's never, ever wrong to join sisters and brothers who are fighting for their workplace rights in their workplace, notwithstanding that you don't happen to work there.

The most prosperous countries in this world are countries that have strong trade union movements and countries that have Legislatures and governments that sustain trade unionists and trade unions as a result of a legislative framework. We prospered in an environment when card-based certification was available to every worker.

This is a fundamental issue of basic decency, of very basic human rights. I, for one, will never abandon my passion for the right of workers to have some control over their workplaces. So understand, to deny workers the right to card-based certification is to deny them the right to unionization; to deny them the right to unionization is to deny them the right of free and fair collective bargaining.

Let's make no mistake about it. Yes, there's a broad range of what constitutes free and fair collective bargaining, it also constitutes the right to strike. I say that people who turn down workers' rights to freedom of assembly are turning down one of the very basic cornerstones of a democratic society.

Mr. Jean-Marc Lalonde: I'm delighted to be able to take

part in this debate today. I've done a lot of research since 1996 on the construction industry, especially when I introduced Bill 60 way back in 1996. Bill 60 was called Fairness is a Two-Way Street Act, which referred at the time to the Ontario-Quebec labour mobility agreement. But I remember afterwards, in early 2000, that the previous government came up with Bill 17, again because they could see there was a major problem in the construction industry.

We all know that the construction industry is the backbone of our economy. The McGuinty government has always promoted stable labour relations and economic prosperity by implementing legislation that ensures fairness and choice in Ontario's workplaces. We have restored the principles of balance, fairness and choice in Ontario's labour relations, giving all players confidence in the system that creates the stability necessary to ensure the ongoing prosperity of the province. We know that productive labour relations are key to economic growth, productivity and prosperity and give Ontario a competitive advantage.

Bill 144, the Labour Relations Statute Law Amendment Act, 2005, restored power to the Ontario Labour Relations Board to let it effectively handle situations where an employer or a union violates labour law during an organizing campaign. The Ontario Labour Relations Board now has the power to order automatic certification where it determines an employer's violation of the Labour Relations Act has made it unlikely that the employees' true wishes will be reflected in the certification vote.

The board also has the power to dismiss a union certification application where it determines the union's violation of the Labour Relations Act has made it unlikely that the employees' true wishes will be reflected.

Bill 7, introduced by the Conservatives in 1995, provides that unions could be certified only where a majority of employees in the proposed bargaining unit had voted in favour of the union in a representation vote. A union could no longer be certified solely on the basis of union membership cards. Union membership cards were still relevant; however, in establishing a union's entitlement to a representation vote, the board ordered a vote where at least 40% of employees signed cards at the time the application was made.

Bill 144, introduced in 2004, reintroduced card-based certification, but only for the construction sector. As I mentioned earlier, construction is the backbone of the Ontario economy. It is my firm belief that to insist on the certification of all of our construction workers would inevitably result in the collapse of the industry. Why am I saying this? I've done all the research in Ontario, in Canada and in the United States. We would not like to see our construction industry going through a crucial period of time like the United States is doing.

Let me mention some of the information received during my research. The Ontario Home Builders' Association employs over 300,000 people; 4,200 member companies are organized into a network of the 29 local provincial associations. Ontario's largest industry's contribution is over $33 billion to the economy. That represents 5.1% of Ontario's GDP; the automotive industry represents 4%. I just want to give you an example. It generates over $6 billion in provincial and federal taxes, premiums and charges; $1 billion goes to development charges in municipalities.

In addition, the Ontario Home Builders' Association built over 80% of new housing in Ontario. According to the Ottawa Carleton Home Builders Association, of over 25,000 construction workers in eastern Ontario from Kingston to the Quebec border, 95% are not certified; only 5% are certified construction workers. Most of them learn their trade on the job and they produce quality work. At the present time, there are 10 compulsory trades, 22 voluntary trades, and 104 non-restricted trades. To me, the system works as it is. There is no need to change it.

The Ottawa Carleton Home Builders Association has sent me this document. According to information received from the organized labour force, to defend their position that certified workers are better for the construction industry. They say it provides better quality of work. But, to me, the quality of work is no better, whether the workers are certified or not, according to the data from other provinces.

Reductions in the number of accidents: Well, I have all the data here. According to the Association of Workers' Compensation Boards of Canada, Ontario has 669,000 more workers than Quebec, for example. In Quebec, we all know that all construction trades have to be certified, so how come they have 669,000 fewer construction workers than we have and they have 1,287 more accidents?

Mr. Peter Kormos: You haven't read the bill.

Mr. Jean-Marc Lalonde: Yes, I have.

Mr. Peter Kormos: Jean-Marc, you don't understand the debate. You've read the wrong bill. You're reading the wrong notes.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Order, the member from Welland.

Mr. Jean-Marc Lalonde: At the moment, the issue is not the lack of post-secondary training but certified construction workers in Ontario. Yet, 44% of the construction workforce is over 65 years of age. There is already a shortage of skilled labour in Ontario.

The problem at the present time in Ontario is the ratios. When I look at all the other provinces in Ontario, why is it—and even though organized labour is saying that there's no shortage of labour, anybody who is graduating from the colleges at the present time cannot find a job, even though I received just this week a publication saying they are congratulating the students who have become apprentices under the apprenticeship programs. When I look at the other provinces, most of them are 1 to 1. Even in Alberta, which has a shortage of labour at the present time, it's 1 to 2.

And here, for a carpenter, it's 4 to 1. You've got to have four tradesmen for one apprentice in Ontario. That has to be changed. There is no use, at the present time, in expanding our training colleges because the unions are not recognizing those apprentices.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Stop the clock for a moment.

The Chair is pleased to introduce Mr. Bob Huget, who is in the east gallery. He was the member for Sarnia in the 35th Parliament.

Further debate?

Mr. Peter Shurman: I'm pleased to take this opportunity to rise here today and to speak to the member from Kenora—Rainy River's bill,

An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act, 1995 with respect to certification of trade unions. I want to speak to this bill as someone who has owned a company, but also as someone who has been and currently is a member of a trade union. As a matter of fact, I've held a card in the union of which I'm a member for 35 years and am happy to hold it again today. I even have strike experience under my belt.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: They might pull it after today.

Mr. Peter Shurman: They might.

This is certainly an opportunity to tell you that my experiences are varied. We bring our experiences to this House and hopefully use them to contribute to the debate. It's not an issue, for me, of being against trade unions or the ideals that they bring to society, but other experiences temper my views.

What I'd like to discuss, because it has a great bearing on the member's bill, is experience that I had in my own company, which speaks directly to this bill and goes back approximately 10 years, maybe a little bit less. We had, in a company that I owned with one other person, a certification attempt at that time. The union was well aware that it was operating outside of its sphere of influence. The typical members of the union were skilled trades who worked manually with their hands in industry, particularly in construction. My employees, meanwhile, were white-collar employees who worked as service workers.

The union wanted to expand its base, which is its right. One or two—at most—disgruntled employees in my company got caught up in the union's drive. It began as a drive to elicit signatures, as this bill describes. My couple of disgruntled employees, along with paid union workers, lay in wait for my employees to come and go to the buses, subways and cars that transported them to and from their jobs on a daily basis. The employees were continually pressured and they were coerced to sign. They did sign; 45% to 50% of them signed cards.

I, as owner of the company, paid out tens of thousands of dollars to ensure—and this is in legal fees—that I was acting legally and to ensure that the other side did likewise.

I used absolutely no coercion of any sort to influence my employees in terms of which way to vote. So I continued to act legally, not using any coercion, and guess what? On secret ballot—and I emphasize that: on secret ballot—the employee group voted 90 to 10 against unionization. Why did they do that? Because they got a fair wage, well above the minimum wage, because they worked in good white-collar jobs, they got good benefits, they got good pensions and they liked where they were. Many are still employed by that company today.

A secret ballot, no coercion; the two equate. I learned again that democratic principles always apply and always come to the fore. One person, one vote; secret ballot. Why? Because this is the only guarantee that we're all operating in a pressure-free environment and that we're all able to vote our conscience. If you implement a threshold system, that goes out the window.

My friend the member from Welland—and I'm paraphrasing—said, "It's never, ever wrong to make a fair wage. It's never, ever wrong to get a fair pension. It's never, ever wrong to get good benefits." But he presupposes that only unions can secure those things. How arrogant to make those assumptions.

The proposed amendment has many potential flaws, and I'm especially concerned with clause 8(4)(b), which states:

"Upon receiving an application for certification, the board shall,...

"(

b) direct that a representation vote be taken or certify the trade union as the bargaining agent of the employees in the bargaining unit, if it is satisfied that more than 55 per cent of the employees in the bargaining unit are members of the trade union on the date on which the application is made."

When I take that into consideration and I project backwards to that incident that I described in my own experience, in my own company, we came dangerously close to that level, and yet when the vote went secret, it was 90 to 10 against a union. What does that say? It says that this clause opens the door to threats and coercion and it slams the door on democracy. It slams the door on a private, secret ballot.

The "D" in NDP stands for "democratic," and I know that you all believe it in the third party. This sort of clause could encourage some unscrupulous labour organizers—and they do exist—to exert undue pressure on potential members of the bargaining unit. I saw this with my own eyes. The clause designed to protect against this is toothless, and that's why, even if 100% of people signed cards, it should still be a secret vote.

Subsection 8(7) states in part, "If the trade union or person acting on behalf of the trade union contravenes this act ... the board may, on the application of an interested person, dismiss the application if no other remedy, including a representation vote, would be sufficient to counter the effects of the contravention."

That means that if one lone person fights the good fight, opens up the door, he becomes what is commonly referred to as the goat, the guy who has the guts but gets the snot kicked out of him for having the guts. This provides little relief; it requires an employee to come forward. It requires an employee to publicly file a complaint against the union, and I ask the question: Realistically, who's going to do that?

If the job status of the employee filing the complaint changes, it could also affect the status of disciplinary action against the union. So you just redefine the bargaining unit or you torment the complainant—it's easy, but it's undemocratic, and at worst, it's even illegal. I cannot foresee an instance where someone would step forward and possibly have to face a year's worth of harassment just for coming forward against a union, and this aspect begs for any and all manner of illegal action.

Subsection (8) bars unions from reapplying for a period of one year as a potential penalty for violations of the aforementioned subsections. The clauses I'm talking about here are basically escape hatches. If you harass someone enough, he'll go away, and that changes the composition of the bargaining unit. He'll get other employment, presto. Now the union can go ahead and reapply, and that's not what we are looking for.

I can't possibly foresee an instance where someone would step forward under these circumstances. I believe workers should have the right to bargain collectively, and I also believe that workers have a right to reasonable wages and benefits. I also believe that a vast majority of the businesses across this province do value and respect their employees, as did I.

I can tell you that if my employees were here to speak today and make deputations, they would say the same thing, because they recognize that their employer was a good employer and the vast majority of employees in good businesses, which are the majority of businesses in our province, recognize that they are responsible for the success and failure of companies and that it's a two-way street. They deserve this mutuality.

Today, we're talking about a piece of legislation that will force any potential investors to reconsider Ontario for fear of being unionized without even the benefit of a certification vote. We've been listening in this House for the past number of weeks to talk of the economy, and no doubt we'll be talking about it as debate continues today, as we look at job losses in Oshawa at General Motors of 1,000, Campbell Soup, 500, Chatham, 130, and the hits just keep on coming. We don't need any more of it. This is not the time to consider looking at unionization without the ability of the democratic process to be followed.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It's certainly my pleasure to rise today on May Day, the international day of solidarity with workers, to speak in favour of this private member's bill that would guarantee card-based certification for all workers in the province of Ontario—not a radical change, in fact something that workers had a right to in this province for many, many years, except it was the government of the day back in 1995-96, I believe, that got rid of that right, and that was a horrible day for workers in Ontario.

Today, we have with us in this chamber—and I think it's important to note—many, many trade union activists. We have many labour leaders I wanted to mention. We have Wayne Samuelson, president of the Ontario Federation of Labour; Dave Ritchie from IAMAW, Wayne Fraser, United Steelworkers of America, Wayne Hanley, UFCW—all of our important labour leaders here and all of the people who are active in the labour movement who could get here today to show solidarity, not only with workers in Toronto and here in Ontario but with workers around the world, because international labour movement activists around this world, some 122 years ago, fought for the eight-hour day.

The struggles of workers, as was mentioned earlier in the speech by my colleague from Welland, Mr. Kormos, were difficult struggles, and those struggles were based on a fundamental difference between the interests, the attitudes—the deeply polarized attitudes in fact back in those days. I would submit that, today, those polarized attitudes still exist.

They exist, unfortunately, in some workplaces, but they exist right here in this chamber, I would submit: those polarized attitudes between the rights of workers, the dignity of workers, the assurances that workers should have in a democratic society to enable them to gain a decent wage for their labour, to ensure that their workplaces are safe and healthy, to ensure that at the end of their working life they might have a little bit of a pension to be able to rely on so that they're not living in poverty, versus those who would not see those things as rights or obligations of a civil society at all.

Back then, those struggles were very difficult and people, yes, were killed back in 1886 in the Haymarket riots. But in this chamber today we have the same division. We have the same polarization: the Liberals and Conservatives on one side who don't want to see those rights of workers reinstated in the province of Ontario, and New Democrats who on May Day, the international day of solidarity with workers, are here to say we absolutely want to see this law in place in Ontario.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Again, this is a very clarified moment in this chamber. In case there's any doubt out there in the province of Ontario about the party that stands up for workers' rights and for workers' justice, there is only one party that does: the New Democratic Party of Ontario. It's not the Liberal Party, although some may think that it does, but clearly they don't. They don't support this private member's bill. They do not stand up for workers. We knew the Tories didn't, but we are shocked to see that the people across the hall—the government, the Premier and the Premier's office—do not stand up for workers' rights. This has been made clear this morning.

Let us make no mistake about this: Whatever facilitates unionization, facilitates human dignity; whatever facilitates the rights of workers, facilitates all humans to a more dignified life.

My husband and I had a wonderful opportunity to go to Sweden, a community of nine million—85% unionization rate. They have free tuition for post-secondary, they have child care free to all who need it, they have free dental care up to the age of 18, and they have a vibrant economy. They have Sony Ericsson, Volvo, Ikea and others. You can have both—and a de facto minimum wage of $12 an hour. That's what human dignity looks like. That's what this province could look like if this private member's bill was passed.

That's what this province would look like if the Liberals didn't stand in the way, if the Tories didn't stand in the way, if we stood up for workers' rights and elected more New Democratic Party members to this House.

M. Gilles Bisson: Je veux seulement applaudir ce projet de loi et dire que c'est à peu près temps qu'on vote pour les travailleurs de cette province.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Mr. Hampton, you have up to two minutes to respond.

Mr. Howard Hampton: In the time that I have left, I would like to respond, in particular to some of the arguments that were raised by government members. I find the government's position bizarre. Members of the government say that you have to have card certification in the construction sector because the construction sector is dynamic, because some people may be working some days and, a week later, the workforce may change.

I invite government members to go into the hospitality sector, the retail sector or the food sector and look at the young workers and overwhelmingly visible minority women who work in those sectors and tell them that their workplace is any less dynamic. Tell them that their workplace is any more steady or regular. It's not.

It's bizarre that government members would say that young workers, new Canadians, and women who work in some of the most dynamic parts of our economy—where they're on call, where they're working different shifts, where they're working some days 10 hours, then two days not working, then called in on the weekend—that somehow their workplace is any less dynamic, any more regular than a construction work site. Baloney.

The second point I'd like to make: There's been some talk about democracy. In our society, if I sign a cheque, no one comes around to conduct an inquiry. My signature on the cheque is okay. I have a driver's licence and my signature is on it. I don't have to go through an inquiry. My signature is okay. But yet when it comes to workers who want to join a trade union, they seem to have to exercise democracy twice: Sign the union card and then go vote. If it's good enough on my cheque and on my credit card—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Thank you. The time provided for private members' public business has expired.

We will first deal with ballot item number 17, standing in the name of Mr. Yakabuski.

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

AND HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

AMENDMENT ACT (ASSISTANCE

TO MUNICIPALITIES), 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR L'AMÉNAGEMENT

DES VOIES PUBLIQUES

ET DES TRANSPORTS EN COMMUN

(AIDE AUX MUNICIPALITÉ

S) The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Mr. Yakabuski has moved second reading of Bill 38,

An Act to amend the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act with respect to the assistance that the Minister provides to municipalities. 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.

We will defer the vote until we deal with the second ballot item.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT

ACT (CERTIFICATION), 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL

(ACCRÉDITATION)

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Mr. Hampton has moved second reading of Bill 65,

An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act, 1995 with respect to certification of trade unions. 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 nays have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1201 to 1206.

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

AND HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

AMENDMENT ACT (ASSISTANCE

TO MUNICIPALITIES), 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR L'AMÉNAGEMENT

DES VOIES PUBLIQUES

ET DES TRANSPORTS EN COMMUN

(AIDE AUX MUNICIPALITÉ

S) The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): All those in favour of the motion will please rise.

Ayes

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): All those opposed to the motion will please rise.

Nays

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 22; the nays are 39.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): I declare the motion lost.

Second reading negatived.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): The doors will be opened for 30 seconds.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT

ACT (CERTIFICATION), 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL

(ACCRÉDITATION)

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing.

Ayes

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): All those opposed to the motion will please rise and remain standing.

Nays

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 11; the nays are 55.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): I declare the motion lost.

Second reading negatived.

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

The House recessed from 1213 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

WORLD CATHOLIC EDUCATION DAY

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: I rise in the House today to recognize World Catholic Education Day. In Canada alone, Catholic schools educate almost one million students. The theme for Ontario's Catholic Education Week is "We are called," and today's special theme is "To serve generously."

As the member for Burlington, I would like to recognize the tremendous accomplishments of two students in our community: Jasmine Berlingieri from St. Patrick School, and Jordana Baumgartner from Holy Rosary School, who received top honours in a recent Halton Catholic District School Board public speaking contest.

I would also like to take this opportunity to recognize the recipients of the 2008 Sharing the Spirit Award of Excellence: Emma Harper, Robert Babic, Marisa Norris, Sarah Bourque, Nadia Mendola, Stephanie Kovacs, Sean Madden, Rachel Gubbels, Olivia Brown, Andrew van Kooten, Rachael Plume, Helen Kosterman, Kailey Meehan, Emily O'Keefe and Nicole Veloce. All of these young students have distinguished themselves amongst their peers as leaders and dedicated ambassadors of Catholic education.

I wish each one of them all the best as they pursue their dreams, challenge their minds and open their hearts to new and exciting opportunities.

OIL SPRINGS

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel: A century and a half ago, James Miller Williams, in search of a better quality of drinking water, dug a well in the village of Oil Springs, just south of Petrolia. Mr. Williams was not able to find any water, but what he did discover was to become the first commercial oil well in North America. Four years later, in 1862, there were more than 2,000 barrels of oil a day shooting above the treetops from about 100 gushers in Lambton county.

I rise in the House today to tell all members of the Legislature that Canada Post will be unveiling a commemorative stamp in Oil Springs tomorrow afternoon at 4 o'clock to recognize the 150th anniversary of this first discovery of oil. Prior to 2007's riding redistribution, Oil Springs was in my riding of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.

Along with the former Minister of Culture, Caroline Di Cocco, the McGuinty government supported Oil Springs as they prepared to ready the village for the year-long celebration. Among those grants was the announcement last spring of $225,000 for retrofits and improvements to the Oil Museum of Canada as part of our government's economic stimulus package. I had the pleasure of working with Mayor Gordon Perry and his community as they started their planning and continued to watch with interest as this small community rallied around to ensure that the spit and polish is on this showcase of commercial oil history.

I encourage everyone today to partake in this appropriately named village's celebration and make sure that you enjoy the down-home hospitality.

ETHEL GARDINER

Mr. Ted Arnott: In June 2007, students, teachers and the Halton District School Board lost a dear friend and champion of public education. Ethel Gardiner, a long-serving trustee and former school board chair, brought her passion, kindness, commitment and outstanding leadership to her every task. Ethel fostered excellence in our schools by recognizing publicly the achievements of others, including students, educators and support staff. Her focus on student achievement was surely instrumental in her being awarded the prestigious provincial Dr. Harry Paikin Award of Merit.

I was honoured to meet Ethel towards the end of her tenure as a school board trustee. After making my decision to seek re-election in Wellington—Halton Hills after the riding boundary changes were established, I made a point of meeting some of the community leaders in Halton Hills to get to know them and to listen to their advice. As the past school board chair, Ethel was someone I wanted to meet. I called her and we arranged to meet at what she called her office, the Tim Hortons on Mountainview Road in Georgetown. After all, that was where she met most of her constituents.

I was immediately impressed with her down-to-earth sincerity, her passion for public education, and the way she saw everyone, students and staff alike, as part of her extended family.

That's why I'm so pleased to congratulate the Halton District School Board for its decision to name the new school under construction in south Georgetown after Ethel Gardiner. There is no more appropriate name and no more fitting person in Halton Hills to be honoured in this way.

POVERTY

Mr. Michael Prue: For the last several weeks, I have stood in this Legislature and asked questions of various ministers and the Premier about poverty consultation—when all of that is going to begin, who's going to be invited and what's going to be said. I've been stonewalled at every single instance. No one has been willing to answer this.

You can imagine my surprise and chagrin this morning when I opened up the clippings and saw in the Peterborough Examiner that the member from Peterborough, Mr. Leal, has announced that the long-awaited consultations will begin on Monday in Peterborough. Of course, I instantly wanted to go. So I phoned up the local council and said, "How can I attend? Where is it?" We got a very curt reply that they couldn't invite us because only the minister could invite people to attend.

So we phoned the minister's office and said, "Please, Madam Minister, how can we get an invitation to go to Peterborough and hear these consultations?" Of course, the minister's office has not called us back.

I have to say that people have been asking—the 25 in 5 coalition, all of the groups, this side of the House—when it's going to begin, who's going to be listened to, what's going to be said, and now we find out: by invitation of the minister only, in a secret location that can't be revealed, with people invited who are going to tell the minister what I assume she wants to hear. This is hardly consultation.

SQUARE ONE FARMERS' MARKET

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: All across Ontario, shoppers are choosing farmers' markets for nature's best produce, where the food is fresh, high in quality and the next best thing to harvesting it yourself.

The Square One Farmers' Market in Mississauga was started in 1975 by the Mississauga Central Lions Club, whose members volunteer to help raise funds for the less fortunate in Mississauga.

Farmers' markets support local farmers by promoting locally produced goods in a healthy and eco-friendly manner. To date, the farmers' market at Square One has generated approximately $5 million for the Mississauga Central Lions Club, which in turn funds local community projects.

I would like to acknowledge and congratulate Manuel Castellino, chairman and general manager, and Edward Bujold, assistant manager of the Square One Farmers' Market, on their success. Both of them are in the east members' gallery today. I would also like to thank the management of Square One Shopping Centre for their continuing support of this great farmers' market.

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY

OF SIMCOE COUNTY

Mr. Jim Wilson: Last week, my colleague from Simcoe North and I had a very informative meeting with representatives from the Simcoe county children's aid society. I wanted to bring to the attention of this House a very exciting project that the society is undertaking this weekend.

On Saturday, the society will plant a tree for every child in its care with its "tree for a child" greening initiative. In an effort to raise a bit of money for the foundation, the society is asking for community members to sponsor a tree for $5, which will be planted by staff, family members, foster families and community volunteers. These seedlings will be planted around the children's aid society building in Barrie, with each seedling representing one of the children in their care.

This tree-planting initiative is intended to symbolize the vision that the children's aid society has for our children, including healthy growth and development, and the support and nurturing that each child requires to achieve their full potential. It's also an important fundraiser for the society as it struggles to deal with a $400,000 funding shortfall from the last fiscal year.

I think this is a fantastic initiative, and I want to thank all of the staff and volunteers with the Simcoe county children's aid society for doing their part for the environment and for being the compassionate and thoughtful community advocates they are.

The planting begins at noon on Saturday at the society's Bell Farm Road office in Barrie, and it will be followed by a barbecue and children's games.

I just say to all members, if you want to support children in care and children's aid in Barrie, please give me $5.

ANNIVERSARY OF

POLISH CONSTITUTION

Mr. Tony Ruprecht: A very momentous occasion took place in Poland in 1791, and that was the establishment of the Polish Constitution, which for the first time in the history of Europe, at least, separated the judiciary branch from legislative and executive branches of government. In addition to that, it gave a lot of power to the people.

Little did the writers know in 1791 what the impact of this very important constitution would be on the rest of Europe—on the French Revolution, in Germany, in Italy. Basically, all the constitutions in Europe and even the Constitution of the United States were affected by this.

In 1791, the Polish people did not know what awaited them. When we raise the flag on May 3, which is this Saturday, I would like to invite all members to come and join us. When we raise the flag, we are reminded of the history of the Polish nation being oppressed, and being sacrificed and divided over 200 or 300 years. Today it's a free nation. The people of Poland, from one generation to the next, have passed the flame of freedom on to the children today.

Finally, let me say that as we raise the flag on Saturday, we are reminded of three items: one, the constitution; two, the tremendous contribution of the Polish people in Canada; and three, the 150th anniversary of Polish immigration to Canada.

GUELPH DAY

Mrs. Liz Sandals: As you know, today is Guelph Day in the provincial Legislature. I would like to welcome Mayor Karen Farbridge, various councillors, representatives from the University of Guelph and Conestoga College, and business leaders to the Legislature today, and to congratulate them for organizing such a successful day. I hope that all the members were able to join these individuals for a delicious Guelph-style lunch today.

The city of Guelph is the agrifood capital of Ontario and a true environmental leader. The city of Guelph shares a unique relationship with the agriculture sector. This was demonstrated earlier this week, when Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Minister Leona Dombrowsky visited my riding to announce a new 10-year research and education partnership with the University of Guelph. This announcement allocates $300 million over the next five years to continue the type of top-notch agrifood research that resulted in the omega-3 egg.

This funding adds to the $56 million in one-time funding that was announced in the 2008 provincial budget. In addition to the traditional areas, the new agreement will focus on commercialization of research and new uses for agricultural products.

U of G's BioCar project, to which the province contributed $17.9 million, and the city's innovative community energy plan will surely cement Guelph's future as a leader in biotechnology and environmental sustainability.

HAMILTON ECONOMIC SUMMIT

Ms. Sophia Aggelonitis: This morning, I had the honour of attending the first-ever Hamilton economic summit, which was held at the Ancaster Old Mill. Over 120 community leaders have gathered to work together on the economic vision and future prosperity of Hamilton. I am so proud to be part of a community that takes such a proactive approach to its economic goals and works together to achieve those goals.

Hamilton is a major transportation hub, with the third-busiest port on the Great Lakes, the number one cargo airport in Canada, and a road and rail infrastructure that reaches 120 million customers within one day's truck travel. We are also a world leader in health care, with top-quality research and innovation, as well as having first-class educational institutions like Mohawk College and McMaster University.

I would like to congratulate the Hamilton Chamber of Commerce, and I would like to applaud all the attendees at today's summit for their dedication to achieve their vision of making Hamilton the best city in Canada to raise a child, promote innovation, engage citizens and provide diverse economic opportunities. It is innovative and resourceful initiatives such as this that will keep this province strong and successful.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE

AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Ms. Leeanna Pendergast: I beg leave to present a report from the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs and move its adoption.

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Ms. Tonia Grannum): Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill 35,

An Act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make payments to eligible recipients out of money appropriated by the Legislature and to amend the Fiscal Transparency and Accountability Act, 2004, the Ministry of Treasury and Economics Act and the Treasury Board Act, 1991 / Projet de loi 35, Loi autorisant le ministre des Finances à faire des versements aux bénéficiaires admissibles sur les crédits affectés par la Législature et modifiant la Loi de 2004 sur la transparence et la responsabilité financières, la

Loi sur le ministère du Trésor et de l'Économie et la Loi de 1991 sur le Conseil du Trésor.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Shall the report be received and adopted?

All those in favour will say "aye."

All those opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1346 to 1351.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): All those in favour will please rise one at a time and be recorded by the Clerk.

Ayes

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): All those opposed?

Nays

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 45; the nays are 23.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I declare the report adopted.

Report adopted.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I'd like to welcome a number of guests to the Legislature today.

On behalf of the member from Nickel Belt: Patrick Imbeau, Eric Blondin, Daniel Mayer, and Patrick Roome, in the west members' gallery. These are students with the francophone student association.

On behalf of the member from Northumberland—Quinte West, we'd like to welcome Mr. and Mrs. Aziz, in the west members' gallery.

On behalf of the member from Guelph, a number of guests today in the west members' gallery: Her Worship Karen Farbridge; June Hofland, Ian Findlay, Kathleen Farrelly, Vicki Beard, and Lise Burcher, councillors from the city of Guelph; Hans Loewig, Janet Laird, Peter Cartwright, and Barb Maly, senior staff from the city of Guelph; Lloyd Longfield, president of the Guelph Chamber of Commerce; Jasmine Urisk, president, JTU Consulting Inc.; Ken Hammill, Friends of Guelph; and Brenda Boisvert, Kate Sullivan, Tara Sprigg and Caroline Pinto from the city of Guelph.

We'll be having a class visiting in a few moments: the grade 5 students from the Scott Street school in my community of St. Thomas. I certainly want to recognize two friends of mine who are in that classroom, Brian Mason and Amy Nickson.

On behalf of pages who have guests visiting us today: in the east members' gallery, page Dario Toman—his sister Maya and his mother Alexandra Gilisic. On behalf of page Cali Van Bommel, in the Speaker's gallery, her mother Suzanne and her sister Maria. On behalf of page Thomas Parker, in the east public gallery, his father, Al Parker.

As well, visiting the Legislature today is former member Don Cousens, member from York Centre in the 32nd and 33rd Parliaments and from Markham in the 34th and 35th Parliaments.

I have some housekeeping to do on the previous report that we just passed.

Pursuant to the standing order of the House dated April 22, 2008, Bill 35 is now ordered for third reading.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Hon. Michael Bryant: Mr. Speaker, I'm seeking unanimous consent for debate on government notice of motion number 81 to be limited to one hour, with 20 minutes being allotted to each of the recognized parties. At the end of the debate, the Speaker shall put the question without any further debate or amendment.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The government House leader seeks unanimous consent. Agreed? Agreed.

Hon. Michael Bryant: I move that the December 11, 2007, order of the House establishing the committee

schedule for the 39th Parliament be rescinded and substituted by the following:

The Standing Committee on Justice Policy may meet on Thursday mornings to 10:45 a.m. and Thursday afternoons following routine proceedings.

The Standing Committee on Social Policy may meet on Monday and Tuesday afternoons following routine proceedings.

The Standing Committee on General Government may meet on Monday and Wedne