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

June 15, 1998

36th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L026a - Mon 15 Jun 1998 / Lun 15 Jun 1998 1

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ELECTORAL REFORM

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

CANCER RESEARCH

ELECTORAL REFORM

LAND USE PLANNING

TORNADO

ELECTORAL REFORM

BEAR HUNTING

CONDOMINIUM LEGISLATION

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MUNICIPALITY OF CHATHAM-KENT ACT, 1998

EASTERN PENTECOSTAL BIBLE COLLEGE ACT, 1998

TERRY FOX DAY ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA JOURNÉE TERRY FOX

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

ORAL QUESTIONS

SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS UNIT

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

ELECTORAL REFORM

SHORTLINE RAILWAY

PROPERTY TAXATION

TEXTBOOKS

WATER HEATER RENTAL RATES

HYDRO RATES

YEAR 2000 PROBLEM

CHILD CARE

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL JURISDICTION

CONSUMER PROTECTION

PETITIONS

MULTICULTURALISM

BEAR HUNTING

SCHOOL CUSTODIAN

ROAD SAFETY

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

GRAVEL PIT

ROAD SAFETY

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

ABORTION

EDUCATION FUNDING

HOSPITAL ADMINISTRATOR

ELECTORAL REFORM

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND WORKPLACE DEMOCRACY ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LE DÉVELOPPEMENT ÉCONOMIQUE ET SUR LA DÉMOCRATIE EN MILIEU DE TRAVAIL

The House met at 1331.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ELECTORAL REFORM

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): The people of Ontario should know that this week we will be debating a bill on election finances in which Mike Harris is attempting to buy the next election in Ontario. The bill will nearly double the spending limits a candidate can spend in their riding during the election campaign. It will also substantially increase the amount an individual can contribute to a candidate and party.

What is particularly shocking is the fact that in the past there has always been all-party agreement to any changes in election financing. Mike Harris once again wants to bully and bulldoze his way through the Legislature.

The massive increases in election campaign spending and the dramatic increases in the amount of money that corporations and individuals may contribute to political parties and candidates, in addition to the exemption of major campaign activities from any spending limits at all and the elimination of the financial watchdog, the Commission on Election Finances, will ensure that the deck is stacked in favour of the Reform-Tory government in Ontario in the next election.

All this is in addition to the use of taxpayers' money by this government to send out purely partisan propaganda to all Ontario households that should be paid for by the Tory party and not the government of Ontario.

We must not allow the Americanization of our system. We value fairness in our electoral system. I call upon Mike Harris to withdraw this piece of legislation and bring back a bill on election finances which has the traditional all-party support.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): This morning the Minister of Health was in Windsor to make a long-awaited announcement with respect to health care funding, and when I say long, I mean really long. It was in February 1994 that the Win-Win report was released outlining our community's vision for health care reform. The NDP government promised funding to carry out this vision but the election of the Mike Harris government three years ago brought the entire process to a screeching halt. The Health Services Restructuring Commission reviewed the whole process yet again.

Minister, why has it taken your government so long to get us almost to the point where we were three years ago? Please explain the delay to the people in my community, because it makes no common sense to me.

While you have been dithering, the crisis in our emergency rooms has grown worse, waiting times for health care have grown longer, health care workers have experienced increasing stress, and families more and more are being referred to Detroit or London for treatment.

Why, as well, was there no announcement about long-term operating dollars? New buildings and new equipment will not improve health care in our community without the people to provide it. Why, as well, has there been no announcement about the Malden Park Centre?

These are questions that our community deserves answers to. Minister, please provide them immediately.

CANCER RESEARCH

Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): I rise today to honour the McCarty Cancer Foundation which was started by Detroit Red Wings star Darren McCarty.

Darren's father, Craig, has multiple myeloma, which is a rare form of bone cancer that affects approximately 14,000 new people a year in North America. Multiple myeloma patients experience severe pain and bone deterioration. Since the average age of diagnosis is in the 60s, however, there is very little money being spent on research. Perhaps since this is Seniors' Month, it would be appropriate for all members of this Legislature to reflect on the importance of greater medical research for fighting this disease.

Darren McCarty and his family are doing just that. Through Darren's efforts, money is being raised to put towards research into a possible cure for multiple myeloma. This money will be used to benefit support groups, patients and caregivers.

In addition to starting the foundation, the McCarty family is to be commended for bringing greater public awareness to multiple myeloma, which can only be cured with determination. I would like to thank Craig and Roberta McCarty, who are in the members' gallery today, for showing such determination.

In a final comment, I'm sure the McCartys would wish me to say, "Go, Wings, go."

ELECTORAL REFORM

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Today is a dark day for democracy in Ontario. The Mike Harris Conservative government, using its new anti-democratic procedural rules, will begin the process of bulldozing through the Legislature a bill which will make money the king - the key ingredient in Ontario elections.

Bill 36 allows for massive increases in the amount of money political parties and candidates can spend during election campaigns, exempts a number of expensive campaign activities from any spending limits at all and drastically increases the amount of money corporations and individuals may donate to a party or candidate.

Mike Harris plans to abolish the watchdog over election spending and contributions - the Commission on Election Finances - at the very time when the public sees the greatest need for this policing agency.

The result of this anti-democratic strategy, hatched in the back rooms of the Premier's office - the Harris Kremlin, as one reporter termed it - will be the Americanization of Ontario elections, with money playing an enormous role in the campaign; a campaign to be shortened in length so that massive media advertising will dominate, rather than door-to-door personal contact with voters.

The Conservative Party, gearing its policies, legislation and regulations to the best interests of the very wealthy and the most powerful, will gather its rewards from this element in the form of huge campaign contributions which it will use to saturation-bomb the airwaves with expensive commercials.

It is time for all who value democracy to demand that Mike Harris withdraw the bill, which stacks the deck in favour of the very rich and his political party, which represents the rich and powerful.

LAND USE PLANNING

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I'd like to make a statement today about the Lands for Life situation. Everybody may be aware that recently there was a press conference held by a representative from the World Wildlife Fund Canada, the Federation of Ontario Naturalists and the Wildlands League. They were there on behalf of the 38 member groups of the Partnership for Public Lands. I'm going to quote from their press release:

"The Lands for Life process in Ontario is off the rails and, unless it gets back on track, it will not even come close to delivering on the government's promise to complete the provincial park system in northern Ontario."

I think it's fair to say that almost everybody was interested in this process: the opportunity to sit down and try to negotiate a sensible, indeed, very difficult determination on how to use our vast lands for their resources, but also tourism, and to preserve these lands for the future.

It is off the rails, and I want to tell people today about a big rally that's happening on Wednesday, June 24, at 7 pm at U of T Convocation Hall. People can call 1-888-971-LAND for tickets. At this concert will be a lot of performers, including a CD with many people called "Whose Forest?: Defending our Public Lands," which was produced by Sarah Peebles. It's "A musical statement, a visual work of art, a political action kit and a benefit all rolled into one."

TORNADO

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): Two weeks ago, my riding was unfortunate enough to be in the path of a tornado. The hardest hit area was the village of Norwich, a small community of about 2,100 people. Although the damage was extensive, I am pleased to say that no one was seriously hurt.

Even in the face of such devastation, the spirit of the community remained undaunted as everyone pulled together to help each other.

I want to applaud those who went above and beyond the call of duty to help those in need: the United Church, which opened its doors to feed workers and residents alike by candlelight, as there was no hydro; the community centre where, with the help of a generator, a place to sleep could be found for those who no longer had a roof over their heads; the Salvation Army and those residents who escaped damage who provided food; the workers of the public utilities commissions from Ingersoll, Woodstock, Norwich and Tillsonburg, as well as Ontario Hydro, who worked around the clock to get the lights back on; the crews from the townships of Norwich, Burford, southwest Oxford, Zorra and the county of Oxford and the Long Point Region Conservation Authority, who quickly got the fallen trees and debris cleaned up so the streets could be reopened; the Woodstock police, the OPP and the RCMP who kept order to ensure that everyone was safe, even if it meant going door to door.

Most of all, I want to commend the people of Norwich for their strong sense of community, their generosity and their willingness to help others in the face of adversity.

ELECTORAL REFORM

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I want to comment as well on the bill that the Harris government is ramming through on election expenses. For the public's information, this bill was introduced on June 9 and will be law before the end of June. It fundamentally changes the way elections are financed in the province of Ontario, and without any question of a doubt is designed to help Mike Harris and to penalize the other parties.

The expenses now have almost doubled. The Conservative Party can now spend $5 million instead of $2.5 million in the election campaign. Mike Harris will have no trouble raising that. He gave people making more than $250,000 in this province a $500-million tax break, so Mike Harris will have no trouble raising that. But it fundamentally changes the way elections in this province are run. Without any question of a doubt, it is the Americanization of politics in the province of Ontario. Now money will talk instead of ideas, instead of people. I regret that he will, in typical fashion, bulldoze this bill through. It was introduced on June 9 and it will be law within two weeks.

This is trampling on democracy. We now are a province where money will talk instead of the people talking. I regret that Mike Harris has chosen this technique, doubling the amount he can now spend on campaigns and forcing this bill through in a matter of days when I think it's something the people of Ontario want withdrawn.

BEAR HUNTING

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Today is June 15, and that marks the end of the spring bear hunt for this year. We hope we will be able to say that it marks the end of the spring bear hunt forever.

On behalf of the Animal Alliance of Canada and the International Fund for Animal Welfare, I have today a gift on behalf of those organizations for every MPP. I'll ask the pages if someone could come and take this from myself and the member for Riverdale.

There is an information brochure. We want every MPP to have one.

The bear is representative of two things. The first is pretty sad. It's representative of those bear cubs who were killed during this year's bear hunt. But it's also a symbol of celebration, because if we can convince the government to move on bringing an end to the spring bear hunt, we can celebrate that there will be no more cubs killed in that manner.

It is not moral or ethical to allow the slaughter of bears at bait, as is done in the spring bear hunt. It is not moral or ethical to allow dogs to track down and kill bear cubs, as is done during the spring bear hunt. In fact, it is not moral or ethical to allow hunting of a major species like that in the spring, which is during the animals' reproductive season.

We can stop this. All it takes is us to stand up with the majority of Ontarians. Northerners, southerners, rural, city, everybody agrees in the majority to end the spring bear hunt. We call on all MPPs to call on the minister to do just that.

CONDOMINIUM LEGISLATION

Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): Last week residents of Etobicoke again received good news from the Mike Harris government. This comes as a result of new legislation being introduced to replace the outdated Condominium Act.

Local residents in Etobicoke have taken a great deal of ownership in their community and should be commended for the hard work put forth in promoting these changes. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank people such as Dave Dunn and his wife Christine for their leadership in coordinating the involvement of those in the community who wanted to see the legislation updated. Many people, including Marilyn Bird, Rosette Kertez, Fred Mahler, Philip Mayers, Geoff Pacey, Meade Wright, and a great deal of others, did not let up on their interest to see the changes that are long overdue.

I would be remiss if I didn't also express gratitude to the present minister, David Tsubouchi, the former minister, Norm Sterling, and his former parliamentary assistant, the Honourable Jim Flaherty, for driving a review which was not undertaken until our government was elected.

The right of ownership and responsibilities that come with it are factors which have not been overlooked by this government. The introduction of the Condominium Act, 1998, is a clear indication that the problems encountered by responsible owners will now be short-lived and is another promise kept by the Mike Harris government that will directly benefit many people in Etobicoke.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on administration of justice and move its adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Ms Lisa Freedman): Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill 15,

An Act to cut taxes for people and for small business and to implement other measures contained in the 1998 Budget.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

Pursuant to the order of the House dated June 2, 1998, this bill is ordered for third reading.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MUNICIPALITY OF CHATHAM-KENT ACT, 1998

Mr Carroll moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr19,

An Act respecting the Municipality of Chatham-Kent.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

EASTERN PENTECOSTAL BIBLE COLLEGE ACT, 1998

Mr Stewart moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr18,

An Act respecting Eastern Pentecostal Bible College.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

TERRY FOX DAY ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA JOURNÉE TERRY FOX

Mr Ouellette moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 42,

An Act to proclaim Terry Fox Day / Projet de loi 42, Loi proclamant la journée Terry Fox.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): Essentially, we as a society may build monuments or name sections of road; however, unless you actually drive that

section of highway, one never knows the distance that is really travelled.

This bill officially designates that the Sunday each September on which the Terry Fox Run takes place be designated as Terry Fox Day.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon David Turnbull (Minister without Portfolio): I move that pursuant to standing order 9(c), the House shall meet from 6:30 pm to 9:30 pm on June 15, 16, 17, 18, 22, 23, 24 and 25, 1998, for the purpose of considering government business, and that pursuant to standing order 9(e)(i), the House shall continue to meet from 9:30 pm to 12 midnight on June 23 and 25, 1998, for the purpose of considering government business.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): 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. I declare the motion carried.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Under the previous democratic procedural rules that governed this House, that motion would have been a debatable motion. Under the new rules imposed by the Mike Harris government, is that allowed any more?

The Speaker: You're asking if the motion is debatable?

Mr Bradley: Yes.

The Speaker: No, it's not.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS UNIT

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): I have a question for the Attorney General. You know that we're having some problems with the SIU, the special investigations unit. The director announced last week that he was leaving. We have now had eight directors in five years.

Some of the solutions to the problems connected with the SIU are found in a report prepared by the very respected former Judge George Adams. He makes a number of recommendations, including that it be properly resourced - it's his opinion that the SIU is underfunded - and second, that we proceed to make the necessary changes that would compel police officers who are witnesses to a shooting to speak forthwith with an SIU investigator. When are you going to be moving forward on those recommendations?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I appreciate the question from the Leader of the Opposition. I just want to put into context what former Judge Adams did. He prepared a report for us based on working with the parties, working with community representatives, police representatives, representatives of police associations and police chiefs, to develop a consensus of what he believed would be a workable solution to long-outstanding problems that have existed since the Police Services Act included the special investigations unit.

After delivering the report to me, he asked me to ensure that I made efforts to evaluate and judge the level of support that he believes he was able to find, and that's what I'm in the course of doing now. I believe that so far what I'm seeing is that Judge Adams's report is a solid report and gives us the basis to clean up a mess that we inherited and that has existed since the inception of the SIU.

Mr McGuinty: As you know, in a democratic society it's absolutely essential that government take all the steps necessary to instil public confidence in their police. One of the big issues, the hot-button item, has been this issue as to whether a police officer who witnesses a shooting ought to be compelled to speak immediately or forthwith with an SIU investigator.

As you know, the face of Ontario, but especially the face of Toronto, is changing. Our visible minorities have a keen interest in the position you are going to take on this issue. Would you kindly stand up now and give us your position with respect to whether or not witness officers ought to be required to speak forthwith with an SIU investigator.

Hon Mr Harnick: Everything I've heard so far from the different groups I've been speaking with to get their reaction to the Adams report indicates that the level of consensus that Justice Adams reports on is very accurate. As a result of that, I hope very soon to be in a position to take the necessary steps, that the Liberals didn't take when they were the government, that the NDP didn't take when they were the government, to try and develop for the SIU a very workable way and a very acceptable way to all parties to deal with the issue of witness officers and subject officers.

Mr McGuinty: Mr Attorney General, I have some real concerns about the extent of your commitment to the SIU. Right now they are being funded at $2.2 million annually. The dry cleaning bill for the Metro Toronto Police Force is $2.5 million annually, an interesting point of comparison. What we need to know in this province is whether or not you're committed to the SIU. Are you going to increase the resources? Are you going to give them more money? And when are you going to move to change all the regulations necessary so we can compel witness police officers to speak forthwith with an SIU investigator?

Are you going to give them more money; when are you going to do that? Second, when are you going to pass the necessary changes to the regulations so that we can require witness police officers to speak immediately with an SIU investigator?

Hon Mr Harnick: As I've indicated, former Judge Adams has provided us with a blueprint for the first time to be able to deal with exactly the issues the Leader of the Opposition identifies, and I'm very grateful for that. I'm also very grateful, when we talk about confidence in the SIU, for the work that Mr Marin did in cleaning up the SIU, cleaning up the backlog and providing us as well, on his departure, with some very good ideas about ensuring that the SIU runs properly.

We intend to implement those recommendations as fast as we possibly can after we test the level of consensus for them. I can tell the Leader of the Opposition that in so far as proper resourcing of the SIU is concerned, I agree with the comments in the report and I agree that we have to continue to build confidence in what was an organization that has never had any confidence in it before. We must take very seriously the recommendations we've been given, and I intend to do that. I appreciate the question.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): I have a question for the Chair of Management Board. We've been asking now for weeks about a potential conflict of interest which you admitted was very serious. You had an investigation conducted by the lawyers acting for the Ontario Casino Corp. We raised concerns about the conflict of interest itself found in the fact that the lawyers acting for the Ontario Casino Corp conducted the investigation. You said you were satisfied with the outcome of the report and that as far as you were concerned, the case was closed.

We learned today that there is a second investigation that has just begun. This one is going to be conducted by Stanley Beck, former dean of the Osgoode Hall Law School. He's going to take from four to six weeks to review this whole matter once again. I'm just wondering today, you said the case was closed; you were satisfied with the first investigation. Now there's a second investigation. What's going on, Minister?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): If you had followed the Hansard, I clearly stated last week that in response to serious allegations about Mr French and Coopers and Lybrand's role in the process around the Niagara casino bid we would try to ascertain the facts. I asked the Ontario Casino Corp, through their lawyers, Davies, Ward and Beck, to provide us with the facts. When I received those facts, I made them public and you got a copy in the opposition, and the NDP got a copy.

I also pointed out that Ron Barbaro was appointed as CEO. I talked to Mr Barbaro and I stated in the House that Mr Barbaro, in his new role, his new job, was free to take a look at the deal and make sure he was comfortable with it before he made a recommendation, through myself, to the government. If you check the Hansard, I've been pretty clear on that, so your

preamble about trying to put words in my mouth is totally false.

What Mr Barbaro and I talked about was to make sure he was comfortable with it, and we agreed on Stanley Beck to take an independent look at it as well before we make a recommendation to sign a contract with the number-one-ranked proposal.

Mr McGuinty: I'm just trying to figure out, on behalf of the people of the province, what's happening. The minister in charge of the Ontario Casino Corp says that as far as he's concerned everything is hunky-dory, that there's no conflict of interest. Now the Ontario -

Hon Mr Hodgson: I never said that. You're lying.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Minister, you must withdraw that comment.

Hon Mr Hodgson: I withdraw that.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Minister, you must withdraw that inference as well.

Hon Mr Hodgson: I didn't say anything.

The Speaker: No, the minister -

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): I withdraw.

The Speaker: Leader of the Opposition.

Mr McGuinty: We've got the minister on the one hand saying that everything is okay and he's quite satisfied with the first investigation. Then we have his appointee to the Ontario Casino Corp saying that he is, quite rightly, uncomfortable with the outcome of the first report so he has decided to conduct his own investigation. He's not happy with the result. He feels that a better and more properly independent investigation ought to be conducted, so he's hired Stanley Beck, the former dean of Osgoode Hall Law School, to come in and to prepare an extensive report for him.

I'm just trying to figure out what's going on over there. Do you believe that a second investigation is warranted or do you not? Are you satisfied with the first one or are you not?

Hon Mr Hodgson: One of the first steps to try and understand what's going on is if you would listen to the answer, if you would listen to what I've said for the last couple of weeks. You raised some serious innuendo, and what I undertook was to get the facts. I asked the Ontario Casino Corp to get those facts through their legal counsel, Davies, Ward and Beck. They prepared a report that I accepted and we've appointed a new CEO, Ron Barbaro. I asked Mr Barbaro to make sure that he was satisfied with the process and we agreed that we would ask Stanley Beck to come in and take a look at it.

If you want to put any more words on that, you're clearly not listening to the answers that have been given here.

Mr McGuinty: Let's just take the time to go over this once more. There was a serious allegation of conflict of interest. At first you said that there was nothing there, and then you said that maybe it did warrant an investigation. The investigation that you had conducted was by the lawyers acting for the Ontario Casino Corp. That was a whitewash. Then you said: "That's acceptable to me.

I don't think there's a conflict of interest there." Now the guy who heads up the Ontario Casino Corp quite rightly has decided that he is uncomfortable with the results of that first investigation; he's decided to bring in a highly respected former Osgoode Hall Law School dean to conduct a second investigation because he's not satisfied with the results of the first investigation.

What I want to know again, Minister, is, are you satisfied with the results of the first investigation or not? Do we need a second investigation or don't we?

Hon Mr Hodgson: As I answered in the previous two answers to the honourable member, we received a fax from Davies, Ward and Beck through the OCC; Mr Barbaro was quoted as saying he was satisfied with the facts that we received, and now I think it's prudent to make sure that we take a good look at it. It's his new job and I'm new to this file, and the government wants to make sure that we do everything according to what's open and transparent and in the public interest. I'm sure you're not opposed to having Stanley Beck have another look at this, are you?

The Speaker: New question; third party.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): To the Chair of Management Board, please, nobody is suggesting that Stanley Beck is held in anything but the highest regard. But what you have done is repeated the same error - and in this instance through your new head of the OCC - that was committed by the OCC in the last instance. The OCC has retained a lawyer to conduct some sort of investigation. Clearly, Ron Barbaro recognizes that the Davies, Ward and Beck was far from adequate, far from thorough, and that in fact it was tainted because of the intimate relationship that law firm had during the whole course of the process with the OCC.

Once again at the end of the day you've still got the OCC, through its own retained lawyer, effectively investigating itself. Why are you making the same mistake twice? Why don't you resolve the issue and call a public inquiry?

Hon Mr Hodgson: One of the things when you're in government is that you have to go with what the facts are. When you raised this innuendo a couple of weeks ago, we asked to find out what the facts were in this situation.

The facts are that we've received the report on the facts around the process from the Ontario Casino Corp through their lawyers, Davies, Ward and Beck. Mr Barbaro was quoted in the paper as saying he was satisfied with those facts, but in his new role as CEO, before he makes a recommendation to sign with the number-one-ranked proponent, he wants to make sure that everything is in order, and we've asked Stanley Beck to come in and take a look at that.

Mr Kormos: If Mr Barbaro were satisfied, he wouldn't feel compelled to retain yet another lawyer to conduct a repeat of what was done by Davies, Ward and Beck.

Let's go back to Davies, Ward and Beck, the OCC's very own lawyers, just as now Mr Beck is the OCC's retained lawyer. The OCC, in their instructions to Davies, Ward and Beck, didn't even want information about the prior relationship. That was critical to any investigation into the conflicts of interest that have been raised over the course of the past three weeks. Mr Beck is going to be receiving instructions from the OCC in terms of what the scope of his questions is to be, just as Davies, Ward and Beck were responsible to the OCC and not to the public, not to the Legislature.

Why are you permitting the OCC to engage in yet another pursuit which will end up with the same taint as did the Davies, Ward and Beck so-called investigation?

Hon Mr Hodgson: If the member wants to look at the Toronto Star

article from the Saturday, June 13 edition, it says: "Casino corporation chairman Ron Barbaro said he was satisfied with the review and noted it `was prepared by Davies, Ward and Beck, not by one individual. I believe the report was thorough and that the facts show that there was no conflict of interest.'"

Beyond that, Mr Barbaro talked to me about being even more prudent in appointing Stanley Beck, whom you just admitted a few minutes ago you hold in the highest esteem. So what's your problem with that?

Mr Kormos: I hold Davies, Ward and Beck in the highest esteem; they're very good lawyers, which is why they've respected their solicitor-client privilege with the OCC and why they did exactly what they were instructed to do. You don't understand the distinction between what you did and now Mr Barbaro is doing and what a public inquiry is. Mr Barbaro can't call a public inquiry. A public inquiry is public, it's open, it's truly transparent. It permits the summonsing or subpoena of witnesses and requires them to testify under oath.

That's what's imperative if we're truly going to clear the air around the conflict of interest and the corruption that's been suggested about the casino selection in Niagara Falls.

Mr Barbaro obviously wasn't satisfied with Davies, Ward and Beck. He understands he can't call a public inquiry. You know that you, and only you and your government, can. Exactly what is it that you're afraid of by virtue of a public, open process wherein people are compelled to attend and testify under oath?

Hon Mr Hodgson: The member of the third party is fully aware that there has been no contract signed. They are dealing with the number-one-ranked proponent. We have to deal with the facts, and the facts have been outlined and given to you and shared with this House, a report from the OCC about Coopers and Lybrand's involvement in this process. A further step is to have Mr Barbaro satisfy himself by retaining Stanley Beck just to make doubly sure that the public's interest has been well protected and well served before any contract is signed.

I quote again from your colleague in the NDP, Tony Silipo. He says that Beck's appointment is a step in the right direction. If he agrees with it, how come you don't?

ELECTORAL REFORM

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): My question is also to the Chair of Management Board on another of his nightmare files that he's dealing with. This is on your proposed changes to the Election Finances Act.

Minister, you keep trying to justify your attempt to buy the next election by saying that you're merely reflecting the all-party commission recommendations, but you know that one of the most outrageous changes, one that allows you to double the amount that the central party can spend every day, that allows you to pour an extra $1.3 million into your government advertising, was not recommended by the commission. In fact, they said that the central party spending limits should stay the same. You know that, Minister.

Why are you trying to tell the people of Ontario that you're moving on this legislation because of commission recommendations when one of the most important, outrageous and dangerous recommendations was not part of the commission's recommendations?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I think all parties recognized as far back as the early 1990s that we needed to change and modernize and update the Elections Act and the Election Finances Act. That's why we've gone through a process where all parties were represented on a seven-member panel that voted. Your party had two and you also had the chair, Jack Murray, who was appointed. We had ad hoc committees, with memorandums of agreement signed by each party.

We would have preferred to see an agreement that all parties agreed with. That's why we endeavoured to have meetings with your caucus. Your representative and I met for a couple of hours. Unfortunately, we were boxed in by positions of other parties that said they'd rather play politics with this than negotiate the details.

The recommendation that was made was for the riding per-voter spending limit to be raised to $1.40. The only thing the Liberal Party had on record in response to the commission's report was that they thought that was too high; they wanted to see the federal spending limits adopted. Actually, they wanted to see the federal rules adopted. We agreed with them on the spending side, but we couldn't agree with them on the donation side, because as you know, in the federal there's no limit.

Mr Christopherson: Minister, you continue to fudge the issue. The fact is that the commission, the very commission that you stand behind when you try to justify your attempt to buy the next election, did not recommend increasing central party spending by over $1.3 million. They did not. My question to you is this: Why are you pushing ahead with the changes to the legislation that you know will benefit your government because it's your corporate pals who can now double the amount of money they give to you? And why do you say that you have the right to ram it through this place when the recommendation I've raised with you today is not part of the commission's report?

Hon Mr Hodgson: As I just explained to the member of the third party, that recommendation came from the Liberal Party in a written response to the commission, that they wanted to see the same rules as the federal had. As you know, the $1.40 an elector they thought was too high; we agreed with them and we chose the federal spending limit of 96 cents per voter, and that correspondingly raised the party spending to 60 cents per voter. As far as the exemptions and the exclusion list is concerned, that is clearly out now, under the present rules.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Who's lying now, Hodgson? Now who's lying?

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Welland-Thorold, you must withdraw that comment.

Mr Kormos: Withdrawn.

Mr Christopherson: Minister, it still doesn't wash. The fact of the matter is, we're not talking about increases in riding spending; we're talking about increases to central party spending. The last time I looked at a map, the province of Ontario will be the same size in the next election as it was in the last election. This has nothing to do with riding boundaries.

Minister, we've made the point from the beginning that you have ignored the democratic tradition of this place of having all-party agreement before you introduce any changes. We have said to you that you do not have proposals that reflect all the recommendations that are contained in the commission's report. The fact of the matter is, there is no justification for what you are doing except setting up the rules so that you can buy the next election.

I ask you again, will you withdraw the part of your recommendation that increases central party spending?

Hon Mr Hodgson: As everyone who has read the recommendations of the commission knows, they talked about total spending of $1.80 per voter. By accepting the Liberal Party recommendation they had in writing, by combining the riding and the central party, it works out to $1.56. So you're right; the commission talked about $1.80 and we're talking about $1.56. It's less than that, because we tried to get all-party agreement on this and do the right thing for the people of Ontario.

SHORTLINE RAILWAY

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Transportation. Minister, I want to raise with you an issue of very serious importance to the people of Orangeville. You will know that there is a shortline rail track that's going to shut down shortly. The problem is - and I know you're familiar with this; you had an opportunity to meet with the business representatives - that 720 local manufacturing jobs hang in the balance here. If that track is shut down, that's what's at risk.

The communities have got together with the businesses and they're prepared to put up the necessary financial resources. What they want from your government is a loan guarantee that would help to preserve 720 jobs. I get the impression from speaking with the business people and the community representatives that you're giving them the brush-off, but you have an opportunity now to say that you're going to provide the loan guarantee. It's as simple as that: you're with them; they're not going to lose the jobs; this government will provide the loan guarantee.

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Transportation): I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question. I can assure the honourable member and this House that I have not given the brush-off to anyone relating to this issue.

This is a very serious issue. It involves not only the municipal side but also the federal side, because the honourable member knows that it is under the aegis of federal opportunity to deal with this issue that the railways are divesting themselves. Indeed, it was this government that initiated a Shortline Railways Act in 1995 to facilitate keeping marginal lines open to ensure that business was available in Ontario. So I want to assure the honourable member that within the confines of the business plan of my ministry, we will do everything we can on behalf of the citizens in the areas that he's referring to.

Mr McGuinty: What I want today from you, Mr Minister, is your commitment -

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): What they want from the federal representatives, you mean.

Mr McGuinty: I see the minister is bringing in the federal representatives, as you did as well in your response. That is not relevant to the people of the city of Orangeville. It is not relevant -

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Hold on. Leader of the Opposition.

Mr McGuinty: I see that the member for Dufferin-Peel is somewhat sensitive on this issue. Perhaps in the next round of questions he might want to direct a question to you.

Minister, what I want now is simply a straightforward commitment on your part that your government will provide the loan guarantee; that those jobs are not at risk; that the people in the city of Orangeville can relax; that they don't have to worry about getting any help from their own member, who has been very reluctant to assist in this regard. You will help; you will provide. Can you provide that guarantee?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Leader of the official opposition.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, once more, can you please stand up in this Legislature today and provide us with your assurance that you will come up with the necessary loan guarantee so that the representatives of the city of Orangeville and their business leaders no longer have to be concerned about the loss of 720 jobs?

Hon Mr Clement: I implore the honourable member to portray his kinder and gentler side more often than he did in the earlier part of his statements. I want to assure him that the member for Dufferin -

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): Come on, Clement. Just tell him to call Doug Young. This is a federal matter. Get a thousand miles of track up north.

The Speaker: Order. Minister.

Hon Mr Clement: I can assure this House that the member for Dufferin-Peel has been extremely active on this issue. He has been a worthy advocate for his community. He has been a pit bull on this issue. In fact, the honourable Leader of the Opposition has reminded me that the member for Dufferin-Peel made an offer to his federal counterpart and said, "Look, I think I can fight on behalf of my community in my caucus if the federal government's at the table." The federal government said no.

I want to assure this House that the Ministry of Transportation has been at the table, the Ministry of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism is at the table but a chair is empty. The federal chair is empty.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Minister, today we hear of yet another

chapter in your government's huge mishandling of the property tax reform system. Your rushed market value assessments were so off the mark that the property taxes will have to rise here in Toronto will have to rise by some $250 per household just to pay for the changes in the reassessment. That's in addition to the extra taxes that you're dumping on homeowners in your attempt to save the business taxpayers from your earlier mistakes, that quite frankly would have put many small businesses out of business. What we're seeing here is the Eveready bunny of tax disasters: They just keep on going and going and going.

Minister, will you finally admit that your property tax reform is a fiasco, and that you should have taken the time, the three years timeline that we and, more importantly, many experts told you that you should have taken to do this? What are you prepared to do now to fix this ongoing problem that's going to cause havoc here in Toronto and throughout the province?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): There's one thing we will agree on, and that is that the tax situation in the province is an ungodly mess. It has been that way for decades. The people of Ontario finally have a government with the courage to address a very, very serious problem, something you wouldn't even touch, to get assessments straightened out in the province -

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Minister.

Hon Mr Leach: Again, the purpose of this reassessment and the purpose of a new tax method is to bring fairness and equity back into the tax system in the province of Ontario, something that hasn't existed for many years. The last time Toronto was assessed was 40 years ago. That's laughably out of date.

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): How many years was a Tory government in power? Over 40 years.

Hon Mr Leach: Neither one of these parties - they're always very quick to criticize, but they weren't there to take any action. They finally got a government in the province of Ontario that is prepared to make the very difficult, tough decisions to make sure we have a tax system that is fair and equitable to all citizens.

Mr Silipo: Minister, you're being tough, all right. You were being tough on small businesses; you almost drove thousands of them out of business. Now you're being tough on homeowners, who are going to have to bear not only the $250 on average increase because of the reassessment, but when the appeals are in - and as you know, people have until August 31 to file their formal appeals - we expect thousands and thousands of more changes. So the fiasco is going to continue.

Minister, you've been the government now for three years. You've brought in legislation four times in this House to try to fix the property tax problem and you've made it more of a mess than it was before.

Will you finally acknowledge that it's a mess that you've created, and will you finally take the time necessary at least to contemplate giving municipalities a year's breathing space before they go down this dangerous road and before we all discover what everybody out there knows and what taxpayers are seeing, which is that this system can't work?

Hon Mr Leach: To the member from the third party, they always have the same solution: Do nothing. Delay. Don't improve it. Just let the terrible, unfair, biased tax system stay in place forever. You kept it in place for the five years you were in power. You wouldn't deal with it.

What the new assessment system will do, as I said previously, is finally bring some fairness, finally bring some equity back into a very broken property tax system in Ontario. Rather than criticizing, you would think the opposition parties would support getting rid of a broken, unfair system where some people pay far more than they should and others are not paying their fair share.

When this new system is in place - and it is complex, there isn't any doubt about that - everyone will be paying their fair share, fair and equitable, and that's the whole purpose of this bill.

TEXTBOOKS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): My question is for the Minister of Education. Last week the tentative list of textbooks approved for your new elementary school curriculum came out. This is the list of books, as you well know, that your government plans to spend at least $70 million on within the next week. These new books are supposed to support your new curriculum in language, math, science and kindergarten.

But, Minister, your new science curriculum was only unveiled a couple of months ago, so not surprisingly, no one has had time yet to write any books to fit with your new science curriculum and, not surprisingly, there are no science textbooks for grades 1 to 5 anywhere on the approved list. Minister, can you explain how you expect teachers to teach your new science curriculum next year when they have no science textbooks?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): I'm really delighted to be given the opportunity to talk about this program, which will invest some $100 million in Ontario in our elementary school system through science equipment and through textbooks for elementary students.

When we took office three years ago, we found two problems at least. One was that there was a huge shortage of textbooks, a legacy of the previous 10 years of the previous two governments. We have identified that problem and addressed it by investing some $100 million. Second, the science and technology curriculum, all of the curriculum at the elementary and secondary levels, needed to be improved, needed more rigour in it, and we have addressed this.

We have introduced the new science and technology curriculum, a curriculum written by many teachers across Ontario and supported by those teachers. It will be introduced this fall. The textbooks are being developed and will come along in the very near future to support that curriculum.

Mrs McLeod: The textbooks may come along, but there won't be any money left to buy the textbooks. That's the problem. The reality is that this minister and his government love to talk about their new textbook dollars, but even more than that they love the idea of having their MPPs get their photo taken presenting the new textbooks for back-to-school time in September.

That, Minister, is why you're insisting that all the orders be in for those textbooks by June 23, next week. That's why you're forcing this through even though there are no science textbooks on the list to support your new curriculum. That's why the majority of purchases are about to go to American publishers. That's why the grade 5 language arts text that follows the grade 4 text, produced by a Canadian publisher, that's now in the classrooms, can't even make the list, because it can't be bound in time to make your deadline.

Minister, if you have any interest at all in good textbooks, if you're more interested in textbooks than a photo op for your members in September, will you delay the deadline for the purchase of textbooks and allow those books to be purchased next fall when there are good, Canadian-produced textbooks on the list for purchase?

Hon David Johnson: The amount of money indicated by the Minister of Finance in the budget doubles the amount of money available for textbooks. There is another amount of money in the basic formula for textbooks for all schools. There was an insufficient quantity of books in our classrooms in Ontario, a legacy of the previous two governments. This government has taken the action of proceeding with the purchase of textbooks to supply our children with textbooks this fall. Will I back off, as the critic for education has asked? Will I back off and deny our children those textbooks? Absolutely not. We want our children to have those textbooks in time for the complete curriculum this fall.

WATER HEATER RENTAL RATES

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Today Pollution Probe announced that they would be appealing to cabinet the Ontario Energy Board decision that lets Union Gas shaft consumers. The decision will mean that residential customers will face a 44% hike in their gas water heater rental rates and a further 90,000 consumers in northern and eastern Ontario will have their service cut off entirely. Their only option will be either to buy gas water heaters or rent electric ones. In either case, both will be more expensive.

In response to questions from my leader and the member for Riverdale you said, "Clearly, if there is a point in time at which there is some sort of danger of immense rate hikes, we will certainly be there to support the consumer."

Minister, you said you'd be there to support consumers. We expect you to live up to that commitment. Are you going to keep your word to the consumers of Ontario?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Yes, I did say earlier on that if there were immense or huge increases, we would certainly take a look at it. The background information indicates to me that Union Gas recently increased its water heater rental rates by less than $1 a month, effective April 1998. I hazard a guess that's not a huge or immense rate hike. We do have a commitment to make sure that consumers are protected in this province.

I would remind the member as well that the water heater rental rates are not regulated by the board; they never were. Even under your government they were not, so clearly there's been no change in any type of legislation or regulation of the area. But I don't believe that less than $1 is a huge or immense hike.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary.

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): Union Gas's own witnesses who came before the Ontario Energy Board said something quite different. In fact, the witnesses from CIBC Wood Gundy Securities said that if the Union Gas rental business was sold to Union Energy, the most defensible, safest assumption is that Union Energy will raise residential rates by 44%. If that isn't gouging of consumers, I don't know what is. It's something you should be worried about.

This is bad news for communities in northern Ontario and eastern Ontario. Some 112 communities like Capreol, Nickel Centre and Valley East, which I represent, will not be able to rent hot water heaters. Other communities, like Sudbury, Sault Ste Marie, North Bay and Kingston, will see their rental rates increase by 44%.

Minister, you said you would protect the consumers if they were going to be gouged. A 44% rate increase is gouging. People who can't get affordable rates for rental units will have a serious problem because they have no other alternatives. What are you going to do to protect the consumer in this case?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I'll refer the second part to the Minister of Energy.

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): I'll remind the honourable member that it was the Ontario Energy Board, under the leadership of Floyd Laughren, the former finance minister and NDP member of this Legislature, that approved this. Secondly, the Ontario Energy Board did its job on behalf of consumers.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): The decision was made before he was appointed and the minister knows that.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Wilson: The Ontario Energy Board did its job in protecting consumers. What the honourable members have forgotten to mention here is that the distribution system, which is a regulated monopoly of the Ontario Energy Board, was subsidizing the cost of hot water rental heaters. This is a good move for consumers in that it divides the services part or the competitive part -

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): You're not going to do it, eh?

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Correct the record.

The Speaker: Order. Minister.

Hon Mr Wilson: The new cost of the hot water rental heaters, which by the way, as my honourable colleague said, have never been regulated by the province - by the NDP government, the Liberal government or any former Conservative government - will be mostly offset by the other side of the equation. The distribution costs by Union Gas will go down by some $12 million. People will see that portion of their bill go down while they see their hot water rental heater go up about $1 a month.

Secondly, 9,000 customers will not be left out. That's because of the monopoly situation. By dividing up the monopolistic part and the services part, new competition will come in. For the first time, the people of the north will have an opportunity to purchase or rent hot water heaters from a variety of sources and not be stuck with just one source. The Ontario Energy Board took great pains to make sure no customers -

The Speaker: Thank you. New question.

HYDRO RATES

Mr W. Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): My question is for the Minister of Energy. Minister, I would like to congratulate you and the chairman of Hydro for introducing the Energy Competition Act and other related acts. A modernized power industry will give customers choice and lower prices and will create even more jobs in Ontario. However, there is concern in rural communities that their electricity rates will not be protected. They want to know if the new utilities will continue to practise equitable pricing.

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): I thank my colleague the member for Lanark-Renfrew for the question. It's a very important question, particularly for those of us who represent rural Ontario and remote areas of the province. About 600,000 remote or rural residential customers and about 100,000 farms do rely on rural rate assistance. I can assure the honourable member and all members of this House from all parties that the rural rate assistance provisions in the Energy Competition Act will fully maintain the status quo and will grandparent all current customers.

The same amount of dollars will be spent. All of us will continue to ensure that the electricity prices of those in rural and remote parts of Ontario are as fair and as level and as close across the province to all customer classes. The status quo will be maintained, and we've specifically written that into the legislation.

Mr Jordan: Thank you, Minister, for that information. How do you plan to proceed with your plan to communicate to rural and remote areas?

Hon Mr Wilson: Again, I thank the honourable member for Lanark-Renfrew for the question. It's an important way for us today to assure the people at home and in the galleries who are watching what is in the Energy Competition Act, and that is that rural rate assistance will be fully protected.

In addition, a public awareness campaign is needed. I'll be working with our colleague the Honourable Noble Villeneuve, the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, this summer. We're inviting all stakeholders, like the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and others, to sit down with us and share their thoughts. However, I should tell you that the stakeholders that have expressed an interest about rural rate assistance to this point are very pleased with seeing it in the new legislation. They can see for themselves that rural rate assistance is fully protected.

YEAR 2000 PROBLEM

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): My question is for the Chair of Management Board and it's about the computer chip problem facing Ontario for the year 2000, the possibility of massive system failures in both public and private services.

As you are aware, computer chips are everywhere. They regulate our water, our power, our heating systems. They are also crucial to the health care system, our hospitals, our schools, public safety and the very working of government.

Minister, your government has identified 63 critical areas that must be made ready for the year 2000. Can you confirm to this House that you've allocated sufficient resources to ensure that all the areas the government is responsible for will be ready by the year 2000?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): It's a good question, and the answer is yes, I can confirm that this government has set aside the resources to make sure we meet this major challenge. This is probably the most major challenge a government has faced. It's a huge technological challenge. We think we've got a plan that will meet that challenge and make sure we have all our systems ready to go.

We started over a year ago to identify systems that will need to be upgraded, and right now we're in the process of converting those systems. We have identified 63 mission-critical systems that are under way right now. We want to have that complete a full year ahead of the year 2000 so that we can test it and make sure there are no mistakes.

Mr Cullen: Thank you for that answer, Minister. I guess it comes down to a very simple thing for the ordinary taxpayer in Ontario who holds a health card or a drug card, who lives in a nursing home or hospital, or has a child in a child care centre. Can you guarantee this House that none of these 63 critical areas you have identified will fail in the year 2000? Can you make that guarantee to this House?

Hon Mr Hodgson: I appreciate the question. To the best of our ability, we're on track to meeting that objective. I think that's the objective all members of this House and all the public want to see accomplished.

CHILD CARE

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. There is a crisis brewing with respect to access to subsidized child care spaces in Ontario. Of course, you will know that the latest example of that is in your own backyard. As you have moved to make it mandatory for single parents on family benefits to participate in workfare in your Ontario Works program, their need for quality subsidized child care is quite evident and the money you have put in is clearly, evidently not enough.

In Durham region, they're about to put a freeze on day care subsidies and the year is not even half over. Officials from Durham region are coming to the ministry to meet with your officials to ask for more money. When they come calling, what are you going to say?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): The honourable member is quite right that child care support is extremely important for sole-support families, especially for those on welfare who are trying to finish their education or get into paid employment. That is one of the reasons that under Ontario Works we have increased the funding available for child care. We also introduced, in the recent budget, the LEAP program - Learning, Earning and Parenting - which is specifically targeted at young teens who are trying to get off welfare.

In addition, this year's budget enriches the child care supplement for low-income families. There is a fair bit that has been done, and we are prepared to work with the municipalities to do more to expand child care support for those individuals. I look forward to the report back from my officials when they talk to the Durham region officials.

Ms Lankin: It isn't a question of a report back from your officials. You owe an explanation to the people in Durham and across the province. You have not put enough resources in to resource your Ontario Works workfare plan. Beyond that, the child care income supplement that you have put in place will not create a subsidized child care space. It does not help a low-income person who cannot afford the total cost of child care with the pittance you have put into that income supplement.

Let me quote from Annette Miriguay, one of the people you said you wanted to give a hand up to. Here's what she said:

"It's just another slap in the face.

"Every time you try to get ahead in this world, someone leaves footprints on your back."

Minister, you can do something about this. We need an expansion of licensed subsidized child care spaces in this province in order for Ontario Works to work and in order for low-income parents to have the adequate support for child care they need. Will you stop with all the rhetoric around the income supplement, which is not going to do a thing, and will you put the money where it's really needed, in expanding subsidized child care spaces in Ontario?

Hon Mrs Ecker: With all due respect to the honourable member, an investment of what will work out to about $185 million in child care supplements for low-income parents is certainly not in my mind something that could be characterized as rhetoric by any stretch of the imagination.

I would also like to remind the honourable member that according to the Durham region officials, who are also quoted in that same newspaper story, they don't know why this woman is saying that, because no decisions have been made. They are not aware that this woman has been told she can't access child care.

We are meeting with Durham region - it's something we do on a regular basis - to talk to them about how we can continue to have very important child care supports for those individuals who are trying to get off social assistance.

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL JURISDICTION

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): My question is directed to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and it deals with the ongoing discrimination and unfairness with which the federal government has approached Ontario, whether it be the eight cents per dollar on health care, the second-lowest in the county, or the huge reductions in health care expenditures and transfers to Ontario, or the even more vital area, that the federal government should be responsible for evening out the $850 per newcomer to Canada compared to the $2,500 Quebec gets.

Why is it that the federal government persistently, consistently discriminates against Ontario with respect to newcomers to this province, particularly to the Metropolitan Toronto area?

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): The problems cited by my colleague speak loudly to the need that all Canadians want their governments to work together so we can have efficient and effective social programs, including health. That means all of us.

The federal unilateral decisions don't help, however, especially in areas of provincial jurisdiction. I say that to all of my colleagues in the House, who in fact have had the same position as this government over the years. The problem with the federal unilateral decision-making is that we don't get those effective and efficient programs for the people we represent.

I must say that the status quo is not working. That's why all governments, including the province of Ontario, are working on an agreement to modernize the Canadian federation. There are certain principles that were established by the premiers and the Prime Minister and there were some objectives.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Answer.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: We're looking at principles, such as mobility and monitoring social programs, dispute settlement mechanisms, collaborative approaches -

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr Hastings: My supplementary deals with the whole treatment regarding diverse communities in this province, particularly in the greater Toronto region. We know there are discussions going on with the federal government regarding a new social union, contrary to the provincial Grits over there, who really take this question totally with alacrity. I find that quite amazing, Minister.

Why is it that we're still getting $850 per new immigrant to this country, yet Quebec gets $2,500? How can this state of affairs continue to persist?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: The member is absolutely correct. If we did have this framework agreement supporting the principles that the premiers and the Prime Minister have all agreed with, the people of Ontario would be better served.

We wouldn't see ourselves not being able to serve our own people in Ontario with regard to the same level of funding in most other provinces, on labour market training, immigration, employment insurance, where it is lower than most other provinces; and where the federal funding for health care - eight cents on the dollar, as my colleague mentioned - and social assistance and higher education under the Canada health and social transfer is lower per capita than any province except Alberta.

We need these rules to guide our governments. There would be no more unilateral announcements if we could have these rules. It's not about ganging up on the federal government or a power grab. It's about ensuring that we have our social programs for all Canadians and that each person is treated equally.

CONSUMER PROTECTION

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Consumers are being bombarded with deceitful ads from big companies on a daily basis. Two of the worst examples are the big phone companies and the big car companies whose ads we see daily on television and in newspapers.

Of specific concern are the gigantic ads in the newspapers where enticing claims are printed in big, bold letters, while the real information is buried in the superfine print at the bottom. You know the type I'm talking about: the ones like this, which has a big zero, but then when you read the fine print you find out that you have to pay about 10 or 20 times the so-called loss leader.

With these superfine-print ads happening all across the newspapers, consumers are being ripped off. Even the telephone companies - again, you can't see the fine print. Are you going to put a stop to these fine-print ads and bring about a transparent standard leasing form or contract form for telephones and for cars so consumers won't get ripped off by the likes of these phoney ads?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I thank the member for the question because it's quite timely. The Ontario motor vehicle part of the self-managed industry is currently looking at some of the questions which the member is actually asking. In fact, it is a concern of theirs that the public somehow would receive misleading advertising. So this is currently under review. They expect to have some response back from them shortly. Certainly it is a good initiative. I believe we should be doing something to make sure that consumers are not deceived.

Also, I might add that there is access as well to the Business Practices Act in terms of any misleading types of acts by any companies.

I do applaud the members of OMVIC right now, because this is an issue that they have come up with, that they're pursuing right now, and they'll be making suggestions very shortly.

PETITIONS

MULTICULTURALISM

Mr David Caplan (Oriole): I have a petition titled, "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the impact of the Conservative government's funding cuts on education is adversely affecting our educational system;

"Whereas over 60 languages are spoken by more than 70 ethnic cultural groups across the country;

"Whereas for more than 20 years the school boards of Ontario have sponsored and supported the international (heritage) language program, helping hundreds of thousands of elementary school aged children to learn their heritage language and culture;

"Whereas Ontario's diversity is increasingly recognized as an asset in both the domestic and international markets and a major contributing factor in Canada's economic prosperity;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to recognize and promote multiculturalism as a fundamental characteristic of Ontario's identity and heritage; and

"Further, we request that the Legislative Assembly support, promote and ensure the continuation of the international (heritage) language program."

This is signed by 160 residents of Oriole and I affix my signature.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Stop the clock for a minute. I just want to talk about the petitions again. I know we were reminded last week.

Yes, you may read them, but if you do have a long one, it would be helpful if you could just summarize it. That was long. That was a minute and 45 seconds. If we did it that way, we'd get maybe 10 on a day. It would be helpful to those members so they can get them on. You can summarize them; you don't have to read them verbatim. Especially if you've read it once, maybe you could summarize it. I'd appreciate it.

BEAR HUNTING

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): My petition is with respect to ending the spring bear hunt.

"Whereas bears are hunted in the spring after they have come out of hibernation; and

"Whereas about 30% of the bears killed in the spring are female, some with cubs; and

"Whereas over 70% of the orphaned cubs do not survive the first year; and

"Whereas 95.3% of bears killed by non-resident hunters and 54% killed by resident hunters are killed over bait; and

"Whereas Ontario still allows the limited use of dogs in bear hunting; and

"Whereas bears are the only large mammals hunted in the spring;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario to amend the Game and Fish Act to prohibit the hunting of bears in the spring and to prohibit the use of baiting and dogs in all bear hunting activities."

I have in front of me today 23,000-plus signatures to add to 40,000 others that have already been submitted. Over 63,000 people in Ontario have signed this. I'm in agreement and will affix my signature.

SCHOOL CUSTODIAN

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): I continue to receive petitions concerning a local janitor who will now not lose his job over language, I'm very pleased to report.

"Whereas the local French community and staff at École Sainte-Marie in Simcoe have signed a separate petition in support of Mr Santiago Reyes indicating that they want him to continue to work as a custodian at their school;

"Whereas Mr Reyes has an excellent performance record and should not be discriminated against on the basis of language or in any other way;

"Whereas the undersigned join the local French community's request that any further attempts to involuntarily displace Mr Reyes from his custodial position at École Sainte-Marie in Simcoe be stopped immediately and want him to continue to work as a custodian in that location;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to guarantee to Mr Reyes his right to not be discriminated against on the basis of language."

I sign this petition.

ROAD SAFETY

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): "To the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas there are over 55,000 motor vehicle collisions at intersections throughout Ontario every year; and

"Whereas red light cameras can dramatically assist in reducing the number of injuries and deaths resulting from red light runners; and

"Whereas the installation of red light cameras at dangerous intersections has proven to be successful in Australia and other jurisdictions; and

"Whereas there is a shortage of police officers; and

"Whereas the collisions at these intersections are resulting in serious injury to pedestrians, cyclists and motorists; and

"Whereas the provincial government has endorsed the use of similar cameras to collect tolls on Highway 407; and

"Whereas mayors and concerned citizens across Ontario have been asking permission to utilize red light cameras;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"That the government of Ontario support the installation of red light cameras at high-collision intersections to monitor and prosecute motorists who run red lights."

I affix my name to this.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I continue to receive petitions regarding workplace health and safety. These are from Canadian Auto Workers members and United Steelworkers members. The petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas approximately 300 workers are killed on the job each year and 400,000 suffer work-related injuries and illnesses; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario continues to allow a massive erosion of WCB prevention funding; and

"Whereas Ontario workers are fearful that the government of Ontario, through its recent initiatives, is threatening to dismantle workers' clinics and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre; and

"Whereas the workers' clinics and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre have consistently provided a meaningful role for labour within the health and safety prevention system; and

"Whereas the workers' clinics and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre have proven to be the most cost-effective prevention organizations funded by the WCB;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately cease the assault on the workers' clinics and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre; and

"Further, we, the undersigned, call upon the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to ensure that the workers' clinics and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre remain labour-driven organizations with full and equitable WCB funding and that the WCB provide adequate prevention funding to eliminate workplace illness, injury and death."

On behalf of my NDP colleagues, I add my name to the petitioners.

GRAVEL PIT

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition with 68 signatures from Caledon.

"We, the undersigned, understand that there is presently an application pending that would allow the commencement of an operation of a gravel pit at Winston Churchill and Old Baseline Road in Caledon.

"As either a daytripper or a weekender to the area, we believe that we are an affected party and as such would like to register our objection to this application and would ask that all applicable government agencies turn this application down and will not allow such an offensive use to ruin such a close and accessible nature area."

I have signed this petition.

ROAD SAFETY

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): My petition deals with red light cameras making high-collision intersections safer.

"To the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas red light cameras can dramatically assist in reducing the number of injuries and deaths resulting from red light runners; and

"Whereas red light cameras only take pictures of licence plates, thus reducing privacy concerns; and

"Whereas there is a growing disregard for traffic laws resulting in serious injury to pedestrians, cyclists, motorists and especially children and seniors; and

"Whereas the provincial government has endorsed the use of a similar camera system to collect tolls on the new Highway 407 tollway; and

"Whereas mayors and concerned citizens across Ontario have been seeking permission to deploy these cameras due to limited police resources;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"That the province of Ontario support the installation of red light cameras at high-collision intersections to monitor and prosecute motorists who run red lights."

I'm pleased to affix my signature to it.

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia): I have a petition from about 30 people in my riding.

"Whereas nurses in Ontario often experience coercion to participate in practices which directly contravene their deeply held ethical standards; and

"Whereas pharmacists in Ontario are often pressured to dispense and/or sell chemicals and/or devices contrary to their moral or religious beliefs; and

"Whereas public health workers in Ontario are expected to assist in providing controversial services and promoting controversial materials against their consciences; and

"Whereas physicians in Ontario often experience pressure to give referrals for medications, treatments and/or procedures which they believe to be gravely immoral; and

"Whereas competent health care workers and students in various health care disciplines in Ontario have been denied training, employment, continued employment and advancement in their intended fields and suffered other forms of unjust discrimination because of the dictates of their consciences; and

"Whereas the health care workers experiencing such unjust discrimination have at present no practical and accessible legal means to protect themselves;

"We, the undersigned, urge the government of Ontario to enact legislation explicitly recognizing the freedom of conscience of health care workers; prohibiting coercion of and unjust discrimination against health care workers because of their refusal to participate in matters contrary to the dictates of their consciences; and establishing penalties for such coercion and unjust discrimination."

I add my signature.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): Last week at a very important meeting hosted by the coalition of community mental health, we dealt with the mental health care crisis in Thunder Bay. Petitions were signed by a number of people, and I would like to read them into the record.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas proper mental health care is essential to all Ontarians; and

"Whereas mental health care is severely underfunded in northwestern Ontario; and

"Whereas the Health Services Restructuring Commission has called for the closure of the Lakehead Psychiatric Hospital with no replacement services in its place; and

"Whereas appropriate community mental health treatment is so lacking in northwestern Ontario that those who need treatment, support and rehabilitation are incarcerated in district jails; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Health has not delivered on its commitment to set up the Northwestern Ontario Mental Health Agency over one year after it promised to do so; and

"Whereas there is a dramatic shortage of psychiatrists in northwestern Ontario, to the point where the doctors are severely overworked; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Health promised a 12-bed adolescent treatment centre and has failed to deliver on that promise;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to commit those funds necessary to provide full and proper mental health care to those in need in northwestern Ontario and call on the Minister of Health to cancel the closure of the Lakehead Psychiatric Hospital."

I'm pleased to sign my name to that petition.

ABORTION

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): I have a petition sent to the Honourable Al Palladini, member for York Centre. It was submitted by the Knights of Columbus, St Joseph the Worker Council 10531.

"Whereas Ontario taxpayers funded over 45,000 abortions in 1993 at an estimated cost of $25 million; and

"Whereas pregnancy is not a disease, injury or illness, and abortions are not therapeutic procedures; and

"Whereas the vast majority of abortions are done for reasons of convenience or finance; and

"Whereas the province has the exclusive authority to determine what services will be insured; and

"Whereas the Canada Health Act does not require funding for elective procedures; and

"Whereas there is mounting evidence that abortion is in fact hazardous to women's health;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to cease from providing any taxpayers' dollars for the performance of abortions."

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): This petition is submitted to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario on behalf of the following councils: Manitoulin Secondary School, Espanola High School, A.B. Ellis Public School, Charles C. McLean Public School, Assiginack Public School, Central Manitoulin Public School, Massey Public School, S. Geiger Public School, Little Current Public School.

"Whereas the school councils representing two public secondary schools and seven public elementary schools in the Manitoulin-Espanola areas of northern Ontario have recently been apprised of the directive regarding funding formulae based on the square footage per pupil; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario is committed to equality of funding and delivery of programs to all schools in the province of Ontario: and

"Whereas there is a common mill rate for educational purposes across the province; and

"Whereas all northern and rural school boards in this province became part of larger boards in 1969 and then again in 1998, with the understanding that students would receive an ever-higher quality and diversity of education; and

"Whereas for single-school communities and schools whose catchment areas are vast, such as rural and northern schools represented by the school councils listed below, there is clearly a contradiction between the expectations of quality education and the expectation of closing substantial areas of each of our schools; and

"Whereas the school councils listed below have discussed these conflicting goals and believe strongly that there will be no appreciable cost savings, while at the same time, should our schools lose the square footage of educational space that is demanded of them, that this will result in a catastrophic reduction to the quality and equity of educational opportunities for our rural and northern children.

"Therefore, we petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to halt implementation of this arbitrary directive for one year in order that a full assessment can be conducted on the ramifications and implications to the quality and equity of educational programs and services in northern and rural schools and their students."

I am proud to affix my signature.

HOSPITAL ADMINISTRATOR

Mr W. Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): This petition concerns the appointment of David Levine as administrator of the Ottawa Hospital, and it reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, are responsible taxpayers. We believe that the Ottawa Hospital board, and in particular Nick Mulder, acted irresponsibly in appointing David Levine as chief administrator. As our parliamentary representative, please let it be known in Queen's Park that we think both these officials should either resign or be fired."

The petition is signed by a number of constituents of mine, and I affix my signature.

ELECTORAL REFORM

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This petition is to the government of Ontario and the Legislature.

"Whereas the Conservative government of Mike Harris is trying to increase the limit on the amount of money that corporations and individuals are allowed to contribute to political parties and individual candidates in Ontario; and

"Whereas the Harris government plans to introduce legislation to permit political parties and candidates to spend far more money during election campaigns; and

"Whereas the Conservative government of Mike Harris would like to remove certain campaign expenditures such as polling and campaign headquarters equipment from the spending limits placed on political parties and candidates; and

"Whereas the Conservative government is proposing to abolish the Ontario election finances commission, the watchdog agency policing political contributions and expenditures; and

"Whereas the Harris government wishes to shorten the length of provincial election campaigns and to permit expensive media advertising throughout the entire campaign period, thereby favouring the political parties and candidates with the most money; and

"Whereas the changes to the Election Finances Act proposed by Mike Harris will give undue and unacceptable influence to the wealthiest and most powerful interests in our province and will result in the problems that have plagued the American political system, where money plays a central role;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, call upon Mike Harris to abandon his planned legislation which will permit substantial increases in the amount of money that can be contributed by corporations and individuals to political parties and candidates and the amount of money that political parties and candidates can spend in provincial elections."

I affix my signature, as I am in full agreement with this petition.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND WORKPLACE DEMOCRACY ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LE DÉVELOPPEMENT ÉCONOMIQUE ET SUR LA DÉMOCRATIE EN MILIEU DE TRAVAIL

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 31,

An Act to promote economic development and create jobs in the construction industry, to further workplace democracy and to make other amendments to labour and employment statutes / Projet de loi 31, Loi visant à promouvoir le développement économique et à créer des emplois dans l'industrie de la construction, favorisant la démocratie en milieu de travail et apportant d'autres modifications aux lois ayant trait au travail et à l'emploi.

Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia): I appreciate this opportunity to speak on the second reading of Bill 31, the Economic Development and Workplace Democracy Act, a bill that will have a tremendously positive impact on the community I represent once passed.

I have previously spoken on this subject and made my argument for the provisions of this bill related to the construction industry during the Throne Speech debate, when I urged swift introduction of this legislation, so today I will not repeat myself.

I believe everyone in this House is quite familiar with what this bill would accomplish. As a government and as government members committed to continuing our successful jobs agenda, I know all of us know how much better our economy's stability and growth will be as a result of this bill.

While opposition members will naturally try to put a negative spin on this bill, like they have on our job-promoting tax cuts and just about everything we say and do, I would respectfully ask the members of the Liberal Party and the NDP to really think about what this legislation means to communities like Sarnia before you automatically cast a vote against this initiative.

I want to tell you that major investments and expansions in our petrochemical sector will not only create construction jobs, but permanent good-paying employment in the industries will result, and further jobs will follow in a spinoff effect.

Once new plants and expansions are commissioned, permanent benefits to our community and others in the province will be created through the need for ongoing purchases of material and equipment. This is good news for constructions workers, skilled workers seeking decent jobs and the youth of today who need to know they will have a place in our economy when they graduate.

If the opposition does not believe in the positive effects of Bill 31, I would suggest they should go back to their communities and listen to the quiet majority and to what's being said.

In my own community, I have been overwhelmed with the reaction. Construction workers are more confident that they'll be working in the future, business and community leaders who are encouraging new developments and investments feel their jobs are about to become easier with this bill's initiatives, and small businesses are looking forward to the increased economic activity that will reflect on their own continued success.

If opposition members don't wish to believe our government about the impact of this bill, I wonder what they think about the extremely positive reaction that continues to be voiced.

An editorial from the Observer, Sarnia's daily paper, is headlined, "Labour Bill Good for This Area," a blunt headline from a paper that's respected in my community for taking a critical look at the issues. Anyone familiar with my daily newspaper knows that the paper does not lightly applaud any government initiative until the editorial team has spent the time to do the proper community research.

I would like to read to you part of the editorial, "Labour Bill Good for This Area."

"A new provincial bill introduced...is good news for Sarnia-Lambton. The Economic Development and Workplace Democracy Act addresses the issues of competitiveness in the construction industry. Specifically, the bill creates a framework for companies and unions to negotiate specific agreements on major industrial projects in Ontario.

"The changes, once they become law, will allow for what's known as project agreements, which help local firms compete for high-tech and petrochemical projects.

"The bill also makes the union certification process more democratic. For example, it ensures certification can only occur when a majority of employees support a union in a secret ballot. As it stands, a union can be certified to represent employees without a vote, or regardless of its results....

"What project agreements do is allow lower wage costs to be negotiated on a onetime basis. Business and labour can work together, and with give and take create an attractive package to benefit both sides."

It ends by saying, "Be ready to invest, indeed."

This editorial touches on one of the most important aspects of project agreements. It enables local business and labour to negotiate and bargain for a mutually beneficial goal. As just about anyone in every community will tell you, local considerations and needs are much better represented through local decisions.

This measure was not taken lightly, nor was it taken without extensive research and consultation.

Alex Lolua, the director of government relations for the Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario, has noted in both the Windsor Star and the Globe and Mail that trade unions have been speaking with our government about project agreements and agreed with changes to encourage large construction projects that may not proceed without ways to shave some costs.

With the introduction of Bill 31, I'm happy to report that the tools for attracting major new investment to my community that are contained in this legislation have already boosted the hopes and expectations of Sarnia-Lambton residents. Our community is eager to take advantage of the opportunities to provide more prosperity in our area.

Let me give you an example. Here's a full-page ad in the Sarnia Observer, presented to the people of Sarnia and to our government on behalf of the citizens of our community - one full page. I would like to read it.

"Dear Premier Harris: We'd like to thank you and the government of Ontario for listening to the people of Sarnia.

"Your commitment in the throne speech to `amend labour legislation, particularly as it affects the construction industry,' will help Sarnia-Lambton to compete for billions of dollars in new investment, and jobs from a growth industry in the new economy - the petrochemical industry.

"As Minister of Labour Jim Flaherty stated in an April 24, 1998, Globe and Mail article, the proposed changes would make it easier for employers and workers to reach project agreements that would be competitive with other jurisdictions in North America.

"The Sarnia area holds an enormous potential for new investment and job growth in the petrochemical industry; but we have not been able to realize that potential because construction costs of province-wide bargaining in the building trades have been steering that investment to Alberta and the US gulf coast."

This full-page ad is on behalf of the people in my area, and I want to continue quoting from it.

"Project agreements would allow us to compete for a number of proposed multimillion-dollar projects that would not only bring thousands of construction jobs to Sarnia, but also hundreds of long-term, highly skilled, good-paying jobs in the industry, and thousands of spinoff jobs in the community.

"Your commitment is good news for Sarnia-Lambton and we look forward to working jointly with our local building trades council to win that investment to our region.

"On behalf of Sarnia Construction Association," and it's signed by two officers.

Let me add that I am very happy to see that there have been some announcements when this bill was introduced, a lot of investment that Sarnia and Ontario can grab.

Canadian Chemical Producers' Association chairman Dennis Lauzon has noted that:

"These amendments are good for Ontario as they will create a competitive and attractive environment for investment in the province. This in effect opens the door to a pool of potential investment of some $2.5 to $5 billion."

The CCPA estimates that every $1 billion in new investment in the province produced 8,500 new direct and indirect jobs.

CCPA president Richard Paton went on to say that:

"By our calculation, we're looking at the potential of creating 42,500 new jobs for Ontarians. We see this as good news for our industry and good news for Ontario workers. It's a situation in which everybody comes out ahead."

These are the people who know better than anyone, especially, I might add, in this House. They are in the business and they know what's coming and what could come to Ontario.

Before I finish, here's one more editorial from the Sarnia Observer. I think the first sentence says it all:

"Call it a happy coincidence, but only a day after labour reform legislation was introduced, plans for a $400-million cogeneration power plant were unveiled" in our community.

There's no doubt in my mind that this bill has instilled confidence in investors by providing the flexibility to negotiate specific agreements for major industrial projects, the guarantee of stability to see the work through, and an economic climate that boosts our competitiveness.

As Dr Gunter Hilken of Bayer noted about Bill 31, "This removes the final impediment that will help us attract more international investments to this area."

When they talk about the Sarnia area, they also talk about Ontario. Bill 31 would create more investment and jobs in Ontario. It deserves support from all sides of this House. Before the opposition votes, I urge you to ask yourselves, do you want to oppose this bill just because you feel that's what is always expected of the opposition, or do you want to add your support to stimulating and strengthening Ontario's economy: jobs, jobs and jobs? You have the choice.

Just think of the confidence we could instil in potential investors by sending out an all-party united message: "The future is in Ontario - the best place in the world to invest and live in."

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gary L. Leadston): Questions and comments?

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I would like to congratulate the member for Sarnia for his fine presentation this afternoon. I thought it was an excellent speech. I know that he along with his colleague and seatmate, the member for Lambton, both my friends, are both too modest to talk about the extraordinary contribution that they made to the development of this bill. They've both been working on it for many months and they deserve a great deal of credit for their hard work representing their constituents.

Their work demonstrates a kind of case study as to the effect, the impact backbench government members can have working through the channels. Obviously the government has listened to their concerns and is prepared to bring forward legislation. When we think about what legislation came forward in this House in the last Parliament, most of that legislation seemed to be designed to take away jobs; or at least that was the effect, whether or not it was their direct intent.

This bill will contribute to economic growth in the Sarnia and Lambton area in a great way. As we have seen, authoritative comment from the area indicates that this bill will open up potential investment of some $2.5 billion to $5 billion and be responsible for the creation of over 42,500 jobs, so it's extremely good news for the Sarnia and Lambton area. I would just like to congratulate my colleague the member for Sarnia, first of all, for his speech this afternoon, and also, along with the member for Lambton, for the extraordinary work they've done on behalf of their constituents, contributing to this kind of economic stimulus to their community.

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I would like to respond to the member for Sarnia. I see that he is full of enthusiasm and optimism and talks about the great potential that is in his area. I believe that to be true, but I also believe that by the manner in which you go about it you may also be creating other problems in other parts of Ontario, indeed maybe even in your own area, by virtue of how you go about it.

I have talked to a lot of representatives. I noticed that you quoted many company representatives and many company presidents. I expect they would see anything that loosens up the procedures and the ways in which you go about doing things as welcome because they are always pushing for the greatest degree of individual freedom for them to operate their particular business in order to maximize their profits and to promote their own businesses. I take that as fair ball.

That's why we have legislation, to provide some balance, so that at the same time we know that there is also fairness for workers, and there's fairness for small contractors as well as big contractors, and there's an opportunity that everybody who is going to play a role in creating this future wealth in your particular area, for example, will also share in the benefits and you will have a win-win situation.

My understanding is that you were not all that far apart, at least in terms of the major project agreements. I'll address that in my presentation shortly.

Your optimism, I hope, is well placed. I hope it is not undercut by the worries that are out there. Again, I will address that in here. In spirit, I am with you in terms of your hope for the future, but there are many concerns that have to be addressed.

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): With respect to the comments made by the member for Sarnia, I'm happy for him that he has some folks who have written in support, and he read those support letters into the record this afternoon. But I guess it's incumbent upon me to put a different perspective on the record, because we have also received, from other people who are very concerned about this legislation, comments that are quite different from the perspective that the honourable member has raised.

For example, this letter that was written to Jim Flaherty dated June 12, 1998, from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Construction Council of Ontario, says the following in the final paragraph: "It is the opinion of the IBEW Construction Council of Ontario that the proposed legislation would also have a dramatic impact on existing labour management relations for the whole construction industry in the province of Ontario. It will jeopardize present relationships between labour and management and could lead to a series of general disruptions in the construction industry.

We are very aware that the construction industry in the province of Ontario is just beginning to break out of the recession. You sir, and the legislation that is being proposed through your office, could put an end to the construction upswing."

Finally he says, "It is absolutely incredulous that your government proposes to enact such legislation that has the potential for severe economic consequences without thorough dialogue with all parties."

It is clear that there is a difference of opinion on this important piece of legislation. While the member and people in his community believe this will result in many jobs and great economic benefits, there are other people also involved in construction in this province who have a far different view and who believe very strongly that some dialogue and public consultation is required before this thing goes any further.

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): I appreciate the opportunity to give some brief comments in response to the member for Sarnia and, first off, to thank him for his diligence in working on behalf of the people of Sarnia who have been asking for this piece of legislation for quite some time.

They have been very frustrated by the fact that a very small, very vocal minority have been holding up these very important projects, projects that by the estimation of the Canadian Chemical Producers' Association would result in thousands and thousands of not just construction jobs but permanent jobs in the petrochemical industry; jobs that we are losing to the United States and elsewhere because of the intransigence of certain people in Sarnia, certain labour leaders who couldn't get together.

I find it ironic that the other side in this chamber is taking the position that the majority doesn't rule now, that one union shouldn't have one vote when we're coming together to talk about these projects. Well, of course they should. We should not have allowed the sort of ostrich-like approach to the future of construction, the future of the petrochemical industry, that has pervaded some segments of the union membership in Sarnia to hold up these important initiatives.

The member is to be applauded for his comments today and for the hard work he has done on behalf of his constituents.

I believe that anyone taking the time to go on the Internet and read this bill will see very clearly that it is the fairest possible approach to breaking the logjam, to ensuring that we have these thousands of quality jobs - not minimum-wage jobs; these are extraordinarily well-paying jobs - today and for decades into the future, promoting Ontario's inherent competitiveness, building on the strengths of the petrochemical industry that we can already boast of and getting our foot in the door with many more projects, ensuring even more prosperity in the Sarnia area in years to come.

Mr Boushy: I want to thank all those who spoke in regard to this matter. I just want to say very briefly that at one time Sarnia was, and still is, the chemical valley of Canada. At one time it was one of the few cities which contributed the most to the economy of Ontario, but for 20 years we haven't had a major project in our area. For 20 years we haven't had any major project, until lately.

I just want to say to the opposition NDP that about a year or two years ago there was project agreement proposed. There were 14 unions involved; 12 unions voted for project agreement and two were against, and the one you quoted from was among the two that voted against it. We are not going to have 100% agreement on this, but I can tell you that the majority of unions in our area may not support the labour publicly, but they are in favour of it, because 12 of them already voted for project agreement some years ago.

Another thing I would like to remind you is that this bill did not just come about in the last two months. There has been tremendous consultation, first by the former labour minister, who spent something like at least a year discussing the issue with the labour unions and with everybody concerned, and then the present labour minister also took at least six or seven months' consulting. This came about by consultation, by listening to them, and this is the least harmful of any proposal that could come out of it. It's good for Sarnia and it's good for Ontario.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate.

Mr Patten: I'm pleased to speak on this important bill, the Economic Development and Workplace Democracy Act, introduced by the minister on June 4.

Upon introduction, the minister said the act is part of a plan to continue building a strong economy and to create more and better jobs. Who would not agree with that kind of goal?

But I want to say at the outset that I look at this bill in two parts. The part that the members for Lambton and Sarnia are most concerned about, project agreement, is the one that I can probably support in principle, and I repeat, in principle. I support the direction in which it is moving, but there are some concerns, and I will attempt to address those.

Project agreement is

section 163, and it goes on for probably four pages. That, in and of itself, is the portion about which some members and some parties have the least amount of worry. It's the introduction of all the other sections that impinge upon that, relate to it and then relate to the general agreements we have province-wide where there is major concern and major worry.

I'm well aware that the construction contractors and the construction trade unions have been unable to reach a new framework agreement for Ontario's construction industry for some time now. We're of the opinion that the bodies were not all that far apart, so part of my plea today is that with a little more effort this may have come about. The minister himself has acknowledged in the House that the best possible solution overall is when the various parties who are looking at agreements resolve the situation between or among themselves. I think that's an important principle and I agree with that principle.

The minister told me that he has had meetings with the affected parties on a regular basis, but the involved parties, the Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario in particular, the construction unions' umbrella organization which represents over 100,000 construction workers in this province, has indicated that Bill 31 has changes in it that were never discussed with the minister or with his officials. They were not on the table. It was not as if there was a disagreement on them. It was a surprise to them when the bill came out. Some of the features in the bill were never discussed, and they did not have a chance to react, to respond or perhaps agree with them.

There has been a long-standing tradition in significant labour legislation in this province, as the minister and members know. Patrick Dillon, who is the business manager and secretary-treasurer of the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario, wrote to you, Minister, on June 8 and made his views known. He said to you, "I am writing to express my disappointment with the introduction of" this particular bill - I won't read it word for word, but I'll paraphrase as I go along to give you the spirit of what's communicated - "and your failure to consult with the industry on a number of crucial aspects contained in the bill.

"The construction industry has consistently conveyed to all ministries its uniqueness and the fragility of our labour relations climate. It is for these reasons that all ministers of labour have traditionally consulted with the industry before enacting legislation which would impact on construction. The bill in question contains several provisions which should have been the focus of industry consultation.

"One such example is the

section dealing with the non-construction employers. During our industry discussions over the past year and a half, this was never raised as a concern by employers or government. In fact, the government had several opportunities to address these concerns in Bill 7 and again in Bill 136. The prescription contained in the bill fails to recognize the relationships that have developed in our industry as a result of the rules as they have existed. Another such example is the

section relating to the collective agreements covering maintenance work."

He says, "I am appalled with you and your staff, that in the number of meetings we had discussing `certain perceived problems in the construction industry'" - I guess he's quoting you - "you chose not to discuss this very important issue with us."

This particular bill "may well result in some destabilization of our industry. Your actions put in jeopardy the many cooperative industry efforts that are currently in existence by forcing the labour market partners to take violently opposing positions on these matters.

"Minister, I can say in all honestly to you that I have tried to work in good faith with both you and your predecessor in the best interests of the construction industry. I have accepted your acknowledgement that the building trades unions have done a great deal to effect a solution to perceived problems. Despite our willingness to discuss matters and propose solutions," this particular bill "is not indicative of what constitutes meaningful dialogue with our council or with the people we represent.

"This letter by no means expresses all of our concerns with the bill and the process by which it came about. At the very least, you should make every effort to hold public hearings on the bill and allow the industry to comment on its content. I am very disappointed that our message of how fragile our industry is was not understood by you and your staff. I regret that these unilateral actions may result in many unnecessary and unintended consequences, which will not serve our industry nor our economy well.

"We are requesting a meeting with you as soon as possible to discuss the bill and its impacts on construction.

"Patrick Dillon

"Business Manager

"Secretary-Treasurer

"Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario."

My concern is that an imposed solution will not result in long-term, stable labour relations in Ontario's construction industry, as I hear about it, and I will quote from some other sources shortly.

This bill will have a major impact on construction projects all over Ontario. Since the affected parties have genuine concerns about the lack of consultation on all aspects of this bill prior to its introduction, I would urge the minister to have meaningful public hearings so that the construction trades association, construction workers, contractors, employers and any other parties have the opportunity to present their views and their concerns and so the opposition has a chance to present amendments.

Meaningful public hearings: I'm not talking about, if you're talking about the whole bill, a two-day experience. That perhaps can be satisfied with another recommendation that I have for you later on, Minister. I'm talking about adequate time to hear from those groups that want to be heard in different regions of the province. I'm talking about giving reasonable time for the opposition to prepare amendments to the bill, after having listened to testimony.

I'm talking about giving time for the preparation and distribution of the research report summarizing the submissions and addressing points asked by the committee before amendments are heard. I'm talking about hearing all the amendments, not time-allocating the process, as has been your government's practice in the past.

As you would well know, although you weren't minister at the time, on Bill 99, the Workers' Compensation Reform Act, we had prepared 57 amendments, of which only two were heard before time allocation kicked in. On Bill 136 we were given in effect one hour of statutory time in this Legislature to prepare responses from - I forget how many - maybe 60 to 80 witnesses. We finished on a Friday afternoon. I refer to democracy. The minister says he's concerned about democracy; so am I and so are a lot of people. But in terms of having one hour to respond, it was quite obvious the government knew what it wanted to do.

It wasn't going to listen to the witnesses. If I had been a witness at that time, I would have been insulted and I would have thought, "What's the point of all this?"

When the hearings finished on Friday afternoon at 5 o'clock, we were then expected to listen, respond and consider the good suggestions from the good people who came forward, and 99% of the presentations were extremely thoughtful, very thoughtful. People came forward making sure that their thoughts were to be considered and they did some analysis. In order to take that information and absorb it and put forward amendments for good legislation, we had one hour. I don't call that democratic and I don't think anybody in their right mind would.

There are several stakeholder organizations representing building trades organizations. I know that they have written to you, Minister, since you introduced your bill and that they are formally requesting that this bill be the subject of public hearings across the province, so both labour and management and owners of companies, whoever has a stake in the industry, can have input into such an important piece of legislation.

Some of these groups include the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario and I just read a letter there. Another letter is from Mr Cartwright of the Toronto-Central Ontario Building and Construction Trades Council. What's he asking? The same kind of thing: "I am formally requesting that this bill be the subject of public hearings across the province. I am sure that not only labour but management from our industry will want the opportunity to have input to such an important piece of legislation."

Who else have we got? We've got the Marble, Tile and Terrazzo Union.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: There is no quorum in this place. Would you please check for a quorum?

The Acting Speaker: Is a quorum present?

Clerk Assistant (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr Patten: Another stakeholder is the Marble, Tile and Terrazzo Union, Local 31. What are they asking for? The same kind of thing. They're asking for hearings. They're asking to be heard. They feel that not considering their views "would be a serious breach of trust with our union and its members which will be long remembered.

"I urge you to recognize the inappropriateness of both the process and much of the content of Bill 31 and listen to input from those of us who must live with its consequences."

The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 353, same kind of thing, asking for public hearings across the province: "I'm sure that not only labour but management from our industry will want the opportunity to speak."

The Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, Local 30, same kind of request to the minister, asking for an opportunity to respond, not just for themselves, but for others to speak.

The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners also has sent a letter to you, Minister, asking for what? To please provide an opportunity to have public hearings across this province, not only for them but for anyone else who has a stake in their business, from Donald Guilbeault, Local 2041, in the Gloucester area.

"Jerry Boyle, business manager of the Ontario Pipe Trades Council, announced that his membership will mobilize against the government's latest attack on workers' rights in Ontario. `This legislation is not only about the construction industry, it has implications for the entire labour movement,' said Mr Boyle."

The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Construction Council of Ontario, to the minister, June 12: "It is the opinion of the IBEW Construction Council of Ontario that the proposed legislation would also have a dramatic impact on existing labour-management relations for the whole construction industry in the province of Ontario. It will jeopardize present relationships between labour and management and could lead to a series of general disruptions in the construction industry." They're asking for a chance to respond.

The International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers, Local 95, asks for the same thing. Mr Joe de Wit, business manager, asks for an opportunity to comment, to provide advice, to provide their experience on what this legislation will do that will affect them.

The Independent Contractors' Group. This is not just a trades group. This is the Independent Contractors' Group, which has both unionized and open-shop members. It is asking likewise for public hearings.

The Ontario Provincial Council of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners likewise adds their particular voice to this:

"As a representative of over 15,000 construction workers in the province of Ontario and having participated in the consultation process with your ministry trying to arrive at an industry solution, I am totally shocked at the introduction of issues which were never identified in our discussions. For you to state that this legislat