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

May 30, 1996

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L080 - Thu 30 May 1996 / Jeu 30 Mai 1996

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

LABOUR UNION AND EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LA RESPONSABILITÉ FINANCIÈRE DES SYNDICATS ET DES ASSOCIATIONS D'EMPLOYÉS

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES MUNICIPALITÉS

LABOUR UNION AND EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LA RESPONSABILITÉ FINANCIÈRE DES SYNDICATS ET DES ASSOCIATIONS D'EMPLOYÉS

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES MUNICIPALITÉS

LABOUR UNION AND EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LA RESPONSABILITÉ FINANCIÈRE DES SYNDICATS ET DES ASSOCIATIONS D'EMPLOYÉS

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES MUNICIPALITÉS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

KAKABEKA FALLS

ITALIAN NATIONAL DAY

OWEN SOUND COLLEGIATE AND VOCATIONAL INSTITUTE

ADULT EDUCATION

NATIONAL GYMNASTICS CHAMPIONSHIPS

CANADA FLAG DAY FESTIVAL

ERIN WOODLEY

STREET YOUTH

AMYOTROPHIC LATERAL SCLEROSIS

VISITORS

OPPOSITION DAY MOTIONS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT

ONTARIO SAVINGS BONDS

MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT

ONTARIO SAVINGS BONDS

ORAL QUESTIONS

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

DRINKING AND DRIVING

OBSTETRICAL CARE

FIREARMS CONTROL

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

PETITIONS

EDUCATION FINANCING

TAX REDUCTION

LOTTERY TICKETS

YORK COUNTY HOSPITAL

RENT REGULATION

TAX REDUCTION

DELLCREST CHILDREN'S CENTRE

DRINKING AND DRIVING

USER FEES

PUBLIC SERVICES

TAX REDUCTION

WITHDRAWAL OF BILL 37

ONTARIO HIGHWAY TRANSPORT BOARD AND PUBLIC VEHICLES AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA COMMISSION DES TRANSPORTS ROUTIERS DE L'ONTARIO ET LA

LOI SUR LES VÉHICULES DE TRANSPORT EN COMMUN

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DES NORMES D'EMPLOI

ROYAL ASSENT SANCTION ROYALE

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DES NORMES D'EMPLOI (CONTINUED)

The House met at 1003.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

LABOUR UNION AND EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LA RESPONSABILITÉ FINANCIÈRE DES SYNDICATS ET DES ASSOCIATIONS D'EMPLOYÉS

Mr Gilchrist moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 53,

An Act to Promote Full Financial Accountability of Labour Unions and Employees Associations to their Members / Projet de loi 53, Loi visant à promouvoir la responsabilité financière complète des syndicats et des associations d'employés envers leurs membres.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): The member has 10 minutes.

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Over the last nine months, all of us, including all of the new members elected just last June, have had an opportunity to address this Legislature during members' statements, petitions, during debate on bills and resolutions. In addition, most members have had a chance to participate in the important committee hearings which shaped the final design for the bills which are ultimately passed in this chamber. None the less, I must say that nothing to date has driven home to me more the significance of my election last June than the prospect of debating my own private member's bill here today.

The extraordinary opportunity that is afforded to all non-cabinet ministers to stand in this chamber and petition colleagues from all three parties to support an individual initiative is humbling and an exciting opportunity, to say the least. If nothing else, private members' hour reinforces the belief that I suspect is shared by members from all three parties that our electoral system and our democratic institutions do indeed work and that in some small way it allows every MPP the ability to represent the interests of his or her constituents by shaping provincial legislation to reflect the changing needs of our society.

That being said, it is a distinct privilege for me to say a few words about Bill 53,

An Act to Promote Full Financial Accountability of Labour Unions and Employees Associations to their Members, 1996.

Let me begin by saying what this bill is not, and then I'll get on to the sum and substance of the bill.

This bill was not motivated by any anti-union sentiment. It does not single out unions for different treatment. It does not infringe on the rights of any union member. Nor does it -- in fact, it most particularly does not -- add in any appreciable way to the bureaucracy or red tape in this province.

While I would be the first to recognize there have been a number of initiatives undertaken by our government which have caused varying degrees of concern to certain unions or certain union members, I for one am not a union basher and I believe completely that when considered altogether, the bold changes in direction which we have taken over the past year will have a positive impact on the lives and the income of union members all across this great province.

I had the pleasure of working in Oshawa for the three years prior to the election. To say the least, that is a city which is very much imbued with a strong belief in union values. In fact, I would be very surprised if any of my 160 employees did not have a relative working at GM or PPG, Sklar-Peppler or any number of other union workplaces. In addition, I worked directly with a number of union members on a wide variety of community projects and I can say without the slightest fear of contradiction that in all those efforts the union members and I participated not just as equals but, I should add, as friends.

I won't belabour the point about the support for this bill that I believe exists across the entire spectrum of trade unions, for I know that my colleague from the riding of Oshawa wishes to speak directly to that issue a little later on.

Perhaps it sells newspapers to perpetuate the myth that somehow there's a class distinction between the supporters of the three political parties in this province, but the truth is, and it would be borne out by anyone who has ever canvassed door to door during an election campaign, party support cuts across all income levels and all vocations. I for one am proud of the strong moral and, it should be noted, financial support which our election campaign in Scarborough East received from union members and from unions themselves.

While I don't believe it would be appropriate to name all the unionists who supported our campaign and who continue to support the work of our government, I can say that there was particularly strong support among the construction trades, police, firefighters, as well as from other blue- and white-collar union members.

The riding of Scarborough East has a very high percentage of union membership and I take my responsibility to those constituents just as seriously as I do to any others. Accordingly, what I've proposed in this bill is quite simple. It will afford trade unions the opportunity to demonstrate the same accountability which the NDP required of publicly traded companies in 1993 and which our government required of public sector workers earlier this year.

In fact, while there are a number of relatively minor differences, this bill is very much modelled on the Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act, which required that all public sector institutions, such as school boards, universities and hospitals and crown corporations, file a

summary of employees earning over $100,000 every year.

As every member in this chamber can attest, the reaction of almost all Ontarians to the publication of those lists was overwhelmingly positive. Our office received a number of complimentary letters and phone calls, and in every case, there were sentiments that access to this information was long overdue. Taxpayers believe it is their right to know how their transfer partners spent the tax dollars with which they had been entrusted. Clearly, the Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act created an entirely new standard of accountability to the people of this province.

Bill 53 was inspired by this standard of accountability, and subsequent to the release of the salary information in the public sector, I had no fewer than three close union friends separately question why neither our government nor the NDP had applied the same standard to trade unions and employee associations. I had to admit to them that there was no good reason I could think of why these organizations had been left out and I committed to attempt to redress that oversight via a private member's bill.

I say again, with the greatest of respect to any of my colleagues opposite, that this bill is not motivated by vindictiveness or by some philosophical predisposition against unions. Rather, it is the product of a genuine belief that we should be treating all organizations on an equal basis when it comes to a standard of accountability.

In the case of unions, that accountability is to the rank-and-file members. I am certain that no one in this Legislature would deny that the first responsibility of every union executive is to the union members who have elected them. No less than the responsibility which we as MPPs have to the taxpayers of Ontario, the members of the union executive have a clear and abiding obligation to provide sound fiscal management of the union dues with which they are entrusted.

This bill affords all unions the ironclad method to convince all their members that they are living up to this important obligation. This bill would require all trade unions and employee associations to file an annual return which would list the assets and liabilities of the union and, most important, would detail any salaries in excess of $100,000 per year. This filing would be sent to the Minister of Finance by March 31 of each year and would be available to all union members at any time during the balance of that year.

It should be noted that in the case of the Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act the government outlined a variety of penalties for any violation of the act and the government itself was also the enforcer of the act. Bill 53 leaves only one function in the hands of the finance minister, namely, the assurance that an annual filing is received, and there are only two penalties which could ever be assessed by the government as a result of this failure to file.

Aside from non-filings, the most significant difference between this bill and the public sector bill is that in all other respects, it will only be members of the relevant trade union who will be able to initiate any review or critique of the filing which the government receives. This is, without a doubt, the most important aspect of this bill and one which I believe deserves extra emphasis.

In introducing the regulations that brought about the disclosure of salaries within the private sector, the member for Nickel Belt, the then Minister of Finance, Mr Floyd Laughren, praised those disclosure rules and detailed at some length the rationale behind the institution of those new standards of accountability.

I'd just quote briefly from the statement made by the honourable member on October 4, 1993, because I genuinely believe the sentiments expressed by the longest-serving member in this Legislature are as valid in the context we are debating today as they were in the private sector context at that time. He said: "The new regulations will require that companies tell their shareholders the compensation paid.

As well, we will require companies to show investors how their shares have performed against the market average over the last five years." He went on to say: "These changes benefit a very large group, namely, individual and institutional investors who have put their money into companies whose shares are publicly trade in Ontario. They have taken on ownership with all the risks and rewards that attach to ownership."

If you take the word "companies" in those comments and replace it with "unions," and if you replace the idea of share purchase with the remittance of union dues, clearly there is exactly the same need for and the same benefits from the disclosure of any large salaries within unions. At the same time, the provision to disclose other elements of the balance sheet afforded investors the opportunity to judge the relative efficiency and accountability of different companies. So too would this bill accord the same benefits to members of unions and employee associations who wish to compare salaries paid by different unions.

Let's be perfectly clear about the impact of such disclosure. I fully recognize that if the membership of a union believes the efforts being spent by one or more of their executive members are not being rewarded at a level commensurate with that paid to comparable positions in other unions, there might well be wage increases. On the other hand, it will ensure that all union members have the opportunity to review the broader spectrum of wages within the trade union movement. In any event, the access to information, this new right, would further cement the reputations of trade unions as accountable, responsible organizations.

I look forward to the comments of my colleagues and having the opportunity to address any concerns they might raise about this bill during debate this morning.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I'm glad to have the opportunity to debate Mr Gilchrist's bill today, because it raises some worthy points of discussion and issues that need to be addressed; that is, the openness and accountability of trade unions here in Ontario and indeed, because of the nature of Ontario, in the country. It raises a number of concerns around disclosure not only for unions but the public sector, which the government has already acted on for the public sector and elsewhere.

I wanted to begin my talk by saying it is my experience -- and this experience we tested over the last few days in finding out just what union leaders do make. It's not difficult to find out, because within those organizations, certainly with the unions we spoke to, they were quite prepared to provide that information. One of the myths that's been perpetrated about unions is that they are somehow not open, that they do not disclose, that their membership does not have access to the kind of information that Mr Gilchrist has suggested in his bill ought to be made available. They do that already.

We have to examine the bill and the concept, not strictly in terms of what we agree -- when I say "we," I think most of the leadership of the union movement agrees -- is the need for public accountability by elected officials within those unions. We also have to examine it in the context of what we require for private sector companies, not-for-profit organizations where there are elected boards of directors and others.

The government acted very quickly on its commitment with respect to salary disclosures in the public and broader public sectors, and I think most would agree that that exercise was welcome and a healthy exercise in terms of our democracy. When we begin to expand the scope of that concept, we have to recognize the different players not only within the workplace but within our broader society.

Part of the fear I have in starting to intrude into these areas is that a government today that may want to make this kind of disclosure mandatory for a trade union may be replaced by a government that wants to make, for instance, every private company disclose salaries over $100,000. I recognize that securities exchanges have rules and regulations for disclosure for senior executives, but I believe there is some downside risk to that. I think too the other issue may be other organizations where there are elected boards that choose staff and make decisions around hiring. What immediately comes to mind are non-profit organizations within the economy.

We have to be careful when we look at these kinds of issues, and we have to be cognizant of the reality that exists today. The reality today is that unions do disclose to their membership and to those in the public who request it information about salary levels for their senior executives. I've heard many of the union leaders in this province openly acknowledge what they make and defend it to their membership. My understanding of the union movement in this province is that the salary levels are not simply arrived at; they are discussed openly at executive levels and agreed upon by senior elected officials within those unions.

What gives me greatest concern about the bill is that it seems to be more union baiting. I think the government has consciously pursued a policy aimed at undermining or trying to undermine the credibility and importance of unions not only in this province but in this country. We have seen a repeated attack on the rights of organized workers and the rights of their unions. We were made aware of a meeting between the Premier and the Minister of Labour just this past week with respect to trying to at least open a dialogue with the senior union leaders in this province.

That meeting, we are given to understand, didn't go well, and it should be no surprise that it didn't go well. When a government, a political party, pursues an agenda that is unquestionably an attack on unions and working people, it shouldn't surprise any of us that the gaps that have been created will be very hard to overcome.

We believe that full disclosure is a worthy public goal. We believe the types of accountability that the member who has presented this bill contemplates are worthy, but we fear that the real meaning of this bill has more to do with union baiting and more to do with undermining the rights and the abilities of working people to organize and bargain collectively.

We think and believe that any standard that you apply to unions -- if you're prepared to do that for unions, our fear is that you may be forced or a future government may be pushed to apply it, for instance, as I indicated earlier, to anyone in the private sector making more than $100,000.

So we have some difficulty with this. I'm grateful we've had the opportunity to discuss it. I think the public policy issue that's raised is worthy and I look forward to hearing the comments of my colleagues in the House around this bill.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I just want to very briefly say in this House that today we have another example of this government's unrelenting attack on unions in this province.

It is just unbelievable that anybody with the stature of a member of provincial Parliament, given all that the union movement has contributed to the very fabric of this province that we call Ontario by way of a standard of living and quality of life and safety in the workplace and pension plans and all of the things that we all take for granted today that were fought for, literally, blood spilled over by working men and women in this province over a number of years so that some of us who are the product of working class families could have the education that was required so that we might end up in a place like this -- it's unbelievable you would bring forward yet another piece of so-called legislation that is so weakly veiled that anybody with half a brain could see that it is simply another attack on the union movement for political purposes, for political purposes of the worst kind.

An attack on the union movement of any sort, no matter what you call it or how you veil it, is an attack on working people. It's an attack on the people who get out there every day and through the sweat of their brow and by bringing their brain to work contribute to the products that we put together and manufacture and sell both in the domestic market and internationally so that we might have a standard of living that all of us can participate in and we might feel good about the jurisdiction called Ontario that is the envy of the world.

For anybody for a second to suggest that the labour of working people is not of utmost value to the economic health of this province, and through a piece of legislation like this to contribute to the ongoing attack on that by way of an attempt to tear apart the organization that labour has become, is just scandalous. It's outrageous. It's an attack on working people. It's an attack on families.

We hear so often from the folks across the way how they believe in family values, they believe in supporting the family. Well, the best way to support families is to make sure they have enough money to put food on the table for their kids and to pay their rent or to buy a new home and to contribute in those ways to the economy of this province, and not to be attacking them, consistently and unrelentingly, in the way that you are in this place. It's not only an attack on families, but it's an attack on children as well, and that's consistent too with what this government is doing.

When you consider -- and I'll never forget it -- the day in July when all of us woke up in this province to the reality that the poorest among us were going to lose 22% of the money they use to put food on the table for their children, what we have today is consistent and in line with that kind of thinking, with that kind of narrow, greedy, selfish thinking that's going to destroy this province.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): You said you were going to be short. Leave time for somebody else.

Mr Martin: Hear me out and bear me well on this one. In two or three years we will pay the price for all of this.

I would suggest that anybody in this House who has any interest in the quality of life of people, of families, of children, who has any interest in the future of this province and the overall health and wellbeing of families and working people, will not contribute in any way to the acceptance or approval or passing of this bill. I will be voting against it.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I'd like to start out by complimenting my friend the member for Scarborough East for a very thoughtful and responsible presentation and for bringing this bill forward.

I'm certainly very disappointed in what I've just been hearing from across the floor from the member for Sault Ste Marie. It sounded a lot like a leadership campaign speech looking forward to the next election, rather than being on topic about this particular bill. It's most unfortunate that he was talking about feeding children and not talking about accountability of the unions.

The current government moved to ensure that taxpayers were aware of salaries in the public sector that would be exceeding $100,000. There's a similar need to ensure that unions and employee associations are equally responsive to their members when it comes to the subject of executive salaries.

This bill is modelled after the Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act and is identical to it in most of its clauses. The exception is that the oversight for compliance with disclosure would be done by the Ontario Labour Relations Board. There is no room for the government to get involved unless a union does not file its annual filing, in which case the government would report this to the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

Only a member of a union can initiate a complaint. It would be dealt with in the same way that the Ontario Labour Relations Board deals with unfair labour practices. We're not saying the government should run it; we're saying that the rank and file of the union would be looking after this.

I can assure you that there are no special powers in this bill or any draconian fines such as are being intimated from across the House. Essentially, this bill is ensuring accountability by empowering the union members. I can tell you that there's no greater frustration for the taxpayers of this province than lack of empowerment. This is the current "in" thing that people are looking for, a little bit of strength and a little bit of rights, and this is what the union members are indeed asking for. It also allows the union the opportunity to address any criticism that their executives are not using union dues appropriately.

The most important part of this bill and what I'd like to focus on today is accountability. We're living in an era where the public and union membership have never been better informed, have never been better educated. They want answers and they want accountability of their elected officials as well as their union leaders. They want promises kept, and if people don't keep their promises, they expect a resignation. We've recently seen that in Hamilton, where a member of the federal House did resign only because of pressure from the media and the public that a commitment had been made that they weren't prepared to stand up to.

This bill goes hand in hand with the workplace democracy provisions in Bill 7. This bill will enhance the democratic process.

This government is held accountable to its citizens. The salaries of all individuals who make over $100,000 are open to the public. The public has a right to know how much they are paying the people who run their public services.

In the private sector, corporations are held accountable to the shareholders. The salaries of CEOs of all public corporations are open to the public.

Unions should have the same kind of accountability to their members and to the broader public. Union members can often pay union dues approaching $1,000 a year. Moreover, members do not have a choice; they have to pay these dues even if they do not particularly support the union. Union membership is not by choice. I suppose we could debate that for some time, how democratic that really is. But whether they want to belong or not, they must pay the union dues or they have to quit and lose their job.

I regularly hear protests from the rank and file of unions saying: "I just want a job. I don't necessarily want to have to belong. Isn't there something you can do for me?" This is something we can do for them to ensure accountability of their senior executive.

Union dues are also tax-deductible, which essentially means that the public subsidizes unions. Who else, what organizations in this province, other than charitable organizations, have this opportunity? The public has a right to know about the internal accountability mechanisms within the unions.

Furthermore, unions negotiate collective agreements on behalf of 33% of the workers in Ontario. This has a direct effect on the Ontario economy and it is therefore within the public interest to have full disclosure.

In closing, I would encourage the members from both sides of the House to remember that this is a private member's bill. It is not a party debate, as was being suggested from across the floor. This bill is all about improving accountability of the unions in Ontario, it is all about empowering the rank-and-file worker in this province and it's about ensuring the democratic rights to the union workers who pay the dues to their union.

I certainly look forward to the unanimous support for private member's Bill 53 brought forward by my good friend the member for Scarborough East.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'm pleased to join the debate on the bill. It is an interesting bill designed to disclose primarily salaries but also the assets and liabilities. If we proceed with this bill, the challenge for us is simply that we logically then have to look at where it leads and what's the principle here of disclosure and why disclosure?

Mr Gilchrist: Why not?

Mr Phillips: Well, why not, as the member says. The members need to, I suspect, appreciate where it all leads. For example, I have many accounting friends in partnership firms who are very curious about what the senior partners make in the firm, and they've come to me and said, "I understand there's a bill to make sure that union members know what the senior people in the unions make." By the way, if you check, most unions already disclose it; I think the salaries of the senior people are in the constitution of most unions.

If we want to proceed with this, I think that, by extension, if the government member who is proposing this thinks members are owed this information, perhaps we should look at accounting firms and law firms. For example, I have friends who are in franchises and they're always very curious about what people are making in franchises, and what the president of a Canadian Tire store's making. They're often interested in that. They would say: "Why not?

Because I'm one of the members of a franchise, I would like to know what the president of a Canadian Tire store is making." Certainly I think we're going to have to, if we proceed with this bill, say, "What is the principle behind it and, by extension, where does it lead?"

Many public companies -- perhaps it would be very interesting to see the salaries of everybody making more than $100,000. Right now I think the law is the top five officers, but perhaps we should be looking at all public companies divulging everybody making more than $100,000. If the logic of this bill is that anybody in this province making $100,000 should be required to disclose their salary -- I think that's the principle of the bill -- I don't think we can stop simply with this.

We've got to go back to the public companies and disclose everybody making -- because, I gather from Mr Gilchrist, the interest here is: "Who's making $100,000 in this province? Let's get it out in the open so we all know, so we can all understand."

The problem with the bill is, as the member himself probably will recognize, that it's too limited. If that's what he wants to do, if disclosing $100,000 is what he wants to do, the bill is too limited, just divulging union members making more than $100,000. We have to look beyond that, go back to the public companies and say, "Everybody in a public company making more than $100,000 should be required to have their salaries revealed." We're going to have to go to private companies too, because the unions of this province deal with public companies, public sector organizations and private companies. We'd have to look at expanding the legislation to include private companies.

Certainly we're going to have to look at other organizations where the members are paying dues, where they want it. The Albany Club surely is going to have to reveal the amount of money they're paying their general manager, if we're going to follow this to its logical conclusion. What we've done so far is to say to public companies, "Your top five" --

Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre): What about the National Club?

Mr Phillips: That's one of the Conservative members saying, "The National Club." What is the principle we're following here? Is it that if you belong to any organization the salaries of the senior people have to be disclosed?

Mr Murdoch: What's wrong with that?

Mr Phillips: The member says, "What's wrong with that?" If that's the principle we're following here, and that is that the salary of anybody making $100,000 has to be disclosed, we can't limit it to just the union organizations. You're going to have to expand the bill to include public companies. You've got to reveal all the $100,000. You're going to have to expand the bill to include private companies. You're going to have to expand the bill to include not just union organizations but all organizations --

Mr Murdoch: Do you have an amendment to this? Will you bring the amendment?

Mr Phillips: The member is yelling across. I am not sure that there is an obligation in this province that for anybody making $100,000 it be publicly revealed. If the Conservative members feel that's the kind of interference and that's the kind of hand you want on the public -- and that is, let's get out in the open everybody making more than $100,000 -- let's make it a very simple bill. If that's what you want, then put forward the bill.

Mr Murdoch: What do you want?

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): Tell us what you want.

Mr Phillips: What do I want? I think it's a bit strange that because you make $100,000, you've got to reveal your salary for everybody in the province. I think it is very inconsistent to say: "This is just for the union members. This is just for the union. That's what we're going to limit this to." It is -- Mr Speaker, listen carefully to this -- in my opinion, hypocritical, and I don't mean to say a word that I can't use, but it is hypocritical in a bill to limit it to just one group if you believe as a principle that everybody making more than $100,000 should be revealed. My friends find it strange the Conservative Party believe that.

Mr Murdoch: That is why we have a debate. We want to hear your ideas. Work with us.

Mr Phillips: I don't agree with it. I don't agree that just because you make $100,000 you need to be publicly revealed. I have real problems with the bill because I don't think it's designed to be helpful to the public. If it were, I think the member would have said, "Everybody making more than $100,000 should be revealed." That's not the case, and I think we may see the bill for really what it is, and that is that it is not something that's being helpful to the public, not something that is revealing salaries, but something that is designed to try to get at the unions.

But probably if there's any organization in this province that reveals the salaries of its senior people, there's no one who does a better job than the unions. The unions are, by and large, democratic organizations where the bulk of the salaries are already revealed.

I have problems with the bill. I can't understand a Conservative member wanting to bring forward a bill like this. We'll see how the vote goes.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I say to the member for Scarborough East that his suggestion and premise that anybody would possibly believe, given the track record of him and his government with regard to unions, workers and the rights they're entitled to, that this is anything other than an attack on the labour movement is kidding himself.

There is no way that anyone who has watched your agenda could possibly believe you have any intent other than to continue to harass, attack and annoy in any way you can the labour movement in this province, because you need a weak labour movement, you need lower minimum standards, you need an elimination, an eradication of health and safety laws in order to implement the rest of your agenda.

This is the government that brought in Bill 7, which completely replaced the Ontario Labour Relations Act. You legalized once again the use of scabs. There's a terrible strike going on right now at the Ontario Jockey Club. It's a lockout because there are scabs being used. That couldn't have happened under previous legislation. You made that lawful. You're the government that shut down the Workplace Health and Safety Agency. You're the government --

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I would like to remind the member for Grey-Owen Sound that we will have to have a little better decorum. I would appreciate your cooperation in looking to that for me.

Mr Young: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I thought we were debating Bill 53.

The Deputy Speaker: This is not a point of order.

Mr Christopherson: Mr Speaker, please, the heckling doesn't bother me in the least. I'd rather have the time than your attempting to bring them into any kind of order, because they don't like it when they're being shown for what they are.

The fact of the matter is that the track record, as I was saying before I was interrupted, shows very clearly where this government is at. We only need to look at what they're planning to do to innocent injured workers in this province to know how they really feel about workers. Take a look at the Employment Standards Act bill that's in front of this House, taking away rights, minimum basic standards of rights that workers have in this province.

That's the history and that's the context of this government, wherein one of their backbenchers stands up and offers up this bill, saying that it's meant to help the labour movement, help workers and help unions. Nobody believes that and I'm surprised, knowing the member as I do, that he would believe that anyone would buy into such nonsense.

I say to the member very directly that this is all about going after the unions. When we had the infamous Bill 26, there was an amendment from my colleague the member for Dovercourt to make sure that when there's disclosure for non-profit entities receiving public funding, if a profit entity is receiving exactly the same funding, they would be responsible for having to make that same disclosure, such as in nursing homes. Some of them are non-profit; some are private.

The law now says if it's a non-profit nursing home that receives a certain level of government funding, they've crossed a threshold and the disclosure must take place. We moved an amendment that said if it's a private corporation receiving the same amount of money, they should have the same obligation to make the same disclosure. This government voted against that amendment and now they have the audacity to stand in their place today and suggest this isn't about going after unions.

You're not talking about empowering shareholders; you're not talking about empowering anyone, other than making sure you can continue to attack the labour movement. That's what this is all about.

I want to offer the honourable member a deal, if I could get his attention. If you're so sincere about being fair and if you really mean what you're saying, that this is not meant to be an attack, it's meant to provide more information to the public domain, I offer to you, on behalf of my colleagues who are here this morning, that if you go back and amend Bill 26 to make sure there's equal fairness with regard to disclosure between non-profit and profit, we'll support your bill.

If you want support for this bill, stand in your place today and make a commitment that you will ensure that your government amends Bill 26 so that it's really fair vis-à-vis disclosure between private and non-profit. Then we will support this bill. We will support this bill, because we're not opposed to disclosure. After all, we did initiate the process.

We honestly believe, and I sincerely believe, that this is just part of your continuing agenda to attack the labour movement. I think you hope that you might embarrass the opposition, us in particular, by tying it to a motherhood issue. I believe that's the case. If I'm wrong on all these points, then I am prepared, as I said, to urge my colleagues to enact this bill if you will go back and amend Bill 26 and bring fairness in there, real fairness.

In terms of democracy and disclosure, I defy the member to show me where the labour movement in Ontario is any less open than the corporations in the private sector of this province vis-à-vis the kinds of disclosures they have to make. In fact, I offer to the Speaker, I bring a message to the member from Gord Wilson, the president of the Ontario Federation of Labour. He offers directly to you a chance that if you want to know what he makes and what all his officers make, drop him a line. He would be pleased to hear from you; he would be pleased to tell you how much their officers make; he would be pleased to show you what is already out there in the public domain.

This government wants people to believe in the old thinking of union bosses and the forced activities of unions out front, forcing people out on strike when they don't want to, ruling like big bosses. That's not the way the labour movement works in this province. If he doesn't know that, he bloody well ought to. One of the problems with this government is that you don't have any workers; you don't have anybody who's really from that world. That's why you can stand up and make the audacious claims that you do about what the labour movement is and isn't.

The fact of the matter is that historically the labour movement has shown how democracy can work in a free society -- the exact opposite of what you and many of your colleagues believe. I think you show that every time your Minister of Labour stands up and talks about changing the laws in this province. You have done nothing for workers since you've been in power. All you've done is gone after them, gone after the labour movement, gone after workers, gone after injured workers.

Mr Jordan: What will they do without jobs? You've got to give them jobs. They want jobs.

Mr Christopherson: Listen, you can howl all you want from the back benches. The fact of the matter is that your track record is there to be seen, and all the heckling in the world isn't going to change what you did to the labour movement, what you did to workers in this province and what you're still planning to do.

We had to shame you and force you into public hearings on your Employment Standards Act changes because you wanted people to believe that was just housekeeping: "Oh, don't worry about it. It's just minor little changes, clarifications." We said to you at the time, "It's not; there are significant, major changes." In fact, the labour movement in Ontario was betrayed after the meeting they had with the Minister of Labour, when they had those assurances.

Now you've been forced into having public hearings and you've been forced to admit that it's not housekeeping. There are going to be four weeks of hearings: two weeks across the province, one week here in Toronto and a week of clause-by-clause. That's not because you believe in democracy; that's because we forced you into admitting that you were taking away the rights of workers, and people have a right to be heard before you do that. You didn't offer that right under Bill 7, did you? No, you took away all those workers' rights and you didn't have one minute of public hearings.

In closing, I have not seen, nor am I aware of, a government elected in the province of Ontario that has attacked the labour movement and workers in the way this government has consistently, viciously and with purpose, because your whole intent is that you had to have a revolution, but it's got nothing to do with helping working people. The revolution is to take care of you and your wealthy and privileged friends, and for that you all ought to be ashamed.

The last thing I want to say is the labour movement in this province that I'm so very proud to have come from will never, ever have to take a lesson in democracy from the Mike Harris government.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I'd like to say a few words. It's amazing how people change in a short period of time. I'd like to make a few comments with respect to Bill 53 as presented by the member for Scarborough East. We are in difficult times.

Interjection: It started with Mike Harris.

Mr Tilson: My friend in the Liberal Party is making some comments. I believe part of the problem started back in his government in the late 1980s. In the 1980s the privacy legislation came in and no one could know anything about anybody or anything. It was completely secret. We wrote cheques; we wrote blank cheques. We had no idea what we were paying for anything. I tell you that gradually society became a little bit concerned with this. Taxes were going up. We were concerned about waste. We were concerned about bureaucracy. We were concerned about corruption. We were concerned about all kinds of things and people became a little bit more demanding.

In fact, it started with the NDP government. Mr Laughren started this process and he introduced regulations, I believe it was to the security act, but it had to do with regulations. He introduced those regulations on October 14, 1993. At that time he introduced regulations which disclosed the compensation paid to executives of companies which are publicly traded in Ontario, and part of the Hansard was read by my friend from Scarborough East. I won't repeat that, other than to say that the concerns of people that changes -- to repeat Mr Laughren as finance minister:

"These changes benefit a very large group; namely, individual and institutional investors that have put their money into companies whose shares trade publicly in Ontario. They have taken on ownership, with all the risks and rewards that attach to ownership. We believe they, in return, have a right to full information on the companies they own. In particular, they have a right to know how much the people who run those companies are paid and how that decision was reached. These new regulations will ensure that they are told, and told in a way that is complete and easy to understand."

That's when the philosophy started. It started with the philosophy of Mr Laughren. He felt there should be more openness, people should know what's going on with their investments.

Then we came to the conclusion -- there was a debate. Some of us were on a committee that reviewed, I believe it was -- there was a municipal privacy act or a provincial -- there are two acts. I forget which one it was that we reviewed, but we spent some considerable time reviewing the issue of privacy. In fact, all three parties agreed that there had to be more information revealed about the public information, the public salaries.

In turn, I don't think there was too much opposition when the finance minister stood in his place recently and introduced legislation that would reveal the salaries of people who work in the public, over $100,000, and that applied to anyone in the education field, the hospital field, anyone working in the public sector. There was some opposition to it, as there is to everything, but it was generally well received.

I must say this is a philosophy that I support, and I support the member for Scarborough East's philosophy, so much in fact that I introduced a similar bill back on November 3, 1993. We didn't have an opportunity to debate that bill, but I introduced it. It said essentially the same principles that the member for Scarborough East is putting forward. So I support him completely with that.

This private member's bill will certainly require the details of salaries paid to the union leaders, which would in turn be tabled. The NDP brought forward regulations that will ensure that the corporate executives' salaries are released. The Conservatives brought forward legislation that revealed and indicated that those leaders in the public sector's salaries were revealed, and I support this philosophy.

The union leaders have obtained a tremendous amount of power. I think we all respect the unions and there's a need for the union movement in our society. There's no question that workers of our province, of our country, need unions to exist, to support what they are doing. The difficulty, of course, is that the union leaders have acquired an amazing amount of power. They're closing down cities. They're doing a whole slew of things that I don't know whether the union movement necessarily supports, but they're doing these things.

People have no idea. They have to go and work for a company, and if they want to work for the company they're going to have to join that union and they're going to have to pay those union dues, and yet they don't have a clue as to what the union leaders are making or the benefits that they're making.

I hear stories, for example, that OSSTF has a private plane.

Interjection: Oh, no.

Mr Tilson: Well, I don't know whether that's true or not. I hear these things -- and the benefits that they receive.

The public does have a right to know. The taxpayer pays teachers, it pays nurses, it pays police officers, it pays firefighters, it pays a whole slew of people, and out of those are paid union dues. So the public is involved, our society is involved. Our society is being affected from what is being done by unions.

I listened to the Liberal finance critic and he did have some points; I will acknowledge that. On the other hand, why can't we scrutinize the unions just like we scrutinize other aspects of our society? These people are having a major effect on our society, not just the workers, not just the union members, but all members of our society.

I submit to you that shareholders, if they don't like what their corporate executives are doing, if they don't know what their corporate executives are receiving for salary, they can sell their shares. The workers don't have any choice. They have no choice. If they want to work, if they want to get a job, they have to stay with that company and they have to take it and they haven't a clue what's going on. They haven't a clue what's going on with respect to the union executives.

I will conclude. There's another member from our caucus who would like to say a few words. Union leaders have an obligation to account for what they're doing in our society, and that's why I support this bill.

Mr Young: I will support Bill 53. Before I talk about it, I would like to comment on some comments the member for Hamilton Centre made that there are no workers in the PC party, which is really absurd, and that there are no union members. There are a number of union members, former union members in our party. A number of our caucus members are married to union members. I have been a member of different unions for 18 years of my life, and I've also been a union representative or the equivalent of a shop steward. As usual, the member for Hamilton Centre doesn't know what he's talking about.

With Bill 26 we attempted to shine a light on salaries of people who receive government money and we succeeded with that, and this bill is perfectly consistent with that.

I agree with the member for Dufferin-Peel, we have unions attempting to shut down cities, we have unions that with just-in-time delivery in our factories can shut down an entire industry temporarily. Every citizen in Ontario is affected by that and I believe every citizen should have a right to know how those people are remunerated. I also believe that the union membership has a right to know how much money their union leaders are making while they're out on the picket line.

For any of my colleagues who don't support this bill, I'd be really interested to know what's the secret and why the secret. The bill is clearly in the public interest and I will be supporting it.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): In the few seconds that are left, I just want to say that in fact, as members know, I come to this particular time in private members' hour very much in a non-partisan way, but when I see a piece of legislation like the one presented to us today from the member for Scarborough East I have to respond in a clearly partisan way because the bill before us is intended, as I read it, in a very partisan way. It is part of the Tory agenda to pick on unions, to pick on working people, because if the concern here really had to do with disclosure, there were opportunities through Bill 26 to amend the legislation when we put forward a proposal to do that.

There are other aspects that could be covered under this kind of bill, but of course we're not talking here about corporations, we're not talking about disclosure. What we're talking about is continuing the attack on public sector unions, on private sector unions, on working people. For that reason, I cannot support this legislation.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Scarborough Centre has two minutes.

Mr Gilchrist: While I appreciate the comments made by members all three parties, I particularly appreciate those that dealt with the bill. With all due respect to the members opposite, a number of our members, the member for Hamilton Mountain and the member for Oshawa in particular, canvassed dozens of union members in their ridings and, quite frankly, the sentiment was that this bill didn't go far enough.

In

summary, this bill is pro-union in the sense that it promotes accountability and will put to rest once and for all any perception that those organizations are not responsible. It is pro-union-member. It improves the access of the rank-and-file members to the financial information within the union and particularly for any salaries over $100,000 a year. Let's look at it in the context.

I personally don't believe there will be hundreds of names on that list over $100,000; I wouldn't be surprised if it's 10 or fewer. I would honestly ask the members opposite to whom they believe their chief responsibility lies, to those 10 people or to the hundreds of thousands of members of the trade unions and, I should point out, to the other hundreds of union executive members who won't be on that list?

I would also direct their thoughts -- and the member for Hamilton Centre raised some legitimate concerns. Obviously, I can't commit to opening up Bill 26, but I could commit to this: If this bill goes to committee, of course I would be prepared to debate and entertain any reasonable amendment to this bill if you believe we can do more to open up accountability across other sectors of our economy.

This bill is a positive and constructive addition to the existing sunshine laws which have been implemented by both the NDP and the current government. It provides full access to information without onerous or excessive bureaucracy. It supports the principles of democracy and full participation of the membership on which the union movement was founded. If you believe in honesty and integrity within the union, if you believe the rights of union members are paramount, then this bill addresses the concerns and those principles and gives an important new right to the hundreds of thousands of working Ontarians who participate in and contribute to the union movement in this province.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES MUNICIPALITÉS

Mr Ruprecht moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 51,

An Act to amend the Municipal Act / Projet de loi 51, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les municipalités.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): The member for Parkdale has 10 minutes.

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): This bill will to some degree close a loophole that was recently opened in the Liquor Licence Act. As all of us know, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations has decided to extend alcohol serving hours in Ontario from 1 am to 2 am, which does not necessarily mean patrons will be leaving at 2 am but they may choose to leave at any time.

What reasons has the minister given to change the alcohol serving hours in Ontario? He has given a number of reasons. One is that he wants to discourage cross-border drinking, where bar patrons in border towns finish at 1 am, then drive across the border to the United States and finish at other times. Another reason, he says, is that he wants to keep money in Ontario, which means he wants to have more money coming to the provincial treasury. Another reason, he says, is to bring Ontario in line with neighbouring jurisdictions and to bring Ontario into the 20th century.

Has the minister considered the downsides? Has he considered the consequences of this act? Those who live, in cities across Ontario, next to open patio bars will testify to the disruption of their lives. Let me quote some of the letters I've received.

This one is from Ila Bossuns from Toronto: "Liquor serving hours until 2 am may be all right in suburban areas where homes are a safe distance from commercial strips. They are not suitable in many parts of Toronto where, typically, residents bought houses before restaurants and bars arrived on the scene. Many bar patrons exit at closing time drunk, urinate on neighbours' front lawns, smash their last beer bottle on the sidewalk or against someone else's front steps, scream aloud, and race cars through sleepy streets. With your new legislation, they can now do this as late as 3 am.

We downtown residents are doing the right thing -- living close to our jobs and using our cars less -- but we sure don't want to be penalized for this."

Further on she says: "Municipal noise bylaws are not worth the paper they're written on, as I know from years of experience. Noise violations are extremely difficult to prosecute. The combination of extended hours and weak, unenforceable noise bylaws leaves many of my constituents vulnerable to noise and to the loss of sleep. I hope you will help undo this problem."

And here from the mayor of Scarborough: "Your legislation addresses an apparent loophole in the act which would allow open-air patios serving alcoholic beverages to remain open for the same hours as indoor facilities" -- in short, a real problem. "Many of these outdoor establishments are in close proximity to residential communities and it is appropriate that they be governed by different hours of operation. The noise level of some outdoor establishments is such that it may impinge on the right of local residents to enjoy a reasonable level of peace and quiet in the neighbourhood, particularly in the early hours of the morning.

"Further to this, it is clear that by extending the hours for serving liquor from 1 to 2, the legislation is in conflict" -- and mark the work "conflict" -- "with our local noise bylaws. Infractions under the noise bylaws, which may require constant monitoring, in addition to the associated costs and disruptions of municipalities in prosecuting offenders, can be avoided by giving municipalities the power to control in which areas the extension of hours for serving liquor will be allowed."

And I have letters from local residents all over Ontario. This one is from the Roncesvalles-MacDonnel Residents' Association: "We agree that municipalities should be given the power to determine whether shorter drinking hours are more appropriate in certain residential areas. We are in a crisis situation with regard to activities that do not contribute positively to our locality, and we continue to struggle with issues of prostitution, drug dealing, drunkenness, rowdiness and other anti-social behaviour, which is exacerbated by a perceived oversaturation of liquor-licensed establishments in the area.

With the extension of liquor-serving hours from 1 am to 2 am as of May 1, 1996, we see these problems being exacerbated further. As residents, we object."

Dovercourt Park Area Residents' Association: "An extension of operating hours in many cases means another hour for prostitutes, drug dealers and alcohol abusers to carry on their late-night, anti-social activity connected with the numerous licensed premises in the west end of the city."

And here from the chair of the Ontario Neighbourhoods for Responsible Alcohol Sales and Service, Simone Cosenza:

"Extended hours for licensed establishments is a great disappointment. None of the many recommendations made by resident and neighbourhood groups over the years have been adopted" -- none of them. "Extended hours cater to the demands of the restaurant and alcohol industries, not the communities left to deal with the devastation resulting from the irresponsible service of alcohol. Neighbourhood groups were not even consulted regarding these hours."

Here is one from the city of Toronto's chief public health officer, and listen to this one very carefully, because this is one of the most important items that has direct impact on this bill. He says: "The expansion of hours of service in Ontario raises important public health concerns. Research studies conducted in Europe and the United States link longer hours of service at both licensed premises and retail outlets to increases in alcohol consumption, public disturbances and drunkenness, violent crimes and alcohol-related traffic injuries and deaths. Clearly the recent increase of alcoholic beverage services to 2 am is detrimental to the public's health."

Has the minister considered the consequences? The argument here today before this Legislature is not to reduce drinking hours from 2 o'clock to 10 or to 9 or to 8, but simply to give the municipalities the right to discuss and empower them to reduce it by one hour.

What's the big picture? This government will pass a law that automatically suspends a driver's licence if a driver is impaired. Here on the other hand we're tempting them by saying: "Please, stay for one more hour. Have another drink before you go on the road." Does that make sense, I ask you today. Temptation: that's what this is about. Can we extend the hours? How many deaths are related to alcohol sales in Ontario? We have the figures: 19,000 alcohol-related deaths. That should wake up anybody who's sleeping today.

What's the small picture? The small picture is this: Let's not go very far away from here. If a person serves some of the patrons until 2 o'clock and he or she wants to go home at 2 o'clock, what vehicle are they going to use? Did you know the subway shuts down at 1:30? And here we're staying till 2 or maybe 2:30. How will they get home? The services then must necessarily be compensative, meaning that there should be a corresponding service to the extended hours.

What do the police chiefs say about this across Ontario? Do they have extra manpower in terms of enforcement? The answer is no. Do they have extra staff? Do they have extra money? No. Absolutely an abject no is the answer to this question. Therefore, has the minister thought about this really in close context with the other problems?

The focus today, I submit to you, is on this Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. That's the focus. He should be here today, because he has promised the people of Ontario that indeed there will be a balance and this loophole will be shut. Has he done that?

Let me give you an example: On February 1 he's quoted in the Toronto Star. "Sterling said he will give municipalities the power to determine whether shorter drinking hours are more appropriate in residential areas with outdoor patio bars" and he's quoted as saying -- this is Mr Sterling, who's the minister -- "`We have to respect the people who live in the area to ensure they have some quiet enjoyment of their own residence, and that after certain hours people are expected to sleep.'"

Has this minister kept his promise? Today I ask you. He should stand up and address this loophole. He should stand up and say to the people of Ontario either he didn't know what he was doing or he will reject and he will change the law.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I'm happy to stand in support of the member for Parkdale's bill today. As the ex-Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, I of course had to deal with this issue at that time. There were certainly compelling arguments made by the hotel-motel association; owners of bars and restaurants of course were at that time in favour of extending the hours. My ministry and myself did take it very seriously and did look at it. We were all trying to do our best to deal with the issue, especially at a time of recession, when people are not spending as much money as certainly the bars and restaurants would have liked to see.

We did look at it very carefully and at that time, in the research we did and the consultations we conducted, AMO, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, expressed concern. I recall it very well, because we thought that probably the first body that we should talk to about the possible implications of extending the hours should be the people who are closest to their communities and therefore know the kinds of problems which exist in communities with drinking and driving and other problems and policing.

At that time -- and I don't know what AMO has said to this government; I think that overall AMO has a somewhat different relationship, to put it mildly, with this government than ours -- but I certainly can say that they were very concerned and I believe they wrote me a letter to that end.

We also consulted with the chiefs of police and they too expressed concerns, for the reasons that my colleague from Parkdale mentioned today. There were concerns about drunk driving; there were concerns about not being given extra money for extra policing after hours.

There are certainly more concerns in the major urban areas like Metro Toronto and other areas that the public transportation system closes down before 2 o'clock and furthermore, with cutbacks -- and now I would say particularly under this government there have been more cutbacks, and there are certainly not going to be -- I know that some bus routes in fact are being taken away. There hasn't been any discussion that I have heard in this House of trying to find ways to extend the public transportation times to correspond with the closing of the bars.

That is a major concern because, as my colleague from Parkdale just mentioned, drunk driving is a problem. You could say, "Okay, everybody should take a cab home," but let's face it, the evidence shows that people don't always do that. They will get in their cars, if there's no option of public transportation, and they will drive. Those were the issues that were before me at the time, and I'm sure they were before Mr Sterling when he was considering this.

Another issue was brought to my attention. Recently I've received letters from women and others who are involved in the area of violence against women. They have expressed concerns again with cutbacks and evidence they have that there is a direct link between the consumption of alcohol and spousal abuse, that this in fact could increase spousal abuse. That's a concern that I took very seriously as critic for women's issues, and I think we all should.

I'm not sure, I haven't heard any guarantees from the minister that these very serious areas of concern have been looked into, and I certainly have heard no discussion around innovative ways of dealing with these very obvious problems and implications of extending bar hours.

I also had the opportunity to deal with this issue when I was a city councillor for ward 8, which is in the riding of Riverdale. When I ran for city council in ward 8, one of the hottest issues was boulevard cafés. I remember being very surprised at how hot this issue was, but it's because -- and Parkdale and other ridings I know have the same problem -- often main streets abut the residential streets.

The Danforth is an example of that. The Danforth is a very vibrant area, Greektown, wonderful restaurants, wonderful bars and great food, and I encourage all people in this House to come to the Danforth and try the many, many varieties of foods and shops on that street. But I do recall that at the time there were people running around, and I helped, gathering petitions against boulevard cafés.

After I got elected, I chose to work with both the businesses and the residents to find compromises, because I believed it was important for businesses, the restaurants on the Danforth, in the summer hours to be able to have boulevard cafés. They're very popular. We all like on a summer's evening to go and sit outside at a café and watch the action around us.

I also had a lot of sympathy for the residents who had to deal with the noise, with patrons leaving the bar late at night, often drunk and unruly, certainly not in all the restaurants and bars, but there were a few that were problems. But even for the ones that did not have problem patrons, if you had a house literally right behind the bar on an abutting street, that could create really serious problems.

One of the compromises we came up with, for instance, was for the actual café itself to shut down a little earlier, before the 1 o'clock closing time. Those kinds of compromises were very important.

That is why I'm supporting this resolution. I don't know if my friends at city council will thank me for this if we support this bill today, because of course it places the problem squarely in their hands and they will have to deal with these same issues that I had to deal with around boulevard cafés and trying to mediate between and work with the residents and the businesses to reach reasonable solutions. But I do believe it is absolutely vital that the municipalities have this power.

I know that when I was the minister, I say to the member for Parkdale, on a couple of occasions I met with -- I don't know if you joined them at any time -- the local city councillor and people from that area who were very concerned. I don't know how big the problem continues to be in the west end, but in certain areas there were serious problems with bars, with drug dealing happening, and the residents were fed up. They were able to work with their city councillor, who came to petition me about this. They made it very clear at that time that they were not in favour of extending bar hours in their area. So their city councillor is very well aware of the problems that exist in that area.

It seems to make eminent sense to me that in areas where there have been problems and continue to be problems, the area councillor has the opportunity to work with the residents and the businesses and to work it out with city council on a very local level to determine what is best for their locality.

I understand that for the government it was a difficult problem. I had very mixed feelings about trying to determine the best thing to do with this issue. I know that had AMO and the police been satisfied that they could really control the situation, perhaps I might have moved in that direction, but certainly had I done so, I would have made it a municipal option for the reasons that I've stated.

I want to congratulate the member for Parkdale for bringing this before us today. I think it's eminently reasonable, and I expect over time, after bars have been open for a while until 2, the government will be hearing from people who would like to have the opportunity to deal with it on a municipal level, would like to have the opportunity to go down to their city council, to talk it over, to have deputations, to have hearings, and have the community itself decide whether it makes sense for them to go ahead with that option or not.

I believe we were the only province that still closed bars at 1 o'clock. I understand the pressures there and I understand the reasoning behind the Ontario Hotel and Motel Association wanting the extension. I believe they could live with the municipal option, because I'm sure in some cases the municipality would certainly go ahead and allow the extension.

So I do urge all members to support this bill today. I believe it is in the interests and the safety of our constituents to give the opportunity to municipalities to determine whether bars should be open until 2 in the morning.

Mr Jim Flaherty (Durham Centre): I rise today to speak to the honourable member for Parkdale's private member's Bill 51,

An Act to amend the Municipal Act, which would allow municipalities to pass bylaws that would restrict the sale and service of beverage alcohol in licensed establishments to 1 am daily and 2 am on New Year's Eve. The member's bill raises important issues which I would like to address. We have a number of concerns with the bill that has been introduced.

As all members of the House are aware, on April 17 my colleague the Honourable Norm Sterling, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, announced a number of changes under the Liquor Licence Act and the Liquor Control Act, including a later end-service time or closing time. Ontario's bars and restaurants now have the option, since May 1, of selling and serving beverage alcohol until 2 am daily and 3 am on New Year's Eve. As I say, that is only since the first day of this month of May 1996. Previously, Ontario had the earliest closing times and the earliest end-service times in Canada and among the earliest in the bordering American states.

The decision to extend the hours of bars and restaurants was influenced in part by the results of consultations with key stakeholders. The ministry also took into consideration the experience of other jurisdictions with later hours, as well as special events in our province which allowed later end-service. We had experience with that from later closing times at these special events; for example, the World Series, the du Maurier Jazz Festival and the Toronto International Film Festival.

This review did not suggest that Ontario would experience any significant problems arising from a one-hour extension of end-service times. Extending the hours of sale and service of alcohol in licensed establishments represents a first step towards updating Ontario's liquor regulations to reflect today's attitudes and the fact that most Ontarians are responsible users of beverage alcohol. A later end-service time will be good for the tourism and convention industries and will allow our hospitality sector to better compete for business with neighbouring jurisdictions which, as I say, have closing times that are now similar to our own.

The honourable member for Parkdale's private member's bill would give the municipalities the power to limit end-service times. During the consultation process with key stakeholders, options were considered which would have allowed municipalities some flexibility in determining end-service times. These options were rejected because of the potential problems that could arise.

Private member's Bill 51 is inconsistent with current, recently amended, regulations under the Liquor Licence Act which allow for a later end-service time in licensed establishments across the entire province of Ontario. It is also inconsistent with the traditional role of the province in the regulation and control of the sale and service of alcohol. This is an important responsibility for the province. The sale and service of liquor is the subject matter of provincial legislation under the Liquor Licence Act and the Liquor Control Act.

The province has traditionally occupied this field with respect to regulating the sale and service of liquor. The province should not, in my view, give up its jurisdiction over the regulation of the sale and service of alcohol in Ontario.

Since the regulations were amended May 1 of this year, one may ask what we have seen from practical experience, the pragmatic consequences of the regulation. What we have seen in the bordering areas, in the Ottawa area for example, is that more Ontario consumers of beverages are remaining on the Ontario side, spending their money on the Ontario side, rather than travelling across in that area to the Hull side.

More importantly, as we move into the summer season and into the cottage season in areas like the Ottawa Valley, where it has been common in the past for young people in particular, when the bars closed early in Ontario, to travel across distances of 10, 15 and 20 miles each way after having consumed beverages and returning to Ontario later, these excursions, because of the earlier drinking hours in Ontario, have resulted from time to time in carnage on the highways of Ontario in that area. These problems can and have been alleviated to some extent by the extension of the closing times in Ontario.

There are concerns with respect to municipal regulation relating to migration of drinkers across municipal boundaries, particularly in areas like the GTA where we have numerous municipalities and many city and town councils, each of which, if the honourable member's bill were to be passed, could be setting its own closing times, which would inevitably result in persons travelling on the highways from municipality to municipality, depending on whose drinking hours were later, from one closing time to the other.

In addition to the reality that this is an area of provincial jurisdiction, there is the local option that the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario takes into consideration when the concerns of residents are heard on licence applications and on licence renewals. We have a system in place now where local residents concerned about a particular establishment or a patio at a particular establishment have an option through the licensing process to make their views known and have a proper hearing on those views through that existing licensing process.

In addition, the regulation is not mandatory; that is, if a restaurant or bar owner wishes to close early, that restaurant or bar owner certainly has the option to close early.

The member for Parkdale raised the issue of the disruption of lives of persons living near open patio bars. Again I say in response that the LLBO takes into account the concerns of local residents, including residents who live near outdoor patios, when it considers liquor licence applications and applications for renewal of liquor licences.

For all of these reasons, I cannot support this private member's bill.

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I'm very happy to speak on this private member's bill our colleague the member for Parkdale has introduced. I wish to correct at the outset that, contrary to what perhaps erroneously the member for Durham Centre has said, this bill has nothing to do with the hours pertaining to serving liquor, wine or whatever in the various places. It is strictly giving the local municipalities the possibility to decide for themselves which locations are best suited for those particular hours. It has got nothing to do with serving until what time and so forth.

It is strictly giving the local municipality the possibility to decide what is best, which location is better suited, where this would not cause any problem for the abutting residential community.

Nothing angers residents more than the loss of privacy and enjoyment of their property. Contrary to some of the comments that this is restricted to bars along commercial strips and stuff like that, let me tell you that restaurants have a right to establish themselves in an industrial-commercial area. I'll give you an example in my own community. I have a huge industrial area which is next to residential communities. Those areas were established many years ago without any consideration for abatement of noise -- barriers, if you will, even a solid fence where at least the visual pollutants or complaints would be abated. There's nothing at all.

The presentation of Bill 51 comes from someone who has had municipal experience, the member for Parkdale. What he's saying, and it's very true, is that it is very difficult, unless the local municipality has the power to control situations like this, to eliminate the problem. I will give you an example. There have been restaurants next door, practically back to back with residential communities, and it's almost impossible to control what comes out at times from those establishments.

If you complain, often enough the local municipality does not even have enough inspectors to go quickly and inspect those particular locations. Once they do, they may lay charges. Once they go back time and time again to establish if indeed there are problems associated with that particular establishment causing trouble for that particular neighbourhood, once charges are laid, it will take forever to take them to court.

Once they go to court, you only need an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board just in case the decision should not be favourable to the establishment, and then again the residents are at the mercy of the law. So I think it is quite appropriate to let the local municipality decide what area would be better suited for this kind of establishment.

The consequences are enormous. As I said before, nothing angers the local residents, who pay high taxes, more than when in summertime they cannot enjoy the outdoors, the backyard of their own homes. Wintertime is wintertime; in summertime people should be entitled to peace and quiet enjoyment of their property.

As I said, especially in my area we have a huge problem where years ago industrial areas were allowed to be built next to residential communities. Let alone that now residential areas are being annoyed to no end with respect to all kinds of noises, pollutants from industrial users, industrial factories which produce noises galore, which produce pollution to no end, either air or other chemical substances. In many cases, even garages are allowed to be located next to a residential community, and in the summer they work with the doors open facing the residential community. Know what? They even do spray painting outside. It's quite terrible.

Contrary to what the member for Riverdale was saying, that yes, indeed, the strip on Danforth is wonderful and we are dealing with bars in the open, we are dealing with bars located in an industrial area abutting a residential area.

This bill, which is well thought out, goes a long way to eliminating some of the most annoying problems that affect a residential community. I want to leave some time for other members of my caucus. I would also like to urge the members of the House, especially on the government side, to support the private member's bill introduced by the member for Parkdale.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I'm happy to rise and offer a few thoughts on this subject as well, but I have to say at the outset that I'm not sure where I stand on it. I'm not sure whether I support this bill or not, because I haven't had a chance to really get my fingers into it, get my head around it. I do suggest, though, in the interests of democracy, that it is really important that issues of this sort be raised and that they be debated in a public forum.

I don't know where this issue was addressed or talked about anywhere across this province. I heard the member for Durham Centre say there was public consultation with the major stakeholders. Who are those stakeholders? Who did they talk to? I don't know. I certainly wasn't invited into any meetings, and I know there was no discussion in my community about this.

The members for Parkdale and Riverdale raised some excellent questions out of their own experience and coming from their own constituencies. People are saying to them: "How does this affect me? How does this impact on our community? What's it going to do the moral fabric, the transportation issues, those kinds of things?" I really don't know.

I have to say, though, that this approach to doing government by this government doesn't at all surprise me, because it's typical of the way it operates. We wake up in the morning and listen to the radio and, bang, something new, something important that affects the constituents we all represent. Here it is, a new regulation, a new piece of legislation, and nobody's had a chance to talk to it, a chance to ask the very valuable questions that need to be asked, and it affects all of us. I don't think you guys understand that, that governing is a very sophisticated, complicated process and it takes a long time.

You do yourselves and the people you serve a real injustice when you don't take the time to think these things out and to answer, as much as you can, the questions posed by very sincere and interested and concerned citizens about some of these things.

It's like when I woke up that day in July 1995 to hear that a lot of my friends and neighbours were going to be denied almost a quarter of the money they need to put food on the table for their children, to pay the rent, to participate in the life of the community -- no consultation with anybody I know of around how much, how high, and how this is going to impact.

Did you know that taking 22% out of the pockets of the poorest in my community takes $2 million a month out of the economy of Sault Ste Marie, $2 million that is not being spent in the grocery stores and the malls of my community, with the impact that has on small business? That's an example of how something that seems to be in a silo over here all by itself, as a very direct issue you're trying to address, has far-reaching ramifications.

I suggest to you that this piece of work delivered by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations which we're speaking to today because the member for Parkdale brought it forward is just such an example.

I remember when we were dealing with the issue of Sunday shopping and the consultation that happened around that. My God, we were all over the province, we were battered hither and thither, and eventually we came to a conclusion. I remember walking up and down the main street in my own community listening to business people who were split on the issue. But eventually, after some time doing that, we did find a solution.

I say to the member for Parkdale, congratulations. It's great that we're talking about this this morning. I don't know how I'm going to vote yet, though. I'm still listening.

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): If there's any member of this House who can speak to wet/dry issues, I probably have the distinction of being able to speak out of both sides of my mouth. The fact is that High Park-Swansea still embraces one of the largest dry areas in Canada and it has been going through its own agony of decision-making about how it will engage in this issue of alcohol and licensed premises and so forth, and it's not an easy one to deal with.

As much as I share a concern reflected in the member for Parkdale's motion, I am puzzled by the motive. If the member chooses to help municipalities by way of this bill, of course his bill won't do it. And if he wants to help neighbourhoods, which I believe he does, his bill won't do it. If he really wanted to provide some assistance, he might be suggesting a way to bring about a wet/dry plebiscite once again.

Perhaps Parkdale and other areas of this municipality -- certainly having listened to his comments from Ila Bossons, the medical officer of health in the city of Toronto and so forth would lead me to believe that perhaps they'd like to move towards shortening of hours. They might even like to engage in a public debate on the ability of going dry, except for certain areas.

If that's the case, I suspect the minister would welcome that information, would welcome that kind of advice from municipalities. Indeed I would encourage the member to perhaps pursue that direction. But I'm curious. When the member for Parkdale was in cabinet, no motion of this sort came forward in terms of dealing with 10 o'clock or 11 o'clock. Only when we suddenly went to 2 o'clock -- that is a one-hour extension -- did the alarm bells ring.

I may suggest that everyone who has responded to the question of the extension of one hour has generally been very much in favour of that extension. I want to make it clear: There was consultation. The minister, when he made his statement to the House -- and I would suggest we go back and read that and ask him for further elaboration -- made it very clear there had been consultations. We're aware, for example, of the response from the Addiction Research Foundation, which had made some comments about the extension.

We're aware of the concerns expressed by the various stakeholders when we said, "Maybe we should leave it to local option" and what that would mean in terms of checkerboarding municipalities across this province, what it would mean to my colleague the member for Sault Ste Marie's municipality, which faces significant competition across the border, and that holds true for my colleagues from Ottawa and St Catharines and Niagara Falls and Windsor and elsewhere. They understand the importance, particularly when they speak passionately on behalf of their small businesses, what it means in terms of competition.

You find a way of trying to balance the importance of the hospitality industry, the importance of trying to provide some additional incentive for the tourism industry and all the jobs that creates, with the concern of balancing the rights of neighbourhoods.

That's where I have some concerns in favour of the motion brought forward by the member for Parkdale, because he quite rightly points out that there are some specific bars and restaurants that are not well controlled by the owners, where there is bad behaviour after hours, indeed even during hours, when patrons will go out -- we've had all kinds of examples of them going out and urinating on lawns and a range of other kinds of wrong behaviour around those establishments that are not well run.

In that regard, I think we have a reason, as a House, to say to the minister that we need to bring forward new legislation that will give control to the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario, the ability to go back and revisit those licences and perhaps withdraw those licences from circulation.

It is important for us to note that right now, for the member to effect the kind of protection he'd like to effect for his neighbourhoods, it would require a complete change for the entire municipality. You couldn't come along and simply say to this one restaurant, "You will have to close at 1 o'clock" -- although I point out that there is that kind of control right now for patios. I'm surprised the members are not aware of that. In fact, municipalities can put on different hours of operation for the outdoor patio.

Although that does not apply to the indoor operations, it does apply to the exterior, because there's real concern about how the outdoor patio, in terms of noise violation and so forth, may impact upon neighbourhood residential communities, and rightfully so.

It strikes me that we need to be moving in a direction of holding more and more accountable the men and women who hold licences for individual establishments and the way they conduct their business, to ensure that they are sensitive to the local neighbourhoods, to ensure that the local neighbourhoods have an opportunity to come back and hold accountable the operations of those establishments.

If this government, as former governments did, concurs that the holding of a liquor licence is a right, then I think we have also an equal right to hold them accountable on behalf of neighbourhoods for how they behave themselves, how they conduct their establishments and so forth.

For that reason, I find that this resolution put forward by the honourable member for Parkdale doesn't go nearly far enough in the area of individual controls on establishments by neighbourhoods that I would want to see put into place and that I would strongly support. I would welcome this member going back to city council perhaps and asking them if they'd care to make a resolution to bring forward to the government to allow the city of Toronto to close up operations at 1 o'clock, but I don't think it should come forward from a member of this House. I think that recommendation should come forward from the local councils if that is indeed their need.

More important, neighbourhoods have got to find legislation enabling them to have tighter control on local establishments that are not comporting themselves in the fashion they should, particularly those purely residential neighbourhoods that are being impacted negatively by operators of licensed establishments who are not giving due care and concern to the way they're operating. For that reason, I would welcome this member rethinking his bill and bringing forward one that has far more teeth in it to give greater effect to protection of neighbourhoods.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I'm very pleased to join this debate on an issue and general topic I feel very strongly about. There's something that has to be said first of all; that is, what the private member's bill is really asking for is municipal autonomy with respect to one hour -- one hour only. We're talking about whether a municipality should have the right to extend it from 1 am to 2 am. That's all we're talking about here. The minister, by regulation, has already extended it to 2 am, and we're just talking about rolling it back one hour; that's all the municipal power or autonomy we're talking about.

First of all, I think we should differentiate between two kinds of establishments in terms of drinking areas, bars and restaurants etc. You have the establishments located in many of our downtowns, the tourist areas in many of our communities, which are usually not in residential areas. I think those kinds of establishments have to be totally differentiated from the kind of drinking establishments located in residential areas.

I think it's fair to say that the establishments located in the downtowns, in the tourist areas, in the non-residential areas of our communities, are basically no problem as it relates to people being able to sleep at night, because they're not in residential areas. The problem from a municipal viewpoint has always come about in those areas where these establishments are located in residential areas, where the residential community is upset by some of the behaviour that some of the patrons may be involved in, either during the hours of operation or immediately after the hours of operation.

It's fair to say that the local municipality in those situations is probably the best to determine what is good for that community, after it's had complete consultation with the residents in that area. Certainly from my experience, and I'm sure the same thing applies to most of the other municipalities in this province, a municipality will not make a change in these areas without having full and open public consultation.

Which leads me to another issue, that I'm not sure what kind of consultation took place with the industry in this regard.

I find it very interesting that some of the golf courses, according to the latest media reports, are now saying, "We really didn't want to have this extension of people being able to drink on the courses while they're playing a game." It's also interesting to note from the letters I've received from my own community, from people who operate some of these establishments, that these people did not want to have it extended from 1 am to 2 am at all; they were all located, in this particular case, in the tourist parts of the city of Kingston.

I don't know who they consulted, but they certainly didn't consult the industry as a whole. It may have been just some representatives of that industry.

Dealing with a point the member from Swansea raised, the issuing and the holding of a liquor licence by an establishment is a privilege; it isn't a right. It's a privilege that once an establishment adheres to certain rules and regulations it's entitled to have the licence, but it's certainly not one that goes to them as of right.

It's very difficult to say, as the member for Oshawa said, "If an establishment wants to close, it can just close unilaterally." From a practical viewpoint, that happens in a situation where you may have one particular establishment with no others closely around. We all know, just from the pure notion of how competition works in any industry situation, that if you've got three or four bars closely located to one another and one of the owners unilaterally decided to close an hour early, in the long run that particular owner's business would be hurt quite substantially.

From a practical viewpoint, when you talk to the operators of these bars, it simply wouldn't work. The only way they can be competitive is to be open for as long a period of time as their competitors immediately next door.

What this basically boils down to is the whole issue of local autonomy. We have heard from this government, and certainly from the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, on numerous occasions since last September that he is a strong believer in local autonomy.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Please keep your tone down. Thank you.

Mr Gerretsen: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I appreciate your intervention in this regard because I'm sure the members opposite have an open mind on this issue and they have not decided which way to go on this particular motion until they've listened to all of the arguments, because that's what the people of Ontario expect. They expect, particularly during private members' hour, people to come here with an open mind to listen to the views on particular issues, issues that are of concern to us rather than of the government, so we can individually decide as to how we vote on one of these matters.

I'm sure that you have an open mind about it and that you will listen carefully not only to myself but to other people as well who will be speaking on this.

This is an issue of local autonomy. It's an issue that goes right to the heart of local government. Who is in the best position to determine what is good for a particular neighbourhood? Who is in the best position to determine whether or not, in this particular case, a bar should or should not be open past 1 o'clock in the morning and how that will affect the residential neighbourhoods or the people who live in the area?

It's very interesting. In the letters I received from the industry, there was a widely held view that those people who frequent these premises -- and in my particular case there are a lot of university students and college students involved.

They were of the opinion that instead of the students coming in at 10 o'clock and spending three hours there until 1 o'clock in the morning, what will probably happen is that they'll come in at 11 o'clock from now on and stay there until 2 in the morning, and that in the long run it really wasn't going to affect their business during most of the year all that much because the students would still drink the same amount of beer or fruit juice or whatever was their fancy at that time. And so a lot of the owners in my community felt they weren't going to be any better off than they are right now.

It's a question of local autonomy. Let's respect the wishes of the local councils. They are in the best position to hold meaningful public hearings.

Interjection: The local neighbourhoods, too.

Mr Gerretsen: Within the local neighbourhoods; that's correct. They are in the best position to hold meaningful public meetings so that they can get the input --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: There's too much noise. Please.

Mr Gerretsen: It's hard to believe, Mr Speaker, that on an issue like this which affects each and every one of your residential neighbourhoods, the members wouldn't listen more to what's being debated in this House. I certainly appreciate your intervention in that regard.

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): We listened to everybody else.

Mr Gerretsen: We sure listened to everybody else.

Let me just sum up by simply saying, give the local municipalities that have been longing for local autonomy in so many different areas over the last 20 or 30 years the right and the power to determine whether or not, in local residential neighbourhoods, bars should be open beyond 1 o'clock in the morning. That's the issue and that's what I urge the support on with this particular private member's bill.

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

Mr Ruprecht: I want to address myself quickly to the member for Durham Centre, who said there was indeed some consultation. If that's true, then how does he respond to the letter from the chair of the Ontario Neighbourhoods for Responsible Alcohol Sales and Service committee? She writes to us that she was never consulted. Where was this consultation? I'm really somewhat surprised.

The next item, the real puzzle, is the member for High Park-Swansea, who either hasn't been listening or doesn't understand the issue. He said, "When Mr Ruprecht was in cabinet, why didn't he introduce legislation on this point?" We didn't extend the hours then. If we had, we would have done something to address this imbalance. Then he said, "This doesn't go far enough." He wants to go further. He wants to have more teeth, he says. Give him the teeth, for God's sake.

What was promised here on February 1 by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations? He said he would redress this imbalance; he said he would do something about it. He was quoted in the newspaper as saying, "The residents deserve some sleep, and we should give municipalities the right to redress this issue of one hour." That's all we're asking: Give the local option the one hour.

Finally, have a look at this: In January 1996, the municipal option was included in the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario's hours of service survey. It was there, and the minister said, "Okay, you will have this option." Where is he today? I don't see him here. I don't see him answering that point. He made us a promise. In fact, he made all of us a promise, and not just the people who are represented today; he made all Ontarians a promise that he would redress this issue and he would do some common sense. Where, I ask you today, is the common sense? Where is it? Where is the balance of the books? There is no balance.

Today I ask of you: Do it right.

LABOUR UNION AND EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LA RESPONSABILITÉ FINANCIÈRE DES SYNDICATS ET DES ASSOCIATIONS D'EMPLOYÉS

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will deal first with ballot item number 31, standing in the name of Mr Gilchrist. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mr Gilchrist has moved second reading of Bill 53. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Thank you. Take your seats.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES MUNICIPALITÉS

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will now deal with ballot item number 32, standing in the name of Mr Ruprecht. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mr Ruprecht has moved second reading of Bill 51. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1203 to 1208.

LABOUR UNION AND EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LA RESPONSABILITÉ FINANCIÈRE DES SYNDICATS ET DES ASSOCIATIONS D'EMPLOYÉS

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Mr Gilchrist has moved second reading of Bill 53. All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing until their names are called.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Guzzo, Garry J.

Preston, Peter

Baird, John R.

Johnson, Bert

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Barrett, Toby

Jordan, Leo

Ross, Lillian

Beaubien, Marcel

Kells, Morley

Shea, Derwyn

Brown, Jim

Klees, Frank

Sheehan, Frank

Carroll, Jack

Leadston, Gary L.

Skarica, Toni

Chudleigh, Ted

Marland, Margaret

Smith, Bruce

Clement, Tony

Martiniuk, Gerry

Stewart, R. Gary

Doyle, Ed

Maves, Bart

Tascona, Joseph N.

Flaherty, Jim

Murdoch, Bill

Tilson, David

Ford, Douglas B.

Newman, Dan

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Fox, Gary

O'Toole, John

Wood, Bob

Galt, Doug

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Young, Terence H.

Gilchrist, Steve

Parker, John L.

Grimmett, Bill

Pettit, Trevor

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed to this motion will please rise and remain standing until your names are called.

Nays

Bradley, James J.

Gerretsen, John

McGuinty, Dalton

Brown, Michael A.

Gravelle, Michael

Miclash, Frank

Castrilli, Annamarie

Johnson, Ron

Phillips, Gerry

Christopherson, David

Kormos, Peter

Ruprecht, Tony

Churley, Marilyn

Lankin, Frances

Sergio, Mario

Colle, Mike

Marchese, Rosario

Silipo, Tony

Duncan, Dwight

Martin, Tony

Senior Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals (Mr Alex D. McFedries): The ayes are 43, the nays are 20.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Pursuant to standing order 96(k), the bill is referred to committee of the whole House.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES MUNICIPALITÉS

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Mr Ruprecht has moved second reading of Bill 51. All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing until their names are called.

Ayes

Bradley, James J.

Gerretsen, John

Martiniuk, Gerry

Brown, Jim

Gravelle, Michael

McGuinty, Dalton

Brown, Michael A.

Grimmett, Bill

Miclash, Frank

Castrilli, Annamarie

Klees, Frank

Murdoch, Bill

Christopherson, David

Kormos, Peter

Phillips, Gerry

Churley, Marilyn

Lankin, Frances

Ruprecht, Tony

Colle, Mike

Leadston, Gary L.

Sergio, Mario

Doyle, Ed

Marchese, Rosario

Silipo, Tony

Duncan, Dwight

Martin, Tony

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please rise and remain standing until your names are called.

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Johnson, Bert

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Baird, John R.

Johnson, Ron

Ross, Lillian

Barrett, Toby

Jordan, Leo

Shea, Derwyn

Beaubien, Marcel

Kells, Morley

Sheehan, Frank

Carroll, Jack

Marland, Margaret

Skarica, Toni

Chudleigh, Ted

Maves, Bart

Smith, Bruce

Clement, Tony

Munro, Julia

Stewart, R. Gary

Flaherty, Jim

Newman, Dan

Tascona, Joseph N.

Ford, Douglas B.

O'Toole, John

Tilson, David

Fox, Gary

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Galt, Doug

Parker, John L.

Wood, Bob

Gilchrist, Steve

Pettit, Trevor

Young, Terence H.

Guzzo, Garry J.

Preston, Peter

Senior Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals (Mr Alex D. McFedries): The ayes are 26, the nays are 38.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion lost.

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I wonder if I might ask the unanimous consent of the House to refer Bill 53 to the standing committee on general government.

The Acting Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

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

The House recessed from 1217 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

KAKABEKA FALLS

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): That roar you're hearing from Kakabeka Falls, known everywhere as the Niagara of the North, is the rally cry of consumers angry at this government's new user fee policies. Under a proposal put forward by the newly created Ontario Parks, a parking fee will now be applied to Kakabeka Falls in my riding starting this Saturday, June 1.

This is another attack on the north by the same government that earlier this year tried to slap a boaters' fee on American tourists on Lake Superior, a fee that would not have been applied anywhere else in the province. This new user fee on the falls will do nothing but discourage people from visiting this natural wonder, in many cases because they now simply won't be able to afford it.

All members of this House should know that 90,000 vehicles, carrying hundreds of thousands of tourists, visited the falls last year. Now, instead of encouraging the positive aspects of this remarkable northwestern Ontario tourist attraction, this government plans to nickel and dime tourists away.

As per this government's usual company policy, nobody bothered to ask the people of Kakabeka Falls what they thought of this plan. They didn't ask restaurateurs, retailers or gas station operators what effect this user fee will have on the 200 employees of this community who rely on that traffic every year. They didn't ask the people of Thunder Bay, who frequently enjoy the splendour of the falls on a weekend outing.

This is a bad decision that will hurt the economy and cause job losses. It is a decision that should be reversed.

ITALIAN NATIONAL DAY

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): It is with pride that I stand today to mark the anniversary on June 2, this coming Sunday, of the 50th anniversary of the Italian republic. In the 50 years since Italy has moved from a constitutional monarchy to a republic following the Second World War, the country has also grown into one of the most advanced in the world in a number of ways.

Particularly what I want to pay tribute to today is the spirit of the people of Italian background who have overcome first of all in the fight against fascism and then in the fight against poverty which saw the exodus, from southern Italy particularly, of thousands and thousands of people of Italian background to many parts of the world and certainly to Canada and Ontario.

We know the great contribution Italian Canadians have made to life in this province and in this country. Certainly they have helped to build and are now participating fully in the political, social and economic life of this country.

On Sunday, it will be with great pride that I will be celebrating that spirit of pride in our roots and fierceness in our Canadian belonging in events organized in my own riding of Dovercourt by the Corso Italia Business Association on St Clair Avenue and in Earlscourt Park. It is very much that spirit of overcoming all odds, that spirit of family and commitment to family and community that very much marks Canadians of Italian origin throughout Canada, that we will also be celebrating together.

OWEN SOUND COLLEGIATE AND VOCATIONAL INSTITUTE

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): I rise today to offer congratulations to the OSCVI, which is celebrating 140 years of educating the young people of Grey county. In 1856, the Owen Sound high school opened its doors and has been busy ever since preparing teenagers for the challenges of the outside world.

To mark the occasion, OSCVI held a special reunion weekend which drew past graduates from as far away as New Zealand, California, Arizona, Vancouver and Taiwan. Close to 10,000 people were in Owen Sound to show their school spirit, meet with old friends and find out which path their lives took after graduation. Festivities included an open house, a picnic, decade parties, an assembly and a parade downtown. To show that some things never change, a dance was held for young and old graduates.

Part of the high school reunion was another reunion. The Tombstones, which I had the pleasure of managing, got together to pump out a set of classic blues. The seven-man band first banged out rock and roll on the OSCVI stage during a school assembly in 1965 and quickly gained a local following playing many high school dances. The band's last performance was OSCVI's 125th anniversary 15 years ago, but they were ready to go again when asked to perform. The band used to drive an old hearse to each performance. The band found it in the town of Ingersoll, which was courteous enough to lend it to us for the weekend.

Seeing eight aging rockers with a hearse on a flatbed truck was a big hit at the parade.

OSCVI could not have asked for a better 140th birthday weekend. As a former --

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The member's time has expired.

ADULT EDUCATION

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I recently met with a group of students from Emery Collegiate in my district of Yorkview and discussed several cuts to adult education programs in the province.

Students all across the province are deeply concerned with the government's plan to dismantle existing adult education programs in Ontario. The students' main concern centres on the fact that these supposed cost-saving measures will end up costing taxpayers more money in the long run. By cutting the existing programs, adult students will remain in the system that much longer, and the longer the students remain in the system, the more costly it will be to educate them, especially single mothers on social assistance.

The students are not asking for much. The program offers them the chance to complete their high school education and in many instances upgrade essential skills such as literacy and computer skills, real skills which could lead to a real job.

The Premier once stated that he wanted to give social assistance recipients a hand up, not a handout. I can't think of a better example of a hand up than adult education programs, nor can I think of a better example of a broken promise than the plans to eliminate adult education programs in the province of Ontario.

NATIONAL GYMNASTICS CHAMPIONSHIPS

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Sault Ste Marie is doing it again. This week we are playing host to another national-calibre competition. We are rolling out the red carpet for the national gymnastics championships in our community. Literally hundreds of volunteers have spent hours and hours over the last weeks and months preparing for this wonderful event.

I had the pleasure of participating in the official opening ceremonies with our new mayor, Steve Butland, this past Monday at city hall as we welcomed these people who will be giving their best throughout this week at the Memorial Gardens in my community, in our city.

But you know, this is old hat for us now in the Sault. We've done it before. Our reputation precedes us. We are talked of by those who put these events on as knowing what we're doing, as being one of the best. This is the third competition of a national calibre that we've hosted over the last 10 years. We hosted the Briar, which is the national curling championships, and we hosted the Memorial Cup, the national championship for junior hockey.

In Sault Ste Marie we pride ourselves in being naturally gifted. It was only natural, then, that we would have presiding over these games one of our own who has made a name for herself: Roberta Bondar. She was there on Monday. We were all there Monday welcoming these folks, and we're going to show them a good time.

CANADA FLAG DAY FESTIVAL

Mr Ed Doyle (Wentworth East): It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak about the commemoration of an historic event that took place in my riding of Wentworth East some 183 years ago.

This weekend, the residents of Stoney Creek will be hosting the 28th year of their annual Canada Flag Day Festival. This festival, which was the first ever to be held by a municipality in Canada, celebrates our flag and our country.

Every year since its creation, the flag day festival has taken place on the weekend close to June 6. The people of my community selected this date in order to remember the June 6, 1813, battle of Stoney Creek in which our soldiers, both British and native, fell protecting our territory from invasion by the American forces during the War of 1812. It was this pivotal battle that led to the victory in the War of 1812 and in turn was a contributing factor in the eventual establishment of this great country, Canada.

The days will be filled with parades, re-enactments of the historic battle and good food and fellowship as well. This weekend I invite you all to Stoney Creek to participate in this slice of our history.

ERIN WOODLEY

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): Central Public School in the town of Sioux Lookout will be watching this year's Atlanta Olympics with great interest. Through the adopt-an-athlete challenge sponsored by the Canadian Olympic Association and funded by Stentor Alliance, Central Public School has adopted its own Canadian Olympic athlete. The challenge was designed by the Canadian Olympic committee to encourage Canadian students to follow, support and learn about a Canadian Olympic athlete.

I am told that Central Public School's athlete is Erin Woodley, a synchronized swimmer from Calgary. Ms Woodley is already a Commonwealth Games gold medalist in the duet category. Sioux Lookout students are very excited about the program and were delighted to welcome Ms Woodley to their school last Monday. Ms Woodley spoke to two morning assemblies at the school and spent the afternoon with the grades 4 and 6 classes.

Only 160 schools from across the country were accepted into the adopt-an-athlete program, and I am delighted that Sioux Lookout's Central Public School was one of those accepted. I know students in Sioux Lookout will be watching the progress of their adopted Olympic athlete in Atlanta with great excitement, and we wish her all the very best wishes as she competes on behalf of Canada.

STREET YOUTH

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): All of Ontario was or certainly ought to have been shocked by the brutal assassination last week of three young people on the streets of Toronto. Any untimely death, and especially those that are caused by the viciousness and malevolence of the perpetrator of these murders, has to be condemned in the strongest terms.

One is drawn, though, to a closer and more intense observation of the growing numbers of young people who are becoming marginalized. We witness the phenomenon of young people as squatters, the phenomenon of young people as so-called street people. One hopes the tragedy of the murder of these three youngsters last week isn't diminished by the fact that they were drawn into or compelled for whatever reason to participate in prostitution, or the sex trade, as it's called, or that they had sexualities or gender biases that were different from some people.

It does require us, however, to focus on a phenomenon that's occurring in increasing numbers, and I believe this Legislature is obligated to address the issue of the marginalization of young people, to address the issue of the dangers that young people are facing on our streets, whether they're engaging in the so-called sex trade or not, and to respond appropriately to ensure that this society indeed meets their needs as well.

AMYOTROPHIC LATERAL SCLEROSIS

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I rise today to speak about amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, also known as ALS or Lou Gehrig's disease. Imagine not being able to walk, write, smile, talk, eat and sometimes even breathe on your own, and yet your mind and senses remain unaffected. This is what having ALS is like for over 3,000 Canadians who suffer from this disease.

It can strike anyone and results in complete paralysis and death, generally within two to three years of diagnosis. Two to three Canadians die every day from ALS. Several years ago my father succumbed to this disease. I therefore personally know the pain victims and their families go through as they deal with ALS.

Although promising research studies are being conducted, there is still no known cure.

Across Ontario, and in fact Canada, June is ALS Awareness Month. Throughout the month, volunteers will be canvassing in malls and public areas to raise funds to fight this devastating disease. All funds raised will be spent on ALS scientific research.

In my community, the Optimist Club of Orangeville and the Knights of Columbus, along with other community volunteers, will be selling cornflowers and hosting a barbecue at the Orangeville Mall. One person in my community, Lynn Frenette, has been working for many years locally to raise awareness of ALS. I would like to congratulate her on her efforts. I encourage all Ontarians to make generous donations to the ALS Society.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): I'd like to inform the Legislative Assembly that we have in the Speaker's gallery today Ms Pam Jefcoat, Ms Tanya Garcia, Mr Greg Gowe, Mr Kevin Moorhead and Mr Tom Syer, legislative interns from the province of British Columbia. Welcome to our guests.

OPPOSITION DAY MOTIONS

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Members will be aware that there appear on today's Orders and Notices paper two notices of an opposition day to be debated next week.

Under standing order 42(d), the Speaker is required to select one of these notices for consideration, taking into account the order in which they were rec