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

July 9, 1992

35th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

PLANT CLOSURE

Mr Bradley moved resolution 13:

That, in the opinion of this House, since General Motors announced its intention on February 24 of this year to close its St Catharines foundry eliminating over 2,000 employment positions in addition to 750 women and men who were to be laid off indefinitely as of March 1 and over 100 people who will lose their jobs as a result of the decision to discontinue the 3.1-litre V-6 engine; and

Since the St Catharines General Motors foundry is a cost-competitive, world-class, high-quality operation with a highly skilled and motivated workforce; and

Since the loss of these jobs will mean the loss of $130 million in wages and salaries to the economy of the Niagara region and the province of Ontario; and

Since the implications for businesses and industries that service and supply the auto sector are extremely negative and serious; and

Since whenever a production line and a significant part of a plant shuts down, the fixed cost of maintaining the rest of the operation increases and the quality of components from elsewhere cannot be guaranteed;

The Legislative Assembly of Ontario should urge General Motors to continue the operation of its foundry in St Catharines.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 94(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation. I will then continue in rotation after that, with 15 minutes for each party.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I appreciate the opportunity to speak to my resolution today, although I wish that I did not have to introduce such a resolution. This is a matter which has united the members from the Niagara region, the member for St Catharines-Brock, the member for Lincoln, the member for Niagara Falls, the member for Niagara South and the member for Welland-Thorold. All of us are affected and the people we represent are drastically affected by what is dealt with in this particular resolution.

As members from the Niagara Peninsula we are determined, as I am sure all members of the House are, to ensure that the Legislative Assembly will be aware of the problem confronting St Catharines and the automotive industry in the province of Ontario and that we will do whatever we can to ensure that those problems are on the front burner as far as this Legislature is concerned. Of course, the purpose of this resolution is to attempt to convince General Motors that with the support of all members of this House we wish General Motors to keep open its foundry in the city of St Catharines.

The private members' hour allows us an opportunity -- and it's done by a lottery, for those who are perhaps viewing today and are not aware of it. Today I have an opportunity, as a result of that lottery, to introduce something of importance to me. I can think of nothing more important to the community of St Catharines than the more than 3,000 jobs which will be lost in our community.

The role of members is to emphasize what is important not only for the province but in particular for our individual communities. We are elected in electoral districts. People there expect us to reflect their views and to bring to the attention of our colleagues the problems that confront us and to deal with those problems in an appropriate fashion. This resolution will allow all of us in the Niagara Peninsula and others who have a special interest to participate today.

Last fall members will recall I was raising, particularly in December of that year, in speeches and in questions to various ministers, including the Premier, the potential problems that would be confronting the automotive industry in the province of Ontario and, to be parochial, the problems that would be confronted in St Catharines. One does not want to be an accurate prophet in matters of these kinds, but I recall asking the Premier about the future of the foundry in St Catharines and the engine plant in St Catharines at that time and directing questions, I believe to the Treasurer and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

Those of us who have followed the auto industry, and that certainly includes everyone who represents an area that has a significant auto factor, were aware that there was an overcapacity crunch coming in North America. All the predictions were there. People within the trade union movement, people within the industry, those who watch economically the province of Ontario and North America as a whole recognized that there were going to be problems arising.

The ominous sign, as far as I was concerned in December last year, and a very obvious sign, was that Robert Stempel in the United States announced that some 74,000 jobs would be eliminated and several plants closed in General Motors operations to put them in a better business position. One can figure out, because he did indicate at that time, that operations in both Canada and the United States would be affected. One could conclude that the potential was there to affect Ontario operations. Certainly time told us that it did affect one Ontario operation rather drastically.

Anyone who has kept a close watch on the North American market and on the auto industry worldwide knows this crisis isn't over. The announcement was made of some 14,000 job losses, and I calculate that leaves about 60,000 jobs to be eliminated yet. We're not talking about statistics. Those who have worked in industry, those who have been part of job losses, those who have represented ridings where people have lost their jobs know we're not talking about simple statistics.

We're talking about women and men who are our neighbours, our friends, our relatives, acquaintances, people we know in the community, people we see at the supermarket, people we see at the hockey arenas, people we see throughout the Niagara Peninsula and beyond our borders. These are people who have relied upon the automotive industry, have invested their talents, have invested their time, have made a personal commitment to the automotive industry, and they are people who hope their jobs could be protected by developing good markets, by government policies which will be conducive to that.

We recognize that there is a worldwide problem out there, that the competition is stiff throughout North America and throughout the world. That is why our industry in St Catharines, our foundry in St Catharines, our engine plant and our components plants have all endeavoured to become exceedingly competitive, exceedingly efficient. We have in St Catharines what I consider to be, and I am sure it's an evaluation which is shared by my colleagues, a world-class foundry, a top-notch foundry. We have a highly skilled and highly motivated workforce working in that foundry and the adjacent engine plant and of course in the components plants in other parts of the city.

People then would be justifiably surprised that when General Motors was making its choice of eliminating plants and eliminating jobs, it would select the St Catharines foundry and the St Catharines engine plant for the loss of those jobs. But previous to that, and I think this is important for members to note, because we in the Niagara Peninsula know this, early in 1992, early this year, there was an announcement of some 750 indefinite layoffs at General Motors to take effect about March 1.

I don't want to say these people have been forgotten, but the emphasis has been on the 2,300 jobs that will be lost as a result of parts of the engine plant and the foundry closing. Somehow these 750 people on indefinite layoff -- and those of you who have worked in a plant, have been part of the trade union movement or in management know what the word "indefinite" means. It's a very ominous word; you'd rather have a definite time where there's a layoff and ability to come back. Those people have lost their jobs. That's why we total over 3,000 jobs lost in our community.

I had hoped that when I raised this issue, and it's a very difficult issue to deal with in December, that we would see those signs. The reason for raising it with the ministers and the Premier was to make those contacts with General Motors to tell them, as all of us here feel, that we have good plants here in the province of Ontario and our operation should be kept going.

What was particularly disappointing, I think, to workers in our plants was the fact that we in Canada in General Motors had shown a profit of $323.3 million for the year 1991. Usually when you're making a profit, when you've got an operation which is efficient and when you have a highly skilled, highly trained and motivated workforce, you can anticipate that you are not going to be directly affected by layoffs. But on that fateful day -- all of my colleagues in the House would know -- of Monday, February 24, 1992, the announcement was made.

It's a bare announcement to come to people, but it certainly shocked our community. It was a very difficult day for those who worked in the plant, for the members of city council, regional council and those of us who sit here from the Niagara Peninsula.

All of us wondered why we in St Catharines would be affected by this. It did not make sense to us that St Catharines would be affected. That is why I brought forward this resolution today, to ask members of the House to join those of us from St Catharines, to join the Fight Back Committee of the Canadian Auto Workers Local 199, to join those in the industry who are interested -- the chamber of commerce, the business associations in St Catharines, all citizens of St Catharines -- in asking that General Motors reconsider its decision and keep that operation open.

We must recognize that when the foundry goes down it has reverberations throughout the plant. This has been pointed out in Local 199 News. Sandy O'Dell, who is heading up the Fight Back Committee in the Local 199 News, has outlined clearly in an

article he wrote what the ramifications are throughout the plant:

"It means that you cannot control the quality of the products coming in. It means that the components that you're going to utilize in your plant are going to cost more because you have to transport them there and it may come from a less efficient facility."

For this reason I have introduced this resolution and hope to gain support -- I anticipate the full and unanimous support -- of members of this House. Later on during the debate I'll have an opportunity to elaborate on this matter and deal with other issues related to this. I look forward to hearing members of the House and look forward to their support for this resolution.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): The member for St Catharines' resolution this morning pertains directly to General Motors' decision last February to close its St Catharines foundry.

The member wants the Legislative Assembly to urge General Motors to continue operation of its foundry in St Catharines for the following reasons: The decision to close the foundry will eliminate well over 2,000 jobs; the St Catharines foundry is a -- and I quote from the resolution -- "cost-competitive, world-class, high-quality operation with a highly skilled and motivated workforce"; the loss of these jobs will cost the local economy close to $130 million; whenever a significant part of a production line closes down, the costs of maintaining the rest of the operation and the quality of components from elsewhere cannot be guaranteed, and the repercussions for other businesses and industries that supply the auto sector could be devastating.

This resolution should be supported because of the great history and economic significance of the auto industry in St Catharines. The garden city of St Catharines has deep traditions rooted in the auto industry. The closing of the foundry could be the first of many cuts that eventually drive the auto sector from St Catharines and area.

The downsizing of General Motors has rippled, and will ripple, throughout the auto sector in Ontario. The town of Collingwood, which I have the privilege to represent, has plants such as the Libbey Owens Ford Glass of Canada plant, the Goodyear hose plant and Reynolds-Lemmerz, which rely on a thriving auto industry.

As many members of this Legislature are aware, because I have raised this issue several times in the House, the town of Collingwood has been ravaged by the current economic recession. In 1990 the town of Collingwood, which is about one tenth the size St Catharines, lost close to 2,000 manufacturing jobs because of plant closings and layoffs through downsizing. Not only did this take a whopping bite out of the town's tax base, but morale in the town was at an all-time low. The morale was even lower than at the time the Collingwood shipyards closed, because the recession forced cutbacks in other sectors such as retail and home building, which meant workers had nowhere to turn.

One of my first acts as the member of provincial Parliament for Simcoe West was to urge the NDP government to do what it could to save the jobs of workers at the Harding Carpets plant in Collingwood. Through the Ontario Development Corp, I was pleased to announce that we were able to save many of these jobs at Harding Carpets.

However, the unemployment situation in the Collingwood area remains high, largely because of policies by the current government and its Liberal predecessors. While I support the resolution of the member for St Catharines, I find it ironic that a Liberal member would suddenly be interested in saving jobs and plants. When we look at the record, "irony" is certainly the word that comes to mind.

It was the Liberals who increased taxes at an unprecedented rate, introducing 33 new taxes over their five years in government. It was the Liberals who introduced the employer health levy, which represented one more reason why industry would want to leave Ontario and why industry would not even consider locating in Ontario. It was also the Liberals who let our infrastructure slip, which meant our transportation routes and our hydro rates are now less attractive to industry than they were during 42 years of PC government.

The NDP has followed the Liberal tendency to tax anything that moves. As well, this government has introduced its labour law reforms, which are costing, and will cost, more jobs in Ontario. Investors throughout the world now see Ontario as being closed for business.

The NDP, which came to power claiming to represent the interests of workers, has only served to deal further injury to workers. With its misguided economic policies, the NDP government has thrust worker after worker on to Ontario's unemployment rolls and stripped each individual of the dignity that accompanies meaningful employment.

The following is a list of companies that were driven out of Ontario last year or downsized because they found it difficult to compete after six years of successive taxing and spending policies of the Liberals and the NDP. As the member for St Catharines has made us all aware with his resolution, when a company leaves, there is a significant impact in a community and a rippling effect throughout the province. The following is that partial list of companies and businesses that have left or downsized in the last year:

Adtek Pipe and Tube Inc, 54 jobs; AKZO Coatings Ltd, 29 jobs; Amdahl Communications Ltd, 48 jobs; Ball Packaging Products Canada Inc, 61 jobs; BASF Canada Inc, 59 jobs; ASEA Brown Boveri Inc, 57 jobs; Canada Packers Inc, 125 jobs; Canadian Pacific Forest Products Ltd, 120 jobs; Caterpillar of Canada Ltd, 430 jobs; CCL Custom Manufacturing, 205 jobs lost; Central Soya of Canada Ltd, 65 jobs; Colorization Inc, 124 jobs; Commander Electrical Equipment Inc, 23 jobs; Corning Canada Inc, 134 jobs;

Fame Furniture Co Ltd, 50 jobs; Friskies Pet Care Products, 137 jobs; Grace Meat Packers, 97 jobs; Holiday Inn Canada Inc, 79 jobs eliminated through downsizing; IMI Cornelius Canada Inc, 52 jobs lost; Ingersoll-Rand Canada Inc, 19 jobs; Inglis Ltd, 285 jobs; J. Pascal Inc, Scarborough, 76 jobs; J. Pascal Inc, Brampton, 54 jobs; J. Pascal Inc, Mississauga, 49 jobs; J. Pascal Inc, Thornhill, 63 jobs; J. Pascal Inc, Newmarket, 54 jobs; Kellogg Canada Inc, 118 jobs;

Maclean Hosiery Co Ltd, 75 jobs; Murata Erie North America Ltd, 47 jobs; Norgraphics Canada Ltd, 62 jobs; Peel County Restaurant, 75 jobs; Rockwell International of Canada Inc, 191 jobs; Safeco Manufacturing Ltd, 57 jobs; Service Corp, 77 jobs; Sklar-Peppler Furniture Corp, 55 jobs; Skyline Triumph Hotel, 200 jobs; Southam Murray Printing, 445 jobs; Superior Performance Products (Canada) Inc, 106 jobs;

The Poultry Co, 158 jobs lost; The Windsor Arms Hotel, 92 jobs; Bundy Corp, 254 jobs; Cambrian Footwear Inc, 150 jobs; Domtar Inc, 97 jobs; Greb Inc, 222 jobs; Joseph Ingram and Sons, 124 jobs; Komdresco Canada Inc, 118 jobs; Novacor Chemical Ltd, 55 jobs; Newlands Inc, 42 jobs; Rockwell International of Guelph, 30 jobs; Rockwell International of Cambridge, 53 jobs; Tracon Engineering Inc, 75 jobs; WCI Manufacturing Ltd, 198 jobs.

Other plant closings include A&P retail stores; Amstel Brewery of Canada Ltd; Beatrice Foods; Bendix Safety Restraints Ltd in Collingwood, which this House has heard so much about; Fabulous Formals in Midland; Flex Technologies Ltd in Barrie; General Tire Canada Inc in Barrie, which cost 867 jobs, and Rudy Huffen Ltd in Orillia, just to name a few.

There are still many more firms that left Ontario last year. This represents a tragic and shameful record for a government that claims to represent workers.

I support the member for St Catharines' resolution because after 21 months of NDP government rule, one characteristic towers over all the others, and that is that the NDP in government is vastly different than the NDP in opposition, and workers in Ontario have been left to fend for themselves.

During the last election, the now Premier, Bob Rae, made a point of telling anyone who would listen that his party had a corner on compassion. Perhaps Bob Rae would now like to explain to my constituent, Mr Charles Hawton of Collingwood, whatever happened to the NDP's monopoly on compassion.

Mr Hawton is 63 years old. He was one of the many Harding Carpets workers in Collingwood who were laid off last year. Mr Hawton applied for benefits under the program for older worker adjustment but was refused earlier this month. He was refused not because he didn't qualify under POWA. Mr Hawton, as I said, is 63. He has been employed for 15 out of the last 20 years, which qualifies him for the program, and the layoff he was involved in had a significant impact upon the community, another criterion met. His age makes his chances of re-entry into the workforce prohibitive at best.

The Minister of Labour refused Mr Hawton because not enough workers between the ages of 55 and 64 were involved in this layoff. As a result, Mr Hawton will be forced to go without, even though other older workers in Collingwood, particularly those who were laid off at Bendix, are now collecting POWA benefits.

The rationale behind this decision is callous, appalling and at best perverse. The NDP government has now become so wedded to rules that it has forgotten to consider basic common sense and humane compassion. As a result of this decision Mr Hawton, who is an older, unemployed worker, cannot receive benefits simply because he's caught in a numbers' game and the numbers do not add up in his favour.

It appears the government has to have a certain number, and it has to be a high number, of people laid off before it's willing to take action. It's a far cry from the days gone past when we prided ourselves, as did the other party in this Legislature, to the point where we were looking for fewer workers laid off, hopefully none, and where when one or two were laid off benefits were available.

Over the past 21 months we've heard and read a lot about the NDP's commitment to labour in Ontario. However, this commitment to labour is more accurately portrayed as a willingness to enhance the power of union bosses at the expense of ordinary workers in this province.

Recently the Ontario Ministry of Labour disputed the application of four workers at Arnott Construction in Collingwood to be decertified from their union, the Labourers' International Union of North America. The labour board scheduled two hearings, one last Friday and a second one, if necessary, tomorrow.

However, these four workers, who work and live in the Collingwood area, were forced to travel to Midland at their own expense, highly inconvenient and a highly suspicious decision by the labour board. The reason given by the board to hold the meeting in Midland as opposed to a more logical and practical meeting spot in Collingwood, where it would be easier for workers and their representatives to appear, was that Collingwood lacked proper meeting accommodations. That is ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous. The largest tourism spot in Ontario doesn't have proper accommodation for a meeting? "Ridiculous" is the only word I'm polite enough to use this morning.

It would appear that the Ministry of Labour is more concerned about making life difficult for these workers, whose only crime is that they want to get out of the union because they don't agree with it. This episode, I claim, is consistent with the NDP's policy to prop up union bosses through labour law reforms rather than doing what is best for labour, and that is creating an economic climate that results in the number one priority for workers across this province: jobs and job security.

I will be supporting this resolution this morning because I believe in maintaining jobs and I believe the greatest dignity we can give our fellow human beings is the opportunity for employment. I wish the government shared that belief. I wish they'd find the compassion they claim to have and help workers like Mr Hawton, and be conciliatory to workers who want to leave their union because they feel it's best for their own economic security. But I fear this government doesn't listen. It continues to drive ahead with a pro-union-boss agenda and is ignoring the very workers who put it in power.

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): I rise to support this resolution. I personally thank Mr Bradley, the member for St Catharines, for raising an extremely important issue for my community and really for all of the Niagara Peninsula. The members for all of the Niagara Peninsula, as he has so ably pointed out, support his resolution and in fact have been working behind the scenes on many occasions to make sure that the jobs in this community, the city of St Catharines, are assured. Let us all be very clear that the foundry, which is in my riding, affects the entire Niagara peninsula.

I would also like to take this time to remind viewers and members of this House that this factory has a long history in the community. Generations have earned their living at MacKinnons, which was the predecessor to General Motors. For more than 100 years, the auto industry has been a mainstay of the community and the peninsula. Those of us who have taken up the political banner know how widespread the net of employment is tossed in the peninsula, and I know that as many as 12,000 people will be affected by the 3,000 jobs lost. So it is of great concern for all of us to realize how much the economy of the peninsula will be affected by this one announcement in February.

Let us be clear that major purchases, be they houses, cars or refrigerators, are currently not being made in the same way that the business community of St Catharines has become accustomed to. There is a high anxiety level because many people believe that another shoe is going to drop.

My personal concern is that the kind of quality work the foundry and its employees have done, and are doing in reality as we speak, hasn't been recognized by head office in Detroit. The frustration level of the workers is very high. They have taken great pride in their work. They know their productivity is high. They have in fact been very innovative.

Let's be clear that the foundry will be cannibalized. There are machines and technologies that are being moved out, as we speak, to provide the means for the factory at Saginaw, Michigan, to produce the kinds of products we have so ably produced in St Catharines. The morale of workers, as a result of seeing this cannibalization taking place, is low.

As the member for St Catharines has also pointed out, there is an awful lot of groundwork that has to be done to make sure the quality of the work is maintained over the next few years until the final closure is complete. It is absolutely crucial that a high-quality product is maintained because, not only for the next two years but in the whole Save the Foundry campaign, we really have to continue to convince the company we can produce a good product.

I hope everyone remembers that the Canadian arm of General Motors made $340 million for the company; that's profit, ladies and gentlemen. It is a positive sign that this company and other plants within this province and within Quebec can in fact produce good product. It is recognized worldwide, yet what happens? General Motors in Detroit has decided to close a productive plant in St Catharines.

I would also remind members of this House that the employees, the members of Canadian Auto Workers Local 199, and the management team as well have responded time and time again to the demands for increased productivity. I'd like to take this opportunity to place on the record again the $340 million worth of profit for General Motors, and I would like to echo my continued disappointment that the company has not revised its decision to keep the foundry open. This is a profitable plant.

I echo my sentiments, again with my brothers and sisters at CAW 199 and my colleagues in this House, to continue their efforts to save the foundry. I know all members of this House representing the Niagara ridings are working to change the mind of General Motors. Let me also remind the member on the Conservative side that CAW 199 supports this government's changes to the Ontario Labour Relations Act.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Bradley, do you wish to do it now? No. The member for Lincoln.

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): Mr Speaker, I have a real interest in the resolution of Mr Bradley, the member for St Catharines. I happen to have 26 years' seniority at General Motors and I need four more years in order to retire. If I'm not successful in my next run to be here in the government, I'll be back at General Motors, and if this happens, it doesn't guarantee that I'll be back at General Motors.

I'm a stationary engineer, which is a special trade, and if they cut down in the powerhouse, I'll get eliminated, even though I've got 26 years' seniority. So I have a real concern with this. Not only that, being elected, coming here, these people at General Motors are looking to me to speak out for them in the Legislature to protect their jobs.

I have to disagree with the member for Simcoe West when he's talking about unions. Maybe he's never worked at that plant, but there are people like Sandy O'Dell, Ron Davis and Gabe McNally who are meeting with the company, they're meeting with the chamber of commerce, they're meeting with the community on how to save the foundry and General Motors in St Catharines. If the member ever has a chance to come down to St Catharines to one of the meetings, I would welcome him to come with me and with other members of the Niagara area.

The one thing we have to take a look at is that General Motors is the engine of the Niagara Peninsula. Everyone somehow depends on General Motors of St Catharines in the Niagara Peninsula. Taxes that are paid in Welland, the wages come from St Catharines, General Motors. It doesn't matter whether you live in Wainfleet or you live in Dunnville or you live in Grimsby or you live in Lincoln, it has an influence on the economy in the Niagara Peninsula.

The one thing is, right now a lot of the GM workers just received their holiday pay and in a lot of the stores the economy picks up for the couple of weeks in July when everybody gets their vacation pay. A lot of them spend it in the Niagara Peninsula; they don't take it outside the Niagara Peninsula.

The other thing too is that there are a lot of jobs in the foundry that will disappear. Where are iron pourers going to get another job as an iron pourer or a patternmaker? Even though the man has 28 years, it doesn't mean he's going to get a job down the road as a patternmaker or an iron pourer. Those jobs aren't all over in Ontario; they are very few. So we have a very special industry there in St Catharines.

I've travelled for General Motors, I've been to Saginaw, I've been to the plant in Buffalo, and the plant we have in St Catharines is superior to all of those plants. That is the cleanest foundry you'll find in any foundry throughout North America. The people who worked in there made it that way, improved it. The production at that plant was the first modular iron plant to produce crankshafts, so we've been ahead of time at that particular plant. As my colleague here says about moving equipment out, we're moving the technology we've built in St Catharines to other plants.

But I have to say there are some other people I'd like to mention: a fellow who has 26 years, John Wright -- he's a patternmaker and he'll be gone if the foundry shuts down -- and Aaron Bessems. There are quite a few of my friends who will be losing jobs there, but the thing is some people say, "I'll have enough seniority that I'll be able to retire before the plant closes down," but they're closing their eyes to where their children are going to be getting a job in the Niagara Peninsula if this is the case.

We have to look forward to say, "Let's save the foundry, let's everyone in this assembly wind up getting behind the members of Niagara to save the foundry at General Motors in St Catharines." I'll be voting in favour of this resolution.

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I will be supporting Mr Bradley's resolution as put forward today in support of the people of the GM plant in St Catharines and CAW 199. I know a rally took place a few months ago and Mr Bradley participated along with Mr Kormos and a number of other members from the Niagara area. I know they enjoyed the rally, but I think it's only one sign that has to be kept up in making sure that the plant is there. I believe the workers themselves have been competitive.

As we live in the auto sector, I've eaten the word "competitiveness," but competitiveness is not cheap labour at the same time. This union has been very cooperative in looking at ways of making sure it can be more competitive.

It could be that one of the decisions behind the boardroom doors in Michigan is that there is a US election coming up and they wouldn't want to disappoint the Republicans in making sure that Bush is not defeated in one way or another and making sure that the Democrats don't get one more foot up on him in the state of Michigan. That wouldn't be one of the cases I hope that the board members of GM are now deciding upon. But as a representative and working in the auto sector, I have a feeling it is one of them, as we've started to read a book about what is going on in the United States.

Another indication is that they talked about the plant not being cost-efficient. The upgrading of the Saginaw plant compared with the costs for the St Kitts -- the St Kitts plant will cost about $60 million and it will cost much more to upgrade that plant in Michigan. That just reaffirms the position of, is it a political decision or not?

Just to let you know -- and I've heard the members from the Tory party who always indicate what they always do and blame everything on the NDP, but they don't look at the federal government and its free trade agreement -- one of the things the unions have done is to make sure they can negotiate a retirement package for their workers which will be offered to them this Friday, showing the willingness and cooperation of the union in making sure their workers are well protected, though the company has turned its back on them, making sure those employees about to retire with 28 years' seniority will be able to retire with a pension and that there are programs in place.

I compliment the union for making this major stride of trying to alleviate some of the worries. If you've ever looked in the eyes of an individual faced with a plant closure and seen them running with tears, wondering how they're going to provide for their families -- I know what the members of Local 199 and the management people who will be losing their jobs are going through, because it's one dramatic impact and interruption of a family that could be caused by it.

The other

part I'd like to lay out, as being a person of the parts supplier industry, is that it will affect the people in the riding of Chatham-Kent, because we supply to St Catharines, to the GM plants, and it will hurt us. It's not only for the members from St Catharines but also for us. I'm going to bow my time to try to let another member from the Niagara region speak, but I thought it was important that a member for southwestern Ontario speak on their behalf.

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): Many of my constituents in Niagara Falls work at GM and, as the member for St Catharines initially stated, there are going to be drastic effects across the whole region. Certainly there will be for my constituents. I want to reinforce the fact that's already been stated that this is an efficient plant. There is no doubt about that; it has been proved. It is cost-effective and there are many highly skilled workers in the Niagara area.

I want to note also that there has been very significant community involvement over the past few months. I attended a meeting with labour, union, the chamber of commerce, the mayor, many people, and they are all backing the call to save the foundry. I want to point out that this type of community involvement, not just in St Catharines but across the whole peninsula, has to continue to make this successful. There was also a rally I attended when thousands of people marched to the plant, I believe, at the beginning of May. I was with my colleagues Peter Kormos, Mr Bradley, Miss Haeck and Mr Hansen. We stood together.

I also recall at this point a documentary film I saw called "Roger and Me." It showed the utter devastation of Flint, Michigan, when the GM plant closed there. I'd hate to see that kind of image of what might happen in our communities, so I urge GM at this point to reconsider this decision. I think we have to be realistic. This is a business decision. This is a North America-wide decision, and I want GM to consider it for sound, logical business reasons and see that this is the place to stay.

Mr Bradley: I appreciate the comments from members of the House in support of this resolution. My colleagues from the Niagara Peninsula and my colleague the member for Chatham-Kent, who has been involved in matters of this kind before, recognize that this has a devastating effect not only on our local community but on the province of Ontario and ultimately our country.

When I look at the importance of the automotive industry, it cannot be overemphasized. It has been estimated that one in four jobs are related to the automotive industry. I think of people from northern Ontario -- for instance, the member for Sudbury is in the House. In Sudbury, where I used to live, they produce many metals which are used in industry, which are used in vehicles.

The steel industry in Hamilton and in Sault Ste Marie, the plastics industry in Sarnia and eastern Ontario, the fabric industry, the rubber industry -- all of these components go into the making of a vehicle and all are important to our economy because they produce not only the jobs and revenues for people themselves, but for government.

The Fight Back Committee, in a publication it put out for members called It's Time We Had Canadian Content Laws, had some rather interesting facts that I think should be shared with members of the House. First of all, they stated that, "A GM St Catharines worker's average wage is approximately $40,000." That's important to St Catharines; it means those people can make the purchases of services and goods that are going to be beneficial to our community and province. And then, "3,065 jobs will be lost due to the closing of the foundry and the loss of the 3.1 engine.

Here's something rather interesting: "Payroll taxes for these 3,065 workers would amount to $612,000 for Canada pension and $856,800 for UIC premiums -- gone. Based on employer health tax of 1.95% of payroll, Ontario's health plan would lose $597,675. The company's Worker's Compensation Board payments of $700,000 would also disappear.

"Lost taxes from workers would amount to approximately $2.8 million, from lost revenue on Canada pension and UIC premiums paid by the workers.

"Finally, the government must now pay the laid-off workers UIC for an average of 40 weeks. This amounts to approximately $52 million.

"None of this takes into account the 'multiple effect': the spinoff jobs that will be lost when these people are laid off, when GM stops buying goods from its suppliers, and when its workers stop shopping." We recognize there is a diminishing of the economy. "Nor does it include any social cost associated with unemployment or welfare. Nor does this include that the foundry alone pays for and uses 44% of the city of St Catharines hydro. Nor does this include the loss in revenue of approximately 20% of the property taxes for the entire city of St Catharines, which the foundry and parts of the engine plant account for.

"The spinoff jobs directly related to auto workers is a four-to-one ratio. This means that if 3,065 auto workers lose their jobs, so do 12,240 other workers in our community. These figures are staggering. Forget the money for a minute and think of the people struggling to find food and shelter."

In other words, the emphasis is on people in this particular document. The Fight Back Committee has led the fight, but it has had strong support, as my colleagues from the Niagara Peninsula have pointed out, and it's going to be important that we unite as members of this House and as members of our society in fighting for those who are employed in the automotive industry.

The reason I pointed out its effects on the rest of the economy is that there are some people who like to sit back and say, "It's time something like this happened," or "We should become more competitive," and "It's a natural reaction to a recession," and so on. Often they are people who are envious of some of the jobs that are there, but they have to remember that these men and women who work in these industries are making purchases elsewhere, are requiring services elsewhere and that this industry and the people in the industry are exceedingly important to the total economy, not only of the Niagara region which we represent but also of the province and the country as a whole.

I would like to look at what I consider to be some of the solutions, some of the things we can do, perhaps in the future, to try to ensure that the automotive industry continues.

The first problem we encounter is the free trade pact. Without a doubt, it had a very negative effect on the automotive industry. It was pointed out by the government and I think most members of this House in the last session of the House and in this session of the House that the free trade pact and the changes made as a result of the free trade pact -- and by the way, anticipated changes if there's a free trade pact with Mexico -- have an effect on jobs in North America. They have an effect on jobs in Canada and in Ontario.

Jim Peterson wrote in the Financial Post on Thursday, March 19, an

article that was quoted in the Fight Back Committee's report. I'm going to try to pick out just one part of it. I've read it into the record before. He mentions:

"Under the free trade agreement, Canada gave up the duty remission programs it used to attract Japanese and other foreign auto assemblers to Canada in the first place. Now it is clear that our secure access to the US market promised under the agreement is just one more broken commitment."

He points out the importance of the automotive industry and talks about the 1965 auto pact, which was a good document. It was a controlled trade between Canada and the United States. It was mutually negotiated. It was to benefit both Canada and US workers.

Mr Hope: Level playing field.

Mr Bradley: It was a level playing field, as the member for Chatham-Kent has revealed.

Jim Peterson, the federal member for Willowdale, the Liberal critic for industry, came up with the following conclusion in this rather lengthy article. He says:

"Foreigners should either produce their fair share in Canada or have their share of our market restricted to at least the European Community's limit of 15% to 17%. In conclusion, renegotiation is critical to undo the harm of the free trade agreement and ensure Canada a fair share of auto jobs. Canada must not sign any new deal that does not meet these minimal standards."

So in international agreements we must be very careful that we protect the auto industry, our fair share of the market.

Second, the high dollar has had an effect, without a doubt, on all industries in Canada. We are more competitive when our dollar is down. Ask people in northern Ontario about the pulp and paper industry or the lumber industry and the effect of the dollar moving upwards on those industries. The same is true of the automotive industry. In Canada, we should not have an artificially high dollar, which I always consider is an unwritten part of the free trade pact having a bad effect on our automotive industry.

Members have heard me speak at great length in the House about -- well, it's passed now, but I'd like to see us remove the gas guzzler tax from automobiles. One of the things we did, and which no doubt the members of the NDP caucus did in caucus because they don't have the freedom that a member of the opposition has to be openly critical of government -- except for one member I can think of, from Welland-Thorold, who occasionally does so.

They don't have the same opportunity that we in the opposition have to publicly deal with matters of this kind, but I'm sure that behind the closed doors of the caucus members who represent automotive centres across the province of Ontario were saying to the Treasurer, the Premier and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, "Please don't expand further the tax," because there was a contemplation of expanding the so-called gas guzzler tax that I refer to as the tax on auto workers. I think that's devastating for the automotive industry.

What all of us want is a win-win situation. First, we want people to be purchasing vehicles so that auto workers and others have jobs; that's stimulating the economy. Second, we want the environment to be protected. We do that by having people replace their old clunkers with new vehicles. The newer vehicles have better emission controls -- better pollution controls, that is -- and they have better fuel efficiency. If we can do that, we can solve the problems, to a great extent, of both the economy and the environment. So I know those arguments will continue to be made.

We must use some caution on the gasoline tax. We can't allow it to jump too high at a time which would discourage people from using vehicles all the time. We must have some moderation in that, but let's be careful that we don't tax ourselves in the future -- it hasn't happen yet -- out of automobiles completely. There are some people, by the way, in this province who would like to see that happen.

I also hope the Treasurer would consider, if things persist, removing the sales tax on automobiles for a short time. I could be foolish up here and say he should remove it for ever but he needs the revenue, and there isn't anybody in the province who doesn't know you need some of those taxes for the programs the people of Ontario say they want. So I would ask for a temporary removal of the provincial sales tax on vehicles to stimulate the economy. There are other taxes, of course, that I'll recommend you remove completely some day.

I also believe we should check the cost of the production of power and the availability of power in the province. That's hard to do. It's not easy to produce electricity in Ontario any more. The cheap ways are pretty well gone; it's now expensive. We work at conservation, of course, but we are losing our advantage in terms of the cost of electric power. Somebody in the automotive business said to me that we won't have any foundries, any electroplating plants or anything that requires large amounts of electricity if the rates continue to rise at the level they're rising.

Second, they're concerned about the availability, well into the future, of electrical power. So that's something, as members of the House, we'll want to assess and keep in mind as we are dealing with the automotive industry and other industries.

I have always owned a General Motors product because I've always lived in St Catharines since the age I could drive a vehicle. I've always felt it was important that I assist my neighbours on my street, who for the most part worked at General Motors. I am a person who has been paid out of the public purse, as a teacher first of all and now as a member of the Legislature, and I think that's the least I can do for those who are there.

We have good products. I get tired of hearing people say that North America can't produce good vehicles, that somehow if a vehicle is produced offshore it's of higher quality. That just is not true.

My colleague who worked at General Motors in the years gone by, Ron Hansen, knows that; Cristel Haeck from St Catharines knows that; certainly Shirley Coppen, from the riding of Niagara South, has people working there; Marg Harrington from Niagara Falls, Peter Kormos of Welland-Thorold -- all those people know we produce excellent vehicles in the province of Ontario and that they're easily competitive with others in terms of quality and price. We have that opportunity to be able to do something directly ourselves for our community.

Another suggestion came from Bob White, the former president of the CAW. I want to congratulate Buzz Hargrove on assuming that position. I'm sure he'll be defending the automotive industry as vociferously as Bob White. But Bob White had this suggestion that appeared under, "CAW's Bob White: Dramatic Auto Policy Required." One of the paragraphs in here says, "Ontario should establish an "Auto Department" to assess on an ongoing basis the industry's weaknesses and strengths, to keep up with international developments and to monitor and initiate policy."

I think a separate department of the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology -- or another ministry, but MITT is the logical ministry -- would be a good idea because of the importance of the automotive industry, so there could be a concentration on that. All members who have spoken have described the importance of the industry and its ripple effect throughout the community.

These are some suggestions that might be helpful. We in government are limited in what we can do, but we can create a positive investment climate in Canada and Ontario. We can initiate policies that are going to protect those industries which deserve protection and we can assist workers to become even more highly skilled as the changes in technology take place.

The member for Chatham-Kent mentioned most appropriately that the CAW has been cooperative with the companies in terms of the changing technology. They recognize that to be competitive there have had to be some sacrifices made, but they've been done in such a way as to alleviate some of the concerns of people as new technology takes over. We in this province believe we have a good product. We have good workers. We have an excellent plant in St Catharines. We have a foundry which I believe is second to none in North America and the world. We have a good engine plant there.

My plea, which I think has fallen very much on receptive ears, and a plea which has been made by many in other venues, is to General Motors to reconsider its decision, to keep its foundry open in the city of St Catharines, to keep its engine plant open in the city of St Catharines and to maintain the employment levels that are so important to St Catharines, the Niagara region, the Niagara Peninsula and the province of Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker: You have an extra two minutes.

Mr Bradley: I think that for the most part people would agree with many of the contentions I brought forward, but I would like to use my additional two minutes as an opportunity to commend people who have worked hard on this.

It's easy to simply accept the fact that a plant is going to move. People are sad about it, they're angry about it, but it's sometimes easy to simply go home and forget about it. Well, we've got a lot of people in our community who are not prepared to do that. Certainly the members who represent the Niagara region in the provincial House and the federal House are concerned about it. The local community representatives at the regional, city and town levels are united in their efforts to see this employment maintained in St Catharines.

There are people from the business community and organized labour, people who have nothing to do with the industry directly at all, who have worked very hard on this.

I want to commend the Fight Back Committee executives: Ron Davis, who is the president of Local 199, CAW; Gabe McNally, the vice-president; Harold Stubbert, who has taken over now as the chair of the bargaining unit; Sandy O'Dell, who is the chairman of the committee; Bruce Allen; Gary Martin; John Michaud; Ken McShannon and Len James. These are people who on a daily basis are working and initiating efforts to maintain this industry in St Catharines.

For the sake of Ontario, for the sake of our country, and most appropriately, for the sake of our community, I hope there are receptive ears at General Motors. We speak as a united voice, members of the New Democratic Party, the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party in this House, and I'm sure we speak for people of virtually every political affiliation in this country when we ask that General Motors look at the facts and look at an efficient, world-class plant with the best workers we could have in North America sitting there.

We ask through this resolution that they reconsider their decision and that they keep the foundry open in St Catharines; in fact, expand operations in Canada.

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

MOTOR BOAT OPERATORS' LICENSING ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR LES PERMIS D'UTILISATEURS DE BATEAUX À MOTEUR

Mr McLean moved second reading of Bill 17,

An Act to provide for the Licensing of Motor Boat Operators / Loi prévoyant la délivrance de permis aux utilisateurs de bateaux à moteur.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 94(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I'm pleased today to present this bill once again for the consideration of this Legislature. I welcome the opportunity to provide some opening remarks also on an issue that I consider to be extremely important. It is an issue that has gained the support of thousands of people who practise safe boating on Ontario's waterways. More important, it is an issue that has captured the attention of the countless friends and relatives of those who have been seriously injured or killed in boating mishaps.

I'm here today to urge you to give second reading to my private member's Bill 17,

An Act to provide for the Licensing of Motor Boat Operators, and I'm here today requesting that you send this bill to a standing committee of the Legislature for public hearings where it could be amended in response to some of the concerns that you might have and those that have already been brought to my attention.

The focus of my private member's bill is on boater education, safety and licensing. These are the issues that must be addressed because increased congestion on our waterways and a new breed of boater who demonstrates that he does not care or does not know the fundamentals and courtesies of safe boating have made boater legislation inevitable.

There are more than one million boats on Ontario's waterways. The province has more boats per capita than anywhere else in North America. As boating activities increase during the summer months, boaters are finding greater demands made on their skills and experience.

The most common, total and fatal accidents are a result of the victim falling or being thrown overboard after a boat collision or a boat capsizing. In a large number of these fatal accidents, the victim was not wearing a lifejacket or personal flotation device, or had consumed alcohol, or had encountered rough waters or had been neglectful or careless while in the boat.

I believe many injuries and fatalities could be prevented if boaters were more familiar with boater education, safety and licensing. If they were, they would be more aware of the boating environment, their own limitations and the power of their boat and the water. In other words, boaters should be required to take a motor boat operation and safety course. Skill and experience are not always enough to prevent boating mishaps. The boater must know his boat safety practices and be willing to apply those practices in order to avoid critical situations.

Far too many people perceive recreational boating as relatively safe and they may ignore or fail to see the obvious risks. They may violate regulations designed to reduce the risks of accidents and they may fail to prepare themselves for unexpected equipment failure. Their perceptions may determine their response to dangerous situations.

Private member's Bill 17 is my response to the several factors that relate to the possibility of a boating accident. The first group of factors relates to the boat operator's character and condition, including experience, skills, physical condition, safety, knowledge and attitude. The second group relates to the environment and includes weather, water conditions, boat traffic and obstructions. The third group relates to the craft itself and includes structure, mechanics, equipment supply and fuel supply.

All boaters must be aware of potential dangers and risks and how they can avoid them. It is extremely important for us to raise public awareness of acceptable boating practices. That's what we're doing today.

Effective public awareness depends on where and with whom potential boating problems exist. I believe the boater education, safety and licensing thrust of this private member's Bill 17 will contribute considerably to public awareness and help to reduce the number of tragic boating accidents, injuries and deaths that occur each year on our waterways.

It is interesting to note that lower speed limits, stricter law enforcement, boater education and the licensing of boat operators were among the 22 recommendations recently made by a coroner's jury in Barrie examining the deaths of a King City man and a Waterloo woman who were killed in a 1990 Labour Day boating accident on Lake Joseph in Muskoka.

Not only is the idea of licensing boat operators on our waterways long overdue, but the recommendation to make education for boaters mandatory is an issue that must be addressed.

The following is recommendation 7 from the coroner's inquest. That recommendation is:

"We strongly recommend the licensing of recreation powerboat operators. We request the Ontario government have a licensing system in place by December 31, 1992. The following is a list of minimum requirements:

"

a) Must have completed an accredited boating safety course [such as] Power Squadron, Red Cross etc." There could be other avenues.

"

b) The course content for an accredited boating safety program will be derived from the Canadian Coast Guard Safe Boating Guide, as well as rules 5 and 6 of the collision regulation.

"

c) A written examination, possibly multiple choice, must be successfully completed to a pre-set standard of 80% correct.

"

d) Licence to be renewed every three years on birth date. This would work in conjunction with the motor vehicle drivers' licensing system."

These are recommendations from this jury in Barrie with regard to that boating accident. It goes on:

"e) "Non-residents could be exempt from the licensing requirement. Safe boating guides, provincial and local rules and regulations be made available in as many locations as possible for these people [such as at] marinas, police stations, tourist information bureaus" and other appropriate locations.

"

f) A licensed 12- to 15-year-old operator may only operate a boat with a maximum 25-hp motor, unless accompanied by an adult." They go on to list how the licensing system should be implemented.

As I said earlier, it's my hope that this House will give this private member's bill second reading and send it to a standing committee of the Legislature for public hearings, where it could be amended to take into account the recommendations of the coroner's inquest.

As well, I would consider amending clause 2(

b) to enable non-residents of Ontario to operate a motor boat in this province for a stipulated length of time to stimulate tourism. I would like to delete clause 3(1)(

b) from this bill. The other change that I want to make is to delete subsection 5(2), because this is already covered in federal law.

In my previous bill that was introduced here, the great thrust from the NDP government's parliamentary assistant to the Solicitor General was that this bill wasn't appropriate because this was covered under federal law. I have deleted that now, so this will take the argument away with regard to it.

The member who will probably speak on behalf of tourism will probably indicate there's nothing in this bill with regard to having our friends coming here and being able to boat. I want to change this in the bill to allow those people to come to this province and enjoy what we have and not have to obtain a licence if they want to enjoy our waterways.

I introduced this bill because I have received an enormous amount of support from boaters, from the police, from cottage associations and from the medical community, as well as from individuals from the public and relatives of victims of boating accidents, victims like Anne and Doug Lapp of Orillia, who wrote me a letter with regard to the death of their son. I'll tell you that the Lapps know the dangers of the waterways. They indicated when their youngest son was killed by a Sea-Doo:

"We are aware of the dangers of these machines. Like snowmobiles they are difficult to control and are used mainly for the thrills they produce. We feel they are particularly dangerous to swimmers as they are driven too close to shore and in some areas known to us, parents can't allow their children in the water, in front of their own homes."

Yesterday I was on CBC Radio Noon, and the callers related that very experience they have had with regard to their coming too close to shore. The new federal regulations are a help, but in my round-up remarks I will elaborate on that.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): It's a pleasure to join in this debate on Bill 17 in respect of the member for Simcoe East. I can recall that roughly a year ago, when this bill was previously introduced, I spoke to this bill on behalf of the Solicitor General, to whom I was parliamentary assistant at the time.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): So what do you do now?

Mr Mills: The member is saying, what am I doing here. I'm here today to represent the member for Windsor-Sandwich, who is the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transportation. Unfortunately he can't be here this morning because he's in Windsor celebrating with his wife the birth of a newborn son, Anthony. So I'm here to put the point of view across for the Ministry of Transportation.

We over here certainly understand and support the member for Simcoe East's intent, and we also share the widespread concern with the deaths and injuries that occur every year in this province as a result of recreational boating accidents. We also understand the pain and emotional heartache these accidents cause families and other loved ones, and we all share in that pain and that heartache.

Approximately 60 people are likely to die in boating accidents this year in Ontario. This is completely unacceptable. Fortunately the number of fatalities per year has declined steadily over the past six years, largely due to the efforts of the Ontario Provincial Police in enforcing existing laws. In addition, the OPP, the Ministry of Natural Resources, the RCMP and municipal police forces all carry out boating safety programs, and we strongly encourage continued effort in this regard.

At this time we feel it makes more sense to continue our efforts to promote boating safety as a means of reducing deaths rather than to attempt to establish a system of licensing operators. Licensing of boat operators is an area of federal responsibility, so this legislation goes beyond our constitutional jurisdiction.

That doesn't mean we should reject the member's intent out of hand. As I said a moment ago, we all share the same concerns. We too want improved safety for everyone using Ontario's lakes, rivers and waterways. We are looking into what we can do. We are attempting to determine the options available to us. We are not pretending the problem doesn't exist.

These efforts are still in the preliminary stages, but I can tell the members of the House that the Ministry of Transportation, the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of the Solicitor General are working together to ensure that all possibilities are considered.

It would be beneficial if we could develop a system that would improve water safety while at the same time providing funds for enhanced safety awareness and stronger enforcement programs. We are confident our investigations and our initiatives will lead to a system that encourages responsible conduct and a safer boating environment.

I can conclude by saying that when the options have been explored properly and some decisions are made, this House will be advised of that promptly. I thank the member for his concern and I assure him that we share those concerns.

Mr Sorbara: Let me begin by congratulating my friend the member for Simcoe East on bringing forward the bill he is sponsoring today,

An Act to provide for the Licensing of Motor Boat Operators.

Part of our responsibility in this Parliament is to take on issues, causes and approaches to public policy that have a deeply personal concern to us as individual members. Sometimes, as in the case, for example, of Bill 143, the government's bill to put Metro's garbage in York region, they also become important provincial issues of public policy so they tend to dominate the debate in the Legislature.

But so very often individual members take on projects of this type that my friend the member for Simcoe East has taken on, and they work extremely hard in order, first of all, to bring the public's attention to the issue they are trying to promote, and then to do the work necessary to actually change the law and add to the fabric of public administration in a significant and positive way.

I would say to my friend the member for Simcoe East that in that regard he's done an absolutely marvellous job. I know personally how strongly he feels about safety on the waterways of this province and how urgent he feels it is for the government to take some step to reduce the carnage -- there's no other word for it -- on our waterways.

I note that my friend the member for Durham East referred to 60 deaths as a result of boating incidents over the past year, and those are 60 tragedies. My friend the member for Simcoe East, who is sponsoring this bill, is advocating that we can solve the problem at least in part, if not in total -- I think he's frank in his admission that he's not going to solve the problem totally -- by providing for a system of licensing for all those people who operate motor boats, save and except those boats which have an engine under 25 horsepower.

I want to tell my friend the member for Simcoe East that I'm going to vote against the bill, not because I think he is wrong in his approach -- I'm going to set out the reasons during the course of my remarks -- but in my own view there are reasons why we should not now at this time adopt this principle of licensing all those people who operate motor boats except of the very smallest kind.

In saying that I'm going to vote against the bill, I want to make two points very quickly. First of all, that's not particularly the policy of my party in this regard; it's a personal view I have of this approach at this time.

The second point is that I don't in any way question or qualify his determination to get the Parliament of Ontario to do something important to reduce accidents and deaths as a result of the operation of motor boats. Indeed, I think there will perhaps come a time when we have a piece of legislation emanating from this Parliament that will do a very effective job of regulating the operation of motor boats in a way that will reduce deaths.

While I'm on that subject, I want to make a point that my colleague the member for Renfrew North, the deputy leader of our party, who was not able to be here at this debate, has asked me to place clearly on the record. He himself is very supportive of the bill and he himself thinks that the carnage on our waterways is one of the things we have negligently ignored in this Parliament. Were he here, he would be speaking in favour of the bill and supporting its consideration by a committee of the Legislature and ultimately its passage and incorporation into the laws of the province of Ontario.

I have some other concerns, and they really relate to three things. One of them is that I don't believe at this time that requiring individuals who operate motor boats to get a licence to do so is going to get to the heart of the problem. The heart of the problem is those operators of motor boats who, whether they had a licence or not, would be operating boats carelessly and negligently, notwithstanding that they had gone through the process of applying for a licence.

In these difficult times when every single taxpayer dollar is important, if we were to set up a superstructure -- an expensive superstructure, I'm sure, when you think of all of the people who occasionally operate motor boats -- when you think of setting up all of that and perhaps only reducing the problem by a fraction of a per cent, I as a legislator in this province have to ask myself fundamentally whether that's a good use of resources and whether there isn't a better way to deal with the problem.

Because the vast majority of people who operate motor boats do so very carefully and very competently and with great regard to the rules of the waterways and the safety of not only their own passengers, but other people who are operating boats on the same waterways.

I don't really think we're going to solve the problem with a licensing system, yet we're going to build a very expensive new branch of public administration, with people charged with taking the tests and issuing the licences and renewing the licences and all of the stuff that goes along with the business of operating a licensing system.

That's the first point: I don't think we're going to solve the problem.

Second, in the issuing of licences where people have to have licences, namely, in the operation of motor vehicles -- your driver's licence -- we have such a terrible problem in public administration in this province as almost to be a scandal. What am I talking about? I'm talking about the fact that now for the individual citizen to actually make an appointment to take a driver's test requires some three, four, five or, in some cases, six months' notice to the licensing office. I think this is patently unfair.

It's one of those areas where the government has a fundamental responsibility to operate an efficient system, but over the past year or two, the system to provide drivers, young or old, who are taking their first-time test has become totally unacceptable in the province.

The government members might not think this is a very important issue, and they're not going to be defeated in the next campaign on this issue, but so what? What about your son, your daughter? What about your neighbour's son or daughter? What about your neighbour himself or herself, who is really in need of getting a licence for the first time, perhaps in order to attend a course at school, perhaps to take up a new job, perhaps as a result of a move which has the person living in a place that is inaccessible to public transportation. Lo and behold, they go to the licence office and they find out they can make an appointment for six months down the road.

This is unacceptable. We can't tolerate this. If we can't afford to operate an efficient licensing system so people can get their driver's licence, it's foolish in the extreme to think that at this point we should pass a bill in this Parliament setting up a whole new system to license the operation of boats.

On the same theme, I'd like to point out that the bill my friend the member for Simcoe East proposes provides authority for the Ontario Provincial Police, the OPP, to stop boaters, to ask for their licence and to arrest them if they don't have their boater's licence, and it provides for a fine as well.

One of the other areas where public administration is falling apart is with respect to the Ontario Provincial Police, whose budget has been cut and cut and cut so the basic services they are to provide, not only in Simcoe East but in every corner of the province, are now at an unacceptably low level. That means, in short, that we don't have enough money to provide to the Ontario Provincial Police to carry out the duties they're supposed to carry out now, which is safety and security in our communities, and this bill would have them take on the added burden of responsibility to enforce new laws on the waterways.

I think we need to enforce laws on the waterways, and I wish the government would do something about the crisis with the Ontario Provincial Police and the cutbacks in staff. We have situations, for example, particularly in our rural areas, where one OPP detachment has two officers stationed there, perhaps on night duty, for a radius of 60 or 80 or 100 kilometres. If you have an emergency, if your house is being robbed or if you're in trouble or you need the assistance of police, you make that call and maybe an officer can get there within an hour or two and maybe he or she can't get there at all.

That's unacceptable, and I'm not prepared to support a bill that would add a new burden of responsibility on the OPP at a time when the government will not provide it with enough resources to carry out its current responsibilities.

The third point I want to make is simply this: My friend Mr McLean has not yet considered the implication of his bill on the tourism industry in the province, which is suffering in a very significant and severe way. Many of the people who come to Ontario during the summer come to use our waterways; either they rent or they bring boats.

But even those of us who have the good fortune to live here might take a brief holiday if the Legislature ever recesses -- and if it doesn't that's okay with me -- we might take a brief holiday and go down to the Thousand Islands and rent a houseboat with our family for two or three days, and that's our holiday. My friend the member for Yorkview nods in agreement. Maybe he's done that with his own family.

If before I took that holiday I had to go to some location, obviously a waterway, and prove I could operate that houseboat and perhaps have to make a reservation two months in advance in order to do that, I question whether I would actually take that trip.

I'll tell you something, sir: Our tourist operators are suffering in a way they have rarely suffered over the past 25 or 30 years. Attendance at resorts all across Ontario is down. Those who operate facilities that have boat rental facilities attached to them will tell you that the business just isn't there. If we take this step in this Legislature now and make it virtually impossible for the average citizen who might use a boat for two or three days a summer to use that boat, go to that facility, rent the boat or spend a day or two or a week on a houseboat, it won't happen. Frankly, I regret to tell my friend the member for Simcoe East, the economy can't tolerate it.

If you had a system where you could go to that facility and they could quickly issue you a licence, then I might think otherwise. But if you do that, then you're not going to get the benefit you would want of making sure they are competent operators.

Interjection.

Mr Sorbara: My friend says you have to have one to drive. That's right, but there are very few people in the province who have a driver's licence so that they can drive one, two or three days a year. You don't get a licence so that you can use a motor vehicle, a car, for a week out of every 52 weeks in a year, but there is a huge part of the boating population or the people who operate motor boats in the province of Ontario who do so for one week.

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): That's why they are a hazard.

Mr Sorbara: My friend says that's why they are a hazard, and I agree and I confess to him that I don't have a solution to the problem at this point.

I simply want to say in concluding my remarks that I don't think this is the right solution at this time for the reasons that I've given. Already our public administration, particularly with the Ontario Provincial Police and the issuance of drivers' licences, is dramatically underfunded and doesn't have the resources to carry it out. We would have a very negative impact on tourism in Ontario just at the time when we can't tolerate a further downturn in the tourist business.

Finally, requiring everyone to get a licence to operate a motor boat which has a motor over 25 horsepower is not going to get at the real culprits, those few people who, with disregard for the safety of others on the waterways and indeed their own safety, operate motor boats recklessly and carelessly. I am glad he has a provision for careless driving in this measure, and once again, Mr Speaker, I want to congratulate him on his enthusiasm for this measure.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): Mr Speaker, I am very pleased this morning to rise and speak in support of Mr McLean, the member for Simcoe East, and his bill. Bill 17,

An Act to provide for the Licensing of Motor Boat Operators, addresses the serious issue of safety on our waterways. The focus of the bill is on boater education, safety and licensing.

Bill 17 makes it mandatory for an operator of a boat of at least 25 horsepower to have a motor boat operator's licence. This licence would be issued to anyone who is 12 years of age and over who has completed a motor boat operator's course.

The traffic on Ontario's waterways has grown significantly in recent years. I know this at first hand because I live in Wasaga Beach. Today there are approximately 1.4 million boats in this province and 15% of all households in Ontario own one or more boats. Ontario has more boats per capita than any other jurisdiction in North America.

The member for Simcoe East, Mr McLean, would like Bill 17 to receive second reading and be sent out to committee for public hearings. This bill, members may recall, was numbered Bill 37 in the first session of this Parliament. It received second reading last year but unfortunately died on the order paper.

At that time, Mr Speaker, several NDP members, members of the government, spoke against the bill. The member for Cochrane North, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Natural Resources, opposed the bill because he felt that boater behaviour and not horsepower was the primary cause of accidents; and, second, that tourism would suffer because no other jurisdictions in North America require motor boat operators to have licences. The latter concern was just echoed by the Liberal member for York Centre.

The member for Cochrane North's concerns and the member for York Centre's concerns have been addressed by my colleague Mr McLean, who has suggested that deleting the

section covered by federal law would be a good idea, and so would amending clause 2(

b) to enable non-residents of Ontario to operate a motor boat in this province for a stipulated length of time. That suggestion, which could be studied in committee, will help offset, I believe very strongly, the concerns of tourists and of the members who seem to oppose this legislation.

I think what the member for Cochrane North and the Liberal member for York Centre failed to consider is the rising number of fatal accidents on our waterways and the tremendous need to instil boater safety skills among a rapidly expanding boater population.

In the town of Collingwood, Police Chief George Sheffer supports the principle behind Bill 17. Because he is the chief of Collingwood, he knows a great deal about Ontario's waterways. Chief Sheffer finds it curious that other vehicles must be licensed, yet we allow anyone to operate a motor boat at his leisure. Chief Sheffer feels that police forces have the resources to enforce motor boat regulations if these regulations and the principles contained in Mr McLean's bills are adopted.

My good friend Mr Cliff Martin of Wasaga Beach, a long-time member of the Blue Mountain Power and Sail Squadron, feels the legislation proposed by Mr McLean is long overdue. Mr Martin says that many people today are going out and purchasing boats without knowing how to operate them and without proper training. Operating these large boats without experience and without good judgement creates a potentially dangerous situation.

But the problem, and I agree with the member for Cochrane North, is not with the boats themselves; it is with the people who operate them. Mr Martin says that many parents just give the keys of their boats to their children and never really give it a second thought.

One of the reasons our waters are becoming more crowded is the recent surge in the number of Jet Skis or Sea-Doos. Last summer, a Sea-Doo crashed into a canoe, which caused the deaths of Danielle Burns, aged 17, who drowned, and Denise Williams, also aged 17, who died as a result of head injuries sustained in the accident. This incident prompted the Hamilton Spectator newspaper to comment in an editorial:

"No one can say that mandatory licensing could have prevented this tragedy. But it is deeply concerning to realize unknowledgeable and unskilled persons can climb behind the controls of a motorized watercraft without restriction in this province at any time.

"It seems hard to imagine that a licence is required to go fishing in Ontario, but no authorization is needed to operate motorized pleasure boats."

It's also worth noting that the 25,000-member Canadian Power and Sail Squadron has done a remarkable job of educating and training boaters. Particularly noteworthy is the work of the Blue Mountain Power and Sail Squadron. The Blue Mountain squadron, which includes Mr Martin, Jim Russell and Jim Kilgour, to name just a few, has one of the highest passing rates of any squadron in Canada.

The reason for this is that the Blue Mountain Power and Sail Squadron is peopled by teachers with a sailing background who have instructed for the squadron. It is often said that sailors know their boats, and that's particularly true with the members of the power and sail squadrons in Ontario. I want to commend them and I believe all members would join me in commending the power and sail squadrons for doing such an excellent job.

Last month a jury in Barrie made 22 recommendations in the wake of a 1990 boating accident which claimed the lives of Grant Perry of King City and Louise Carroll of Waterloo. The recommendations included one which said all boat operators should be licensed and anyone between the ages of 12 and 15 cannot operate boats which exceed 25 horsepower unless accompanied by an adult. All of the jury's recommendations support the need for the Legislature to support Mr McLean's bill.

I want to say briefly in closing that I think it's best summed up by an editorial that appeared two weeks ago in the Orillia Packet and Times newspaper, "It would appear all one has to do is to look at the statistics to see the grim reaper has supplied all the necessary stats required to rationalize implementation of such a bill," referring to Mr McLean's bill. "Let's get unsafe boaters off our waters and keep them on shore or in the classroom where they will be safe from their own destructive powers."

I believe Bill 17 begins the process of making our waterways safer and preserving lives. This bill deserves to be supported and sent out to committee for fine-tuning. Some of the concerns raised by the previous speaker for the Liberal Party can be addressed at that time. I just want to say in closing to the member for York Centre that we're not talking about creating a new bureaucracy. We are talking about applying common sense, which is scarcely found these days in this Legislature, and using the existing structures, like the power and sail squadrons, to help us implement the principles and the work needed to be done to make our waterways safer.

Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I also would like to speak to Bill 17. As the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay, an area where a lot of recreational boating is done, I too have deep concerns regarding boating and the safety of it in Ontario. While I can see the good intentions behind the member for Simcoe East's bill, I cannot fully support it. The bill has a very narrow focus since it looks at needing a licence to operate a boat of 25 horsepower or greater while most of the boating accidents occur in smaller boats. I can give you a personal example where I had two relatives drown in a canoe for the lack of a lifejacket. That boat didn't even have a motor.

Many of these boating accidents occur because the boaters are not wearing lifejackets and the boats are overloaded for the lake conditions. In addition, almost 75% of boating accidents are related to alcohol. In these cases, only boater education and awareness can prevent accidents of that type. Therefore you can see that an emphasis on boater education, not regulation, is the key to improving the safety record of boats on our waterways.

There are a number of education programs put on by the OPP, the RCMP and other government ministries as well as the private sector. The OPP has one, the "Don't Be a Sucker -- Wear Your Lifejacket" program, an educational program to teach young people to wear lifejackets at all times while they're on the boat. The OPP has a joint program with the Royal Life Saving Society of Canada, Water Smart 1992, which informs waterway users of the dangers of careless and thoughtless water usage and promotes and encourages boating safety.

The OPP has another joint program with the Canadian Safe Boating Council to coordinate a Boating Safety Week across Canada to spread the message of safe boating throughout Canada. The list includes organizations like the power squadrons and their many programs for safe boating.

You can see that education programs like these have contributed to the six-year decline in boating accidents and continuing these programs is an important part of improving boating safety.

There could also be problems in tourism. I find it somewhat difficult to understand why the member for Simcoe East feels that the people in Ontario should have to have a licence while people from outside the province should be able to come in with no licensing and no testing at all. I would also find it difficult for organizations like the Perch Festival in Orillia if indeed people from outside the province end up having to have a licence. I don't know how that would work out.

We also already have existing boating regulations, such as speed limits. When you're close to the shoreline, there's an existing speed limit of 10 kilometres an hour within 30 metres of the shoreline. We heard them talk about Sea-Doos running around the shoreline. The law exists but it isn't enforced, and therefore what you're doing again is having more laws that won't be enforced.

We need people to understand that there are laws out there, that if you are found guilty of impaired boating, first, you could lose your boating privileges for two to three years, and second, should you then be found guilty of impaired driving in your vehicle, it becomes a second offence, not a first offence. Those laws and other laws are already there, and at this time, they're not being enforced.

The OPP has 105 boats and 250 uniformed officers and the RCMP has 27 boats to patrol and enforce existing regulations. Each of these boats has safety equipment as well as alert devices to detect impaired boating.

I am confident that with persistent enforcement of existing laws and ongoing boater safety education we will continue to improve safe boating on our waterways.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Wilson Heights, I don't believe there's any more time, sir, on the Liberal side. The member for Cochrane North.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): As the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Natural Resources, I want to speak on behalf of the minister regarding private member's Bill 17,

An Act to provide for the Licensing of Motor Boat Operators.

Before I do so, I want to emphasize our government's concern about the safety of anyone who uses Ontario's lakes and waters. One boating fatality, one boating accident, is one mishap too many. While the government shares many of the concerns the member for Simcoe East has about public boating safety, it cannot support Bill 17 for two fundamental reasons: First, the bill deals with areas under federal jurisdiction, not provincial; second, the bill does not address safety concerns of target groups that were clearly identified through an analysis of fatal boating accidents from 1980 to 1987 conducted by the Ministry of Natural Resources.

I want to outline some of the concerns about this proposed private member's bill.

Section 1 proposes the licensing of vessels with motors of 25 horsepower or more. This proposal seems to connect accidents and horsepower. It's a tenuous connection. According to ministry studies of fatal boating accidents in Ontario, the profile of accident victims is one of males in their 20s, in small boats under 18 feet, who were likely consuming alcohol and who died as a result of capsizing or falling overboard. Some 80% of boating fatalities are associated with boats under 18 feet. In fact, one quarter of all boating fatalities involve canoes.

This proposed bill does not target those boaters who are identified in the ministry's analysis. If there is a connection to be made, it is between accidents and boater behaviour, rather than horsepower.

Section 3 deals with the issuance of licences. It requires no written examination. The amendment to Bill 17 after first reading on May 13, 1992, which deletes clause 3(1)(b), greatly reduces the opportunity to educate people about boating safety. The process of studying to pass a written examination is a great learning experience, as everyone who has studied for his driving licence knows. A test of the candidate's ability to handle a particular boat does not provide the same opportunity. Demonstrating you can handle one boat only means you can handle a boat of that particular design, not any boat. The way a boat responds depends on its design.

Section 6 deals with licence suspension. Again, this matter is already covered by the Criminal Code of Canada, which allows for the removal of the right to operate a vessel in case of negligence or recklessness. I might add that there are other regulations that deal with such things as boating speed limits, safety, passing and lights. They are contained in the Canada Shipping Act, under the boating restriction regulations and small vessel regulations and the collision regulations.

Vessel operator licensing is clearly under federal jurisdiction, as described in

section 91 of the Constitution Act, which gives the federal government exclusive authority over navigation and shipping. The inclusion of regulations for pleasure boats under the Canada Shipping Act supports this view.

In closing, while the government shares many concerns of the member for Simcoe East about public boating safety, it cannot support Bill 17.

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I too rise to speak on Bill 17. I want to commend the member for Simcoe East on his presentation, and of course share with him the tremendous concern we all have about the carnage on the waterways and about the unsafe use of boats, when people are intoxicated and when people are not adequately skilled.

But I would also share the concerns of the member for York Centre, the member for Cochrane North and the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay, who have already evidenced that many of these issues are already looked after.

The cost in terms of our tourist industry, the cost of maintaining a system of policing every waterway, every creek, every lake, is enormous. I wonder that we not look for other solutions to this terrible problem.

The solution of regulation of licensing is something that would be very onerous for so many of us who use boats on an irregular basis. It would be a tremendous incursion into the family lives of so many of us. The idea seems simple, it seems to be a solution, yet I would suggest that in our communities we are already regulated well, if not too well. Here we're looking at a solution that overregulates every part of our activities and recreation. For those reasons I oppose this bill.

Mr Turnbull: Mr Speaker, on a point of personal explanation: I would like to withdraw my comment to the Chair when you were in the chair yesterday.

The Deputy Speaker: I want to thank the member for York Mills for being so respectful to the Chair and to the House. I believe strongly that you are setting an excellent example.

The member for Simcoe East has seven minutes plus two more extra minutes.

Mr McLean: As I was saying, the Lapp family who wrote me the letter indicated the concern they have with regard to boating on the waterways. I've also had correspondence from many other families such as the Burns family and many people in the community I represent.

I'm aware of some of the things that people within the boating industry are trying to do. I have a pamphlet here put out by people who manufacture Sea-Doos which gives many of the responsibilities of people who have these machines. I believe the industry itself is starting to become more aware of the traffic on our waterways and the concern out there with regard to that traffic.

Bill 17 deserves to be put in committee where we can fully deal with the concerns many members have raised.

There are many clippings from the paper with regard to boater safety. Many articles are written with regard to disturbance of people at their cottages. We get indications in the clippings with regard to the Solicitor General, who says he won't beef up marine patrol. The problems we're having with OPP underfunding by this ministry leave something to be desired. Safety on our highways and in our boating is so important.

After the discussion on Bill 37, the previous bill I brought in, the Premier was questioned about it: "'We'll look at any reasonable suggestions,' Rae told reporters at Queen's Park yesterday. 'All of us share a concern about safety in the waterway.'" I find that somewhat hard to believe when members of the government today stand up to not support the principle of a bill that would go to committee for a full public debate in order to bring in more education for boaters.

As I've said on many occasions, as I said on the radio yesterday, I'm not a strong believer in licensing people, but there's got to be a commonsense approach to this whole aspect of educating boaters. There is a tremendous increase in the traffic on our waterways; indications are that it may have doubled in the last 10 years. So there is a need. I thought common sense still prevailed in this province on many issues we're dealing with, but I'm not getting the feeling today that a commonsense approach is being developed here.

For the life of me, I cannot think how the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay could not support a bill to go to committee to fine-tune the boating on our waterways when just yesterday on Lake Muskoka, whether he's aware of it or not, a 14-year-old and a 16-year-old were in a boating accident much similar to the one on Lake Joseph last year. One boat was going 35 kilometres an hour; the other one was going 40 kilometres an hour. It was raining at the time, and there was a boating accident on Lake Muskoka with a 115-hp outboard motor. There is a need for some education on our waterways.

That is the main emphasis I want to relay to you today. The main emphasis is on boater education, and the place to do that is in committee.

When a jury brings forth 22 recommendations and this Legislature totally ignores that -- which is happening, I gather, because if this boat bill doesn't go to committee, in essence the bill will be dead. There's no more commonsense approach I could ever understand today for boating.

In conclusion, we must give the police the authority to act, to enforce the safe operation of motor boats on our waterways, much as the Highway Traffic Act regulates the safe operation of motor vehicles on our roads. It is my hope and expectation that my colleagues here in the Legislature will put aside their partisan feelings. Step back from your political agenda, give second reading to this important legislation and send it to a standing committee of the Legislature for public hearings and amendments.

I've already indicated some of the amendments I would like to see and some of the recommendations I've got from legal people within the industry, who are telling me how important this bill is and how they deem it could be made better. There must not be any more buck-passing between the provincial and the federal governments. Someone must take responsibility for boat safety and reduce the number of boat accidents on our waterways, and in that way reduce the injuries and deaths that occur.

I understand that with the federal law that was brought out in August 1991 with regard to 30 metres from shore, if you're within that range it's 10 kilometres an hour. The recommendation from the jury at Barrie is that that be doubled, and I agree with that. Thirty metres is less than 100 feet from shore. I see no reason, especially on our lakes -- not on our rivers because that's a different story and there's got to be some give there. But that has to be in that legislation. That's federal, and we realize that, but if it's discussed in committee, those are some of the recommendations we can make.

The member for York Centre talked about the licensing issue and the cost. I'm very concerned about that also. What I think we need is that we'd have books you would look at when you get your licence. The marine owners or the operators -- it's simple enough. There has to be somewhere where a person can write a test to show he knows something about boating. That's really what I'm after: some knowledge you and your boating friends know if you're on the waterway, what the waterway is all about. So I take that concern.

With regard to the issue the member raised of renting a boat just for a week or two, because of the economy, I'm concerned about that too. I'm also concerned about some of these houseboats I have seen on the waterways. I'm telling you, they do need 15 minutes or two hours of basic knowledge on how to operate a boat. I've seen them crossways in the locks, and I've seen boats hit in the locks. If you say they shouldn't have to have something, I disagree totally. There's got to be a test that people know.

In Toronto and Hamilton harbours you have to have a licence to operate a boat, and I've observed what's gone on there and how slow they're going and the care they're taking. I've talked to the police who have jurisdiction over that. The fines are minimal, because the rules are there and they know what they are.

I want to thank the members who have spoken today, Mr Mills on behalf of the PA of Transportation. I'm not sure whether he's voting fer it or agin it. I want to thank Mr Sorbara, who's opposing the bill, but he issued constructive views. I want to thank my colleague Jim Wilson from Wasaga Beach, who made a very good speech supporting the bill, and Mr Waters, the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay, who's indicated that he's not supporting the bill. I find that very hard to believe when yesterday there was a boating accident there.

Further education is needed. I want this bill to go to committee for further input and constructive criticism, if needed.

The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for private members' business has expired.

PLANT CLOSURE

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will deal first with ballot item 17, standing in the name of Mr Bradley. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mr Bradley has moved private member's resolution 13. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Motion agreed to.

MOTOR BOAT OPERATORS' LICENSING ACT / LOI DE 1992 SUR LES PERMIS D'UTILISATEURS DE BATEAUX À MOTEUR

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will now deal with ballot item 18, standing in the name of Mr McLean. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mr McLean has moved second reading of Bill 17,

An Act to provide for the Licensing of Motor Boat Operators. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

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

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 94(k), this bill is referred to the committee of the whole House.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): Mr Speaker, I would request unanimous consent to have this referred to the justice committee.

The Deputy Speaker: Shall this bill be referred to the standing committee on administration of justice?

All those in favour of this question will please rise and remain standing.

All those opposed will please rise and remain standing.

The majority not being in favour, this bill will be sent to the committee of the whole House.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

Mr McLean: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I want it to be known that the NDP caucus, except one member, totally voted agin this bill.

The Deputy Speaker: I think you are out of order.

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

The House recessed at 1204.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

OLYMPIC ATHLETES

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): We have a good number of young people who are in the very final stages of training to represent this province and country in the 1992 summer Olympic Games in Barcelona.

I would like to take this time, on behalf of my constituents as well as the citizens of Ontario, to wish all of those who will be travelling to Barcelona the best in their final weeks of training, and of course all the very best in their Olympic competitions beginning July 25.

Having done that, I must draw the attention of the House to the cover of the phone book of the town of Kenora. Through this, all will see how proud Kenora area citizens are of decathlete Michael Smith, who has certainly become the home town's hero.

Michael is only one of the five individuals who will be representing this province and country. He is a person who has gained notoriety across this country and throughout the world. We could not ask for a finer young man to carry the message of drug-free competition to every corner of the world. We, the citizens of this country have much to be proud of. However, we the citizens of the Kenora riding, have even more to be proud of in Michael Smith.

Again, might I pass on all the very best to the fine young people who will join Michael in representing us in Barcelona.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): The changes to the Labour Relations Act in Bill 40 are of great concern to my constituents of York Mills.

To meet our social obligations and to have a prosperous Ontario, we must first have a strong economy. Instead of getting our stalled economy moving, the NDP government has polarized labour and management in its attempt to introduce labour law changes. This government has created a crisis on the labour front where previously none existed.

The government has stubbornly refused to have an independent research study conducted on the implications that changes to the Labour Relations Act will have on the Ontario economy, while at the same time the government refutes the findings of studies by Ernst and Young which indicate that 295,000 more jobs and $8.8 billion in investment will be lost over the next five years if this bill is passed in its present form.

The NDP government has made changes to the Labour Relations Act its number one priority, yet in a recent survey only 1% of Ontarians wanted union rights at the top of the government agenda. That is a pretty small number when one considers that five times as many people believe Elvis Presley still lives.

Let me express what some of my York Mills constituents are saying:

"The proposals, if adopted, would seriously impair our competitive position. The thrust of the NDP concepts is to make it easier for unions to become certified and to give unions greater power during any dispute. Their proposals are 180 degrees in the wrong direction."

KITCHENER-WATERLOO MULTICULTURAL CENTRE

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): Today I'd like to recognize the Kitchener-Waterloo Multicultural Centre:

"The Kitchener-Waterloo Multicultural Centre exists for the purpose of fostering the unique cultural diversity which exists in this community and of encouraging the full integration and the interaction of its residents."

The goals of the centre are: "(1) to facilitate the development of ethnocultural groups in this community; (2) to provide, promote and support new programs and services where required to meet the needs of our multicultural population; (3) to encourage the improvement of existing policies, programs and services to more adequately reflect the reality of the multicultural community; (4) to inform and educate the community about living in a multicultural society; (5) to promote and develop the arts and cultural heritage representative of our multicultural community."

This past weekend, they hosted the 25th annual Kitchener-Waterloo Multicultural Festival, which consisted of song, dance, storytelling, ethnic cuisine and crafts and, of course, the Bavarian beer garden. Greetings were brought from the president of the multicultural centre's board of directors, Inci Kuzucuoglu. At that time, she presented an award to Nicholas Gehl in appreciation of all the hard work that he's done over the past few years on behalf of the multicultural centre.

I'd like to thank them for inviting me to be there at the opening ceremonies and congratulate them on all the hard work they've done in the community.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): In the speech from the throne on November 20, 1990, the Premier said:

"My government's first challenge is to earn the trust and respect of the people of Ontario. My government's integrity will be measured by the way this government is run and our relations with the people we serve. Our task is to guard against institutional arrogance and the abuse of power wherever they exist."

My remarks are about that and are prompted by yesterday's introduction of a closure motion to stop debate on Bill 40, the NDP trade union bill. I would say to the Premier that this closure motion is a dramatic example of real institutional abuse and arrogance and grand abuse of power.

I completely understand that the NDP wants to make this bill into law, but it must also understand that the opposition parties have legitimate and strong concerns about the bill. Second reading, the stage we're at right now, is the time when duly elected members have an opportunity for a say. We deserve to be heard and we must be heard.

This NDP trade union bill will fundamentally alter the Ontario workplace. No other jurisdiction in North America has anything like it. It truly requires time, thought and debate. We are dealing with the economic future of the province. This attempt to gag the duly elected members of the Legislature by cutting off debate must end. We must have an opportunity to let our legitimate views be known on this bill.

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): This government claims to be the champion of the working people of Ontario. You can't hold that title while you proceed to eliminate jobs in this province. Bill 40 will make it more difficult to do business and that will result in less employment.

I would like to illustrate this problem to the House by reading this statement from a letter received from S.M.D. Enterprises in Smiths Falls. Mr Stuart Douglas writes:

"I strongly oppose any legislation that will give labour more power over management. As you know I have been in business for over 50 years and in that time the rights of a business owner have been steadily eroded. Today it is hardly worth being in business what with all governments breathing down one's back all the time.

"A person running a business has all the responsibility, all the headaches, all the financial risk and the privilege of working himself to death. All the employees have to do is show up for work, with absolutely no investment in money, risk or anything else, with everything provided for them to earn a living, and they can't even do that without a lot of unrest."

The fact remains that this legislation is unwanted, unnecessary and economically impossible. Why then would the government proceed with this bill? I think the answer is quite clear. They want to reward their union boss friends and supporters by giving them more power over business and over the economy.

CANADA DAY

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I rise today to provide some personal reflections on what it means to be Canadian, based on my experiences in Oxford during Canada Day.

The first event I attended was the Springford parade. Participating in the parade, I was left with a great sense of community. Springford, a village of 200, put on a very successful parade with many participants, floats and also many people watching. Local people, in conjunction with the Springford Agricultural Society, organized a full day of activities. It was clearly evident that Springford has a wonderful sense of community.

The second event I attended was the Embro Highland Games, which filled me with a sense of heritage. Highland dancing, mass bands and caber tossing were some of the highlights of the 55th annual games. My Scottish ancestors settled outside of Embro in 1852. The Embro Highland Games are an excellent example of the way immigrants, bringing their customs and traditions to Canada, enrich our community. I congratulate the Zorra Caledonian Society for doing another excellent job in organizing the games.

The third event I attended was the celebrations held at the Woodstock and District Community Complex. Woodstock's celebrations impressed upon me the diversity of our multitalented citizens. While I was unable to attend the citizenship court, I did enjoy gymnastics displays, musical performances, crafts, food and limbo dancing sponsored by the Barbadian community.

Many people believe Canadians are not patriotic. From my experiences in Oxford and in observing celebrations across the country, Canadians displayed a great deal of pride in their country and were more than willing to celebrate their communities, their heritage, their talents and their diversity.

Canadians sent all elected officials a strong message on July 1: We're proud to be Canadian and want a united Canada.

CHEQUE CASHING BILL

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): Bill 154, the Government Cheque Cashing Act, was ordered for third reading last April. The Treasurer of this province advised me that the bill is dead.

Members on both sides of the House supported Bill 154. There was, on the part of many members of this government, a very sincere appreciation of the cheque cashing problem and a strong show of support for the prohibition of fees for cashing of government cheques. Bill 154 was fully supported by the standing committee on finance and economic affairs. This is clearly a non-partisan issue.

The Treasurer and the Ministry of Community and Social Services' advisers have their own ideas about this issue. They have recommended that Bill 154 be rejected.

In the Treasurer's letter to the president of the Cheque Cashers' Association of Canada, he states that I proposed a similar bill in 1989 which was not passed. In reality, I proposed a resolution which was approved unanimously by the House.

Last February, someone from the Ministry of Community and Social Services told me that my bill was dead when it was actually at the second reading stage. What is going on?

Social legislation in this province is being dictated by unelected individuals who can't even get their facts straight. While we, as elected representatives of the population, become involved in issues of critical importance, the Treasurer's advisers reject the initiatives we propose and submit for debate.

These mysterious advisers may have decided that Bill 154 is dead, but they can't make the cheque cashing issue go away. Yes, Minister, Bill 154 was mugged in the corridors of power.

AGRICULTURAL LABOUR POLICY

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): The Minister of Labour has a report from the Task Force on Agricultural Labour Relations which has told him not to include agriculture in Bill 40. The task force had both farm, labour and ministry representatives. They all agreed that agriculture should be covered by a separate act which recognizes the right to organize but prohibits strikes and lockouts.

The minister now claims he wants to study this recommendation, but he has left the option open for agriculture to be included under Bill 40. The minister and his officials have openly admitted they want to keep all their options open. This so-called option is creating a great deal of uncertainty in our farming communities.

We know the NDP shows little concern for rural Ontario. Our farm communities have seen cuts to the agricultural budget and even cuts to last year's announcement of much-needed emergency aid. We've seen the Minister of Natural Resources make an NDP-authorized power grab over agricultural issues in Bill 162. We now wonder if the agricultural labour task force was just another NDP smokescreen to keep the farm community quiet.

The Minister of Labour has had a number of opportunities in this House, upon questioning from yours truly, to clarify his position with respect to agriculture and Bill 40. He has not done so. The minister has to state that agriculture will be excluded from Bill 40 and that a separate announcement will be made at the conclusion of his review.

INTERNATIONAL WEEK

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Well, 1992's very successful Welland Rose Festival is over, but that doesn't mean things have slowed down in Niagara South.

Sunday, July 12, is the beginning of International Week in Port Colborne, from July 12 to July 18. On July 12, it starts with the Folk Arts Council international luncheon; July 13 to 17, the George Badawey Memorial Soccer Tournament -- you might even see the Kormos-Evans soccer team playing, sponsored by that bright young criminal lawyer Mark Evans -- on Wednesday, July 15, "Dance Under The Stars" with the Jimmy Marando Orchestra; Thursday, July 16, Senior Citizens Appreciation Night. The grand day is of course July 18, with the parade at 2 pm.

A special person being commemorated this year is Rose Shymansky. Rose, who died in November 1991, commenced International Week as her Canada centennial project in 1967 and carried on with it year after year. She is a hero in that community and in this province. I know that her sister, Mary Yuskiw from First Avenue in Port Colborne, is going to be especially proud this year, as is Rose Shymansky's niece, Shirley Coppen, the MPP for Niagara South.

Friends, I'm going to be in Port Colborne enjoying some of the hospitality and friendship of people like the Folk Arts Council President, Rose Santarella; Alderman Gary Hoyle; Peter Bolger; Gary Ashenden, and Mayor Bob Saracino. So is Shirley Coppen. I hope you are too.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

HUMAN RIGHTS CODE REVIEW

Hon Elaine Ziemba (Minister of Citizenship and Minister Responsible for Human Rights, Disability Issues, Seniors' Issues and Race Relations): I rise in the House today to inform the members that the Ontario Human Rights Code Review Task Force has completed its report, which is called Achieving Equality.

In the House last December I had the privilege to inform the members that Mary Cornish, a lawyer and a long-standing human rights activist, would lead an independent task force and submit a report to me by June 30. The task force included Rick Miles from Thunder Bay and Ratna Omidvar from Toronto. In addition, there was an advisory committee made up of representatives from across Ontario.

Today, I again have the great privilege to say that Ms Cornish and her task force not only met a very short time line but provided a far-reaching report that we have made public today. Ms Cornish is in the gallery today. I wish to thank her, Rick Miles, Ratna Omidvar and all the members of the advisory committee for their outstanding work.

The task force consulted widely with the people of Ontario. It visited seven regions of Ontario, held public meetings and received over 80 presentations before preparing the report that has been made public today. The next step for us as a government is to analyse and review the report with my colleagues. We will consider the recommendations in the context of our government's other equity initiatives.

We look forward to studying the report by Mary Cornish in detail and to working with all Ontarians to ensure that the Ontario Human Rights Commission and other agencies of our government continue to contribute to our pursuit of social justice and economic renewal. Again I'd like to thank the task force for its timely report.

JURY SELECTION

Hon Howard Hampton (Attorney General): I'd like to take this opportunity to update the Legislature on an initiative I announced on May 7, a review of the jury selection process in Ontario. As I stated at that time, our goal is to ensure that people who are called for jury duty better reflect the diversity of our community.

The issues we asked to be considered in the review were the following: whether the Ministry of Revenue source list from which potential jurors are selected tends to exclude tenants, low-income individuals and people who move frequently; whether the current selection process and procedure limits participation by visible minorities, aboriginal peoples and persons with disabilities; whether current compensation rates cause financial hardship for some jurors, and whether citizenship should continue to be a qualification for jury duty.

I advised the House in May that Ontario cannot act unilaterally. While the provincial Juries Act governs how the list of potential jurors is chosen, the federal government through the Criminal Code has total control over the procedures used to select the jury in a criminal trial.

We contacted the federal Minister of Justice and requested her cooperation in making changes to the Criminal Code which would ensure full representation of all people on criminal juries. This would address both the federal law reform commission's working paper, which sets out recommendations for allowing non-citizens to serve as jurors, and a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada which states that citizenship is not a valid basis for excluding lawyers from appearing in court. We must examine if the same holds true for jurors.

I am also pleased to advise the Legislature that at our request a federal-provincial working group has been established to review the issue of citizenship and the in-court selection process for criminal matters.

While we are committed to working at the federal-provincial level, it is important to recognize that the growing diversity of Ontario's population necessitates that we also consider the issue of citizenship on our own. I am committed to making the changes necessary that will not only ensure that the justice system is as inclusive as possible but will also increase the confidence all Ontario's residents have in our court system.

One of the significant issues which has emerged from the review is the crucial need for public education about the jury process. Our information has shown the disturbing fact that 25% of people who receive notices for jury duty in Toronto fail to respond. This figure drops to 10% outside the greater Toronto area.

While more research must be done to determine why this happens, it is clear that the willingness or ability of people to perform jury service depends in part on their understanding of the jury system and perhaps in part on the lack of child care or other factors. Efforts must be made to dispel misapprehensions and fears about jury service that may result from lack of familiarity and inadequate information.

During the past 60 days we began to consult with members of the community, judges, lawyers and other government ministries. But this was only the beginning. Much more consultation will be required to find out more about the reasons why people are not included in the selection process or are not coming forward to participate. This work will be undertaken in the summer months, with a view to presenting a final report by October 1.

There are a number of ideas we are pursuing: Providing a mechanism to ensure that up-to-date information about tenants is included in jury lists, which might involve working with landlords to have the names of new tenants forwarded to the Ministry of Revenue, and working with the Mi