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

May 6, 1993

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

EASTERN ONTARIO ECONOMY

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE / COMMERCE INTERPROVINCIAL

EASTERN ONTARIO ECONOMY

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

NEWBRIDGE NETWORKS CORP

TVONTARIO

MANITOULIN FERRY SERVICE

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

FAMILY OF THE YEAR AWARD

CANADA 125 AWARDS

SENIOR CITIZENS

BOWMANVILLE ROTARY CLUB

DRIVERS' LICENCES PERMIS DE CONDUIRE

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

ONTARIO ECONOMY

DRIVERS' LICENCES

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

ONTARIO ECONOMY

DRIVERS' LICENCES

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

MEMBERS' PRIVILEGES

LABOUR RELATIONS

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

LABOUR RELATIONS

POLITICAL ACTIVITY BY CROWN EMPLOYEES

ONTARIO ECONOMY

JUSTICE SYSTEM

ST CLAIR PARKWAY COMMISSION

COMMUNITY SERVICES

LANDFILL

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

RETAIL STORE HOURS

GAMBLING

MOTORCYCLES

EDUCATION FINANCING

LANDFILL

GAMBLING

MOTORCYCLES

COURT RULING

MOTORCYCLES

EDUCATION FINANCING

RETAIL STORE HOURS

GAMBLING

TOBACCO TAXES

FINANCEMENT DES CONSEILS D'ÉDUCATION

EDUCATION FINANCING

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

OMBUDSMAN REPEAL ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 ABROGEANT LA

LOI SUR L'OMBUDSMAN

MUNICIPAL STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS RELATIVES AUX MUNICIPALITÉS

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 1001.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

EASTERN ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Cleary moved resolution number 4:

That, in the opinion of this House, since the government of Ontario has not adequately addressed the effects of the recession on employment opportunities in eastern Ontario; and

Since over 3,000 jobs have been lost in the Cornwall area during the past two and a half years; and

Since the Ontario Ministry of Labour cited the local employment rate to be between 30% and 40%; and

Since an estimated 40% of Cornwall's population is dependent upon some form of social assistance; and

Since the NDP government reneged on a 1990 commitment to relocate a government agency, branch or ministry to the Cornwall area; and

Since the NDP government of Ontario reneged on a 1990 commitment to construct a substance abuse treatment centre in the city of Cornwall; and

Since Cornwall was completely overlooked in the Ontario Development Corp's most recent announcement of job creation loans worth more than $5 million; and

Since the government of Ontario announced in 1990 that the city of Cornwall would benefit from the relocation of an Ontario ministry office; and

Since construction of a new government of Ontario building will begin in the city of Cornwall shortly; and

Since the government of Ontario building has the potential to accommodate a ministry;

The government of Ontario should therefore act immediately to create new and permanent jobs for the Cornwall area by locating one of the three recently announced crown corporations in the government of Ontario building in Cornwall.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Mr Cleary moves ballot item number 5. Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): Time and time again I have stood in the Legislature attempting to impress upon the Premier and the NDP government the economic situation in my riding.

It is no secret that the Cornwall and area economy is in a serious predicament. Every day the effects of the recession are felt on the retail community: people without jobs, even our school children and now our students looking for work. In fact it was so bad in the area that a special committee has been formed from the school boards, the children's aid society and local individuals and community leaders. They call themselves the Vision Committee. They want to make sure that there's no duplication of services and they get the best value for every dollar they spend.

Of course I appreciate that our area is not alone in feeling the effects of the recession. I might point out the Premier's recent decision to cancel ministry locations for other areas of the province, namely, Windsor, Brantford, Chatham and Kingston.

The consolation prize for cancelling these decentralization projects and wiping out the opportunities is a $100-million special economic fund to be shared by these affected communities. Being well aware of the impact of job losses, I feel for each of the communities, but the truth of the matter is that if any region in Ontario should have a special economic development fund, it is the Cornwall area.

The statistics quickly prove that over 20 manufacturing plants have closed in the past 36 months while 3,000 jobs were lost, unemployment has soared to 30% and 40% of the population relies on some kind of social assistance. Many of these are older workers, members who went into a plant when they came out of school. Many of them are over 55 years of age.

The bad part of the whole thing is that under the present regulations for the program for older worker adjustment, POWA, on account of the small numbers in the plants, they do not even qualify to take advantage of that. Then we had another plant, BCL, that closed. Now it's in its fourth year and these employees do not even have their severance packages yet.

We have the other environmental issues, a political agenda that affected our pulp and paper industry. I know it's not the only pulp and paper industry that's affected -- there are others in Ontario too -- but at least our local people have been trying to get a meeting with the Premier and the Ministry of Environment and Energy, and to date they have not been successful. It is mandatory that this situation be acted on now to restore growth and renewal in the community.

Over the past two and a half years I've made several requests to this government to respond to the unique and desperate situation in the Cornwall area. I have made a motion to combat cross-border shopping through the reduction of provincial taxes. Two of the key cross-border attractions are gasoline and cigarettes. Just five minutes away, you can purchase gasoline at 95 cents a gallon and cigarettes at a small percentage of what you would pay in Ontario.

Our local service station operators and our local corner stores have been devastated by this. I know in the upcoming budget the Premier's eyeing to increase taxes on both these goods and will make the problem even worse. Not only that; it will hit the agricultural community and our tobacco growers.

I have sought the reintroduction of the Ontario Development Corp interest-free loan program as an incentive for business to locate in eastern Ontario. Every week I am told by businesses of all the advantages they could take advantage of if they were to locate just a few minutes away in the United States and also am told about some of the advantages they could have if they located in Quebec.

I have also attempted to ensure a healthy investor working climate by supporting amendments to the NDP's new labour legislation. We are just in the midst of losing another plant to the province of Quebec. This plant came to Cornwall over five years ago. They had a well-trained workforce, had won awards and were making plans for the future. Just by coincidence, after Bill 40 became law, they suddenly announced that they were going back to Quebec.

I also pressed for the eastern Ontario economic development program funding to be unfrozen, to name only a few of the measures I have pursued.

Mr Speaker, at this point I'd like to move that the provincial government create new and permanent jobs for the area by locating one of the three new crown corporation offices in Cornwall.

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): I am very pleased to fully support my colleague the member for Cornwall's private member's motion to stimulate the economy of eastern Ontario, and particularly that of Cornwall and surrounding area.

I will list you some of the businesses and the opportunities that have shut down in the last three years, and it's astonishing. We have jobs created, 154; jobs lost, 2,210; layoffs, 440. So we have total jobs lost in the last three years of 2,650 or almost 12% of the entire workforce of Cornwall and area -- an absolute travesty. These were not jobs in the $20- and $25-an-hour range; these were a lot of manufacturing jobs in the salary range of $10 to $15, $16 per hour.

These are the jobs that are lost and they're lost for good, and I'll list some of them: December 1992, Courtaulds, 360 jobs gone; Dominion Textiles, June 1992, 350 jobs gone; Domtar, laid off 150 people, December 1991; Combustion Engineering, October 1990, 200 jobs gone; Amoco Fabrics, 200 jobs gone, July 1990; BASF, Cornwall, 150 jobs gone, May 1990; Courtaulds Films, 240 jobs gone, October 1989. The list goes on, a full page of jobs that no longer are available. Something must be done.

I will cite you, the main employer in Cornwall is Domtar, a pulp and paper manufacturing company that has just announced that it will be spending some $60 million to retool and revamp its paper-making process to recycle cardboard boxes into fine paper. Congratulated by the government of Ontario -- this is great -- "The Minister of the Environment, the Honourable Howard Hampton, congratulates Domtar Inc on the development of a new process that recycles old cardboard boxes into high-quality fine papers."

Sounds real good. The bad news is on the very next day the government of Ontario announced an absolute and total removal of chlorines in the paper-making process, something that has got the attention of city council and of Domtar Fine Papers.

I will cite you a letter and it's addressed to the Honourable Bud Wildman, Minister of Environment, and it comes from not only management but from union people within the Domtar conglomerate:

"As part of the new union-management working relationship at the Cornwall mill of Domtar Specialty Fine Papers, we are very concerned with the economic impact of the draft MISA regulations. The Cornwall mill has already agreed to install secondary treatment at a cost of $55 million by the year 1995, which will bring the mill into compliance with federal and provincial regulations on BOD and toxicity. However, we believe that some of the additional provincial requirements under MISA are unnecessary for environmental protection, unjustifiably restrictive and likely to threaten the continued existence of the mill due to the additional capital requirement of $75 million."

This was announced by the Ministry of Environment. These requirements were announced within a day or two after Domtar had announced an almost $60-million investment to recycle used cardboard. Domtar and its union-management team believe that this is absolutely unnecessary. They are quite prepared to meet the requirements as set out by the federal government. They feel, and I'll cite again: "We see no scientific justification for imposing a goal of zero AOX by the year 2002. Compliance will require over $40 million." It goes on with some technical information.

Well, there are 1,000 jobs at Domtar, and this government in its overzealous requirement above and beyond what the industry says is not required, what the federal government says is unreasonable, indeed, what is being required by the Ministry of Environment and Energy in Ontario, could create absolute havoc. Can you imagine another 1,000 people in the Cornwall area to be laid off permanently?

It will cost absolutely nothing to this government to simply adopt the same rules on the environment as are presently being enforced by the federal government, and that's all that the Domtar union-management team is asking: to maintain the capital that will be invested and to maintain those very important jobs in the area where I reside and where many of my constituents go to work, whatever jobs are available.

Smuggling was touched on by my colleague from Cornwall, a major problem. The cost of cigarettes and gas has made it very, very easy for residents of the area to travel across the bridge -- it takes about two minutes if there's no lineup -- and obtain gas at about half the price on Akwesasne, which is a native reserve between the state of New York and the province of Ontario; cigarettes the same thing and booze. There is a big, big business. Organized crime is involved and it's very much hurting the economy of the area.

I attended a meeting last Friday, very concerned people, again, in the Cornwall area but this time it's a little bit west of Cornwall in the riding I represent, Highway 16, a major artery from the international bridge at Johnstown leading from New York state to the capital of our country, Ottawa.

Highway 16 some 15 years ago was prepared for being a four-lane limited access road, and in so doing, the government of the day -- and it happened to be the Tories -- expropriated all the land required and built the one lane of a potential and intended four-lane highway, a very dangerous situation in that the engineering and the layout of this one lane of a potential four-lane highway is now taking two-way traffic.

We have had over 40 deaths on that highway in the last number of years, and you, Mr Speaker, coming from the Ottawa area, avoid Highway 16 on the weekend. Friday, Saturday and Sunday it's an absolutely intolerable road. We need improvements. We need them now. If it has to be a toll road, so be it. People are prepared to cover the cost. However, lives must be saved.

The area, particularly south of the Rideau River to Highway 401, is absolutely terrible and it must be addressed and must be addressed now. Most of the work regarding engineering has been completed. Well over 95% of expropriation had been completed quite some time ago. We need action. We need pavement. We need another lane, most definitely.

Fuel ethanol will be an industry of the future. It's a green industry. I have been promoting it since I have been elected to this chamber. It is finally now coming to fruition but not coming very rapidly. My colleague from Cornwall is also very supportive of the project.

We have a group of farmers, known as the Seaway Valley Farmers Energy Co-operative, working very well together. They will have state-of-the-art processing of this product. It will be good for the environment. Eastern Ontario is a natural in that we have a very concentrated livestock industry and a very heavy grain production industry, two of the basic requirements of a fuel-ethanol-type production facility.

St Lawrence Parks Commission operates out of my riding, primarily headquartered at Morrisburg. They have been cut back by over $1 million in their budget for the coming year. For every available seasonal job at the St Lawrence Parks Commission, we have 15 or more applicants. That means that 14 people go without a job for every job that is assigned or given to seasonal employees, seasonal workers at St Lawrence Parks Commission. That, I think, gives you an idea of the type of economic despair that we have in southeastern Ontario.

Again, I think the Ministry of Environment and Energy must look again at its requirement of eliminating chlorine in the paper production facility by the year 2002; I believe the minister must, and must do it now, because this may well completely eliminate the $60 million to recycle used cardboard and would also shut down the plant. Again, we're talking of 1,000 jobs. I believe my colleague from Cornwall probably knows more about that plant, because I think at one time he was an employee there, and he may want to touch on that as he summarizes.

I don't think I need to emphasize a great deal more. Eastern Ontario has been forgotten. Somehow or other, agriculture has always been the mainstay, but those offshoots of agriculture are having some very, very difficult times. I'll cite you another example where a small cheese processing plant under the auspices of the department of health attempted to close down the sale of warm, fresh cheese curd. It doesn't make any sense, but this is the kind of --

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): That has been looked after.

Mr Villeneuve: It's been looked after, but thank you for bringing it to our attention, because the bureaucrats are running wild; they're running uncontrolled. If this government has more of its say -- and Bill 40 is part of putting the fox in charge of the henhouse, and that is what's occurring.

Again, my colleague spoke of a company that came to the Cornwall area from Quebec to get away from the type of very, very difficult labour legislation in the province of Quebec. Well, what do we have here now? We have even more restrictive and more negative labour laws in Ontario; the same company going back from whence it came, back to the province of Quebec, to get away from the likes of Bill 40. We will see more and more of this. We must take governments out of creating the artificial hoops and barriers that they are so good at, to interfere with the normal progress of business.

The implementation of this type of legislation you can attempt to camouflage by using every trick in the book -- NAFTA, free trade, the GST; I'll tell you, the worst offender is the labour laws that have recently come into this province. If we continue with that kind of government interference, we will have no choice but to take a back seat with an economy that will not restart. We keep saying we're on the verge of coming back to normal in Ontario. Well, we're not ever going to come back to normal as what we knew five or more years ago from business with this type of government and this type of legislation.

In summarizing, and I've probably taken a little more time than I wanted to, but the problem is so absolutely major in the area that I and my colleague from Cornwall come from. We have had some difficulty in getting to meet the Premier and cabinet officials. I have had the opportunity of meeting on several occasions, as my colleague from Cornwall has, and they have been sympathetic and they have provided some funding through the special group that was recently formed. My colleague Mr Cleary and I attended, and I think they will be addressing corrective measures.

But basically it's a Band-Aid remedy. We are not addressing the major problem, which is jobs. When parents go to work, their children feel much more confident, and we would not have a situation that is presently occurring, where almost 40% of the families in Cornwall and area are on some form of social assistance. Almost 25% of the households have been told that the hydro would be cut off unless they paid the hydro bill -- almost 25%. If that's not alarming, I don't know what is.

If bringing one of the new crown corporations to Cornwall will help, so be it, but again, it's Band-Aid. Every little bit counts; it will help. I compliment my colleague for bringing this private member's motion to the Legislature.

Mr Paul Johnson: It's with pleasure that I speak to this resolution today. I've got to say that on the surface, I don't support it, and I want to tell you why I don't support it. That's because if every member of this Legislature was to stand and introduce a resolution during private members' business supporting something in their particular region or constituency, then indeed we would have great difficulty, because I think to have a particular resolution supporting any indication of our own support for our own constituency would mean that all the other members wouldn't support it.

Being a member from eastern Ontario, I want to say that yes, indeed, eastern Ontario has been hit hard during this very difficult economic time and during this recession, but I don't know that it's been hit considerably harder than any other part of the province, quite frankly. Indeed, I'd like to ask the member for Cornwall if he talked to his colleague from Quinte, because I know that Trenton has been devastated by the closures of many manufacturing plants, and certainly that too is in eastern Ontario. Maybe the member for Quinte would like to stand up and introduce a resolution that would bring some kind of government jobs and government buildings to his constituency.

Indeed, I want to say that in my own riding of Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings, I think it would be great if we could have a government building located there and ministry employees and government employees working there, because indeed in my constituency of Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings I too have felt the effects, and so have my constituents, of this very difficult recession that we have to deal with and contend with at this time.

I just want to bring some information to the members of the Legislature today with regard to just what has been done in eastern Ontario. I know that the member for Cornwall mentioned that not a lot was done with regard to the cross-border shopping issue, and I want to say that just under 50% of all the dollars spent by this government in eastern Ontario were exactly spent in Cornwall to help with the cross-border shopping issue. I want to say too that the cross-border shopping isn't just unique to Cornwall; it's unique to other parts of the province and indeed it's unique to Kingston.

I guess it's not unique at all then in that respect. I guess it's more commonplace where we have border communities.

Indeed my colleague the additional parliamentary assistant to the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade, Norm Jamison, has been to eastern Ontario on many occasions, and he's well aware of the very difficult times that eastern Ontario has had to deal with. I believe he's been to Cornwall; I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong. Indeed, he's telling me right now that he's met with the mayor and he's met with the people at Domtar, both union and management, and they're trying to resolve some of these very difficult problems that they're facing right at this time.

I have some other statistics here from the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade that suggest that eastern Ontario has received, in my opinion, substantial funding, maybe not enough, but you have to look at the few dollars that we have to appropriate around the province. I guess we could always, in the interests of our own particular constituency, argue we could use a little more, and I suspect that's what the member for Cornwall is doing.

However, with the very limited funds that we have, I think we have to make it clear that eastern Ontario has received some substantial funding. The eastern Ontario community economic development program has funded eastern Ontario to the tune of $7,630,661, of which Cornwall received $591,197. Now, proportionally, I guess you could say that's a little less than 10%, but eastern Ontario's a very big place and we have to make sure that when we allocate these funds, they are shared equitably throughout the province, and indeed, when they're allocated in eastern Ontario, that they're shared equitably throughout eastern Ontario.

For the member to stand up and ask, through a resolution, that the government locate a ministry and a ministry building and create employment through that opportunity -- I want to say that's good and well, except that I'd like to have it happen in my riding and many members of this Legislature would like to have that happen in their riding. Indeed, the member for Chatham-Kent had great expectations of the government locating in his constituency and he knows now that's not going to happen.

He's not happy with that, but he recognizes that he has to live with the very difficult circumstances we're dealing with at this time; indeed, he's come to accept it. He's not happy, but he's come to accept that, and we have to deal with these things.

I could go on at length about all the reasons why I think there's certainly merit in the member for Cornwall's resolution. However, there are also a lot of reasons why I can't support it. There are other members on the government side who would like to speak to this resolution, and I want to allow them that opportunity.

Mr Cleary: I made this motion not only as a clear and a necessary path to address the exceptionally damaging effect that the recession has had on eastern Ontario, but I also did it because of integrity and keeping promises.

Indeed, Cornwall shares sentiments across Ontario that the 1990 politics of change really translate into politics of disappointment and devastation. Since the NDP government assumed power, it has repeatedly pulled out of confirmed commitments, leaving area residents high and dry, time and time again. For example, the NDP failed to honour a 1990 commitment to relocate a government agency branch or ministry to the Cornwall area. There was also a commitment from the previous government to establish a substance abuse treatment centre in the Cornwall area.

The government members should be reminded of what a commitment is: a guarantee, a pledge, an obligation and a responsibility to fulfil for the people of the Cornwall area. For whatever ill-governing reasons, however, the NDP has not fulfilled these promises.

Even right now, as I speak, uncertainty continues over the construction plans for a new Ontario government building in Cornwall. From 1987 to 1990, there were numerous meetings here between former municipal representatives and ministers, and they had decided at that time that Cornwall would have provincial government identity, which it doesn't have at the present time.

When the announcement was made in the winter of 1990, it was noted that the sod-turning would take place in 1992, with occupancy in 1994. However, due to the NDP lagging, construction has not yet started, yet we've had all kinds of parliamentary assistants and ministers in the Cornwall area trying to tell the municipal people that everything is on schedule.

The city council, the municipality of Cornwall, was advised to purchase the land and has put out over $1 million of taxpayers' money to clear the title on that property, and now they're sitting with the bill. And all we get from this government is just deadlines.

Mr Norm Jamison (Norfolk): That is wrong.

Mr Cleary: That is not wrong. The deadline has gone by again as of April 30.

Mr Jamison: That's wrong.

Mr Cleary: The member says it's wrong, but I've been just as close to that project as any of them, and I'm not wrong. The fact is that the NDP members have confirmed in the local press that construction will start this year; they should be more careful when they go to the press. Yet the province continues to put the city off. The last deadline the province gave the city was, as I said, April 30, 1993. However, unless they intend some short or miraculous construction process, the NDP have made this commitment almost impossible.

Premier Bob Rae has told me that the province is looking at ways to assist the process of economic renewal in Cornwall. Former Government Services minister Fred Wilson told me that creating stable employment in Cornwall is a priority for everyone concerned. The Economic Development and Trade minister told me that the staff has been working to support local Cornwall initiatives. I have even heard that the minister of municipal affairs intends to compensate the city for lost revenue due to lost assessment.

The time of empty promises and talk is over. Clearly it's time for the government to live up to its words and finally respond to the needs. The government building must start soon. When the building is completed, we'll have the potential to accommodate a government ministry, as has been promised. Obviously, then the building will likewise be able to meet the requirements for a crown corporation.

I would like to talk about the Domtar situation. My colleague the member for S-D-G & East Grenville spoke about that. Again, the Domtar mill faces some serious long-term plans. It has the support of the community and the three union organizations at the plant, and at least the government of Ontario could have the courtesy to meet with the Domtar people whom I have requested to meet with them.

Mr Jamison: We met with them two weeks ago, right there in Cornwall.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Cleary: As to the information the member from across is yelling over and back, I talked with the Domtar people and they have different opinions.

Anyway, this is something that's going to be very difficult for the Domtar mill to meet. I just had a call last Friday in my constituency office, and they want to make long-term plans. As the member for S-D-G & East Grenville has said, it's going to be very difficult, and I think everyone's got to understand each other. I know that Domtar in Cornwall is not alone in this, but it has to be dealt with.

The other thing I would like to mention too about economic development in eastern Ontario is trying to develop an ethanol industry: Things seem to be moving along on that project and that should be one of the bright spots.

I want to talk about the St Lawrence Parks Commission. I guess anyone in eastern Ontario has had discussions with St Lawrence Parks Commission employees, some of whom have been laid off. I understand there are some job vacancies there. I would hope, as all members of this House should, that these people who were laid off should have the opportunity to be trained on these jobs.

Getting back to the cross-border shopping, the member across the way mentioned about the money that had gone, that most of it had gone to Cornwall. Well, if he reads the newspapers, Cornwall is the area that's making the headlines on cross-border shopping. No matter what station you turn on in this province, there are always people getting caught who seem to smuggle at the Cornwall crossing. Maybe that's the reason they should have got the money.

The other thing I would have to say here is that the first allotment of money didn't come from this government; it was started by a previous government.

I know that everyone needs taxes at budget time, but I hope this government, when it's setting its budget, would surely look at not taxing cigarettes and gasoline more, because that will make the situation much, much worse. As I said earlier, our local businesses are having a terrible time to survive right now. They're not happy campers.

Again, it was mentioned about all the job losses in the area, and many of those will never come back. We have a few good companies left and we want to keep them.

I would like to get back to this $100-million special economic development fund. The facts that we have presented here today are true, the unemployment is true, and we feel that part of that money should go to eastern Ontario. When I talk about eastern Ontario, I don't mean right in Cornwall itself. I was a municipal councillor for many years before I came here and I sat with a lot of my colleagues' constituents in S-D-G, and I know there are parts of that area that are devastated too, especially the eastern parts. I would like to support them, and anything going anywhere would assist everyone in eastern Ontario a lot.

Getting back to the interest-free loans that used to be available under former governments, that was a little bit of a competitive edge that we had over industries that had in their minds to locate probably in the United States. Right now, they come into all of our offices, they discuss their problems. They ask us, "What does the province have to offer?" We don't have much. Then they tell me what they can be offered in northern New York state. I'm sorry to say that we lose some of them to New York state. I think that's something we've got to take into consideration.

I'm not in favour of gifts, but I am in favour of interest-free loans. Sometimes it's just enough to make a company make a decision, to help it with its interest for a few years.

I would like to mention there that I regret what happened to our Simmons mattress company, which was a good employer and paid good wages in our area. It's unfortunate that we have lost them back to Quebec.

The other thing I would like to mention here, that I'm sure affects us all a lot in many of our ridings, is that Ontario's construction workers, I feel, should have the same benefits the Quebec construction workers enjoy when they come to Ontario. I know we have lots of Quebec workers. Many of them are tradesmen working in our area right now on construction jobs. I have no difficulty with that as long as our own workers have those same opportunities working in another province. I think that's something that should get the attention of the government right now.

The other very serious situation -- and we have hundreds, maybe thousands of them -- is that our youth are coming out of university and out of high school and there doesn't seem to be much of a future this summer for them. Tomorrow I'm opening a youth employment centre and I know the staff there are working very hard to try to make sure that the youth have jobs this summer, but it's very difficult.

Another thing I mentioned yesterday in a private member's statement is that we talk about Jobs Ontario and all the opportunities there are under Jobs Ontario. We have a centennial arena that the Ministry of Labour is closing due to structural problems. It was put here by the St Lawrence Seaway. Now it's almost going to be condemned. Unless the ministry comes through with Jobs Ontario or money under Tourism, as of September that arena will be closed. I think that's something this government should look very carefully at under its Jobs Ontario program.

Mr Jamison: Once again, I rise to inform the House, as the rhetoric continues from the other side about inaction and not paying any attention to Cornwall, that I made a trip on April 30 to Cornwall to meet with the mayor, to meet with Domtar and to meet with the various stakeholders in the community to talk about the types of projects, the types of concerns Cornwall has. We haven't heard anything about the city itself and the initiatives it's taken on its own accord, and it is of course looking in some cases for federal help and in other cases for provincial help in furthering these projects and initiatives.

I commend the mayor of Cornwall and I commend the councillors, because when I arrived on the scene there was none of this rhetoric that's going on here in the House. I was told very clearly: "We want to work with you. We have no particular axe to grind.

There are projects out there that we would like your various ministries to understand and to consider in the face of the difficult times Cornwall is going through" -- and I might add, difficult times that it's going through because it's a midsize manufacturing community and because a number of companies have relocated for factors that we've gone over here in this House time and time again. We hear a little about that from the Conservative member who gets up and expounds the rhetoric.

We talked about the waterfront development project, a long-range program. As I said, I met the mayor and the development people and we're working to see which steps will trigger the following steps, because that's a long-range project and will simply enhance Cornwall as a community. The need for infrastructure is there, and we have consistently been in support of that type of infrastructure-building.

When community economic development is talked about, Cornwall may well fit well into that situation. We talked down there about the St Lawrence environmental institute and how this, in conjunction with the city and the University of Ottawa and the various levels of government, could be a very positive situation to study the ecosystem in the St Lawrence and how that would add, again, to the community itself.

We talk about the land acquisition proposed for the Cornwall courthouse and I apprised the Attorney General on my return about the importance of that issue. The statement that was made down there was, "We're hopeful we can have a shovel in the ground some time this year," because there are issues where, whether you're government or not, you have to pass the hurdles.

I apprised the Attorney General personally of that situation, and I'd like to remind you that it was only a few days ago that I was there. Again, I was treated much better there than I am here, I can tell you that. Just last Friday, a delegation from Cornwall came from Cornwall and visited me at 5 o'clock in the afternoon and went away saying, "You know, we really do now get the sense that we're being heard."

The Premier, this Friday, will be in Hawkesbury and will be meeting with various delegations there, I can tell you that, and that's something the local mayor and council think is a very positive step and feel very good about. I can tell you that this issue, the courthouse issue, the land acquisition issue, is of great importance to the community of Cornwall, and we recognize that.

The province, as I say, has to get over hurdles, just as any government has to, to acquire, to build and so on. Apparently, both former premiers, Frank Miller and David Peterson, visited Cornwall with no resultant economic benefit to the city whatsoever. So here we have again in this House the line of rhetoric coming from the other side, and it's horrendous as far as I'm concerned. Treasury Board approval of the land acquisition would be, in my opinion, a major win for the community, and we're working to see if that can be achieved in the most efficient, fastest manner possible.

I can tell you that when we talk about the issues that affect Cornwall -- and they do affect Cornwall. They affect Cornwall very significantly, and we have taken measures, taken steps, to assess what role we can play there.

In normal terms, without a resolution in the House, the proactivity has been ongoing. I have been there and met with delegations from Cornwall twice in the last week and a half. The rhetoric that comes from this House, from the other side, on this resolution is mind-boggling.

With that, I just thought that the facts might be well put on the record here, and I'll sit in my place at this point.

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): I'm pleased, since I'm from eastern Ontario and have intense interest in it, to say a few words about it. I also, with my colleagues, am concerned about the negativism that has arisen here. I would like to think that what we're doing here is trying to look at areas, remembering that we are part of a province and that all areas are suffering and that it's what we do together that counts.

I wanted to say too that it goes beyond geography; I have a personal connection. One of my early vivid memories was travelling with my uncle, Ken Rothwell in a milk wagon drawn by a horse. He was working for River Mead Dairy at the time. My aunt tells me there were a couple of other dairies there, Eastside and West Front. All three of them have disappeared.

My uncle went to work then for Entwistle Lumber for a couple years, and finally on to Dominion Tape. Certainly, Dominion Tape has changed. So in his own working lifetime, he went through a lot of change, and I think that's what we're looking at now. We have to recognize that there's change and that we've got to meet it.

One of the ways we're meeting it is through the Royal Commission on Learning, and I'm pleased to see that Manisha Bharti from Cornwall is one of the commissioners, a student commissioner, which I think shows our confidence in the future by naming a student -- and a student from Cornwall. I'm proud to say that somebody from eastern Ontario is taking this role that will help the province come up with the kind of education we need.

Again I say, let's emphasize the positive. My colleague Mr Jamison mentioned community economic development. Let's see what we can do together, not only in Cornwall, not only in eastern Ontario, but across the province.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): In the very brief moment that I have left, I'd like to speak to this as well. There's no question that delivering on anti-recession jobs to communities that have been devastated by the recession is a good and positive thing, and I think every member of this Legislature would agree that's a good thing. But I have to tell you, in my own community of Downsview, there are a number of jobs that are being planned to be moved out -- it was announced by the Liberal government in the last election -- and some of those jobs are going.

Do I like that? My community of Downsview has been devastated by the recession. The majority of people work in construction, and we all know what's happened in the construction industry, in the construction sector. Have I fought that move? Absolutely. I think that in my own community it's a devastating thing; there's no question about it. Will I accept the move when it happens? Of course I'll accept the move when it happens. Will I continue to fight that move? Absolutely, Mr Speaker. To do anything less would be a disservice to the community and to the kind of people I represent.

You can't correct 40 years of Conservative inequities, five years of Liberal aggrandizements, in just one term of office, but we're going to govern for all the people of Ontario. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Cornwall, you have two minutes to reply.

Mr Cleary: I'm awful sorry that the parliamentary assistant has left, because he talks about newspaper clippings here, about all the good things. There is a picture of the mayor of Cornwall here. "And it ended in silence. Not even a whisper has been heard from," Premier Bob Rae's staff, "Martelle admitted." Martelle said he hasn't heard anything. He will again contact Rae's staff. This is after the parliamentary assistant's visit to Cornwall. No NDP money but lots of promises.

Then another headline in the paper, "Visit No Coup; Parliamentary Assistant One Step Above Backbencher." So that's the kind of press we've been getting.

To get back to it, the city of Cornwall has taken initiatives and we are working on the environmental institute. I was involved in that project since day one, the first meeting, and we have our meetings. We've had meetings up here with this government, looking for some type of assistance.

One other thing I should say is that there hasn't been anything flowed through from the province of Ontario, but I do have to say that the federal government, at our last meeting last Friday, announced that it was getting involved in the project.

Mr Paul Johnson: It's election time.

Mr Cleary: Maybe so. Anyway, there are a few things I would hope would attention: the St Lawrence Parks Commission. I would hope they would work with the municipality to get St Lawrence Parks open.

For the residents of eastern Ontario, I look forward to each of you backing this sorely-needed new and permanent employment opportunity, along with the economic spinoff that will result, for the establishment of a crown corporation.

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

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE / COMMERCE INTERPROVINCIAL

Mr Sterling moved resolution number 7:

That in the opinion of this House, since all interprovincial trade barriers should be removed as soon as possible; and

Since the province of Ontario has been negotiating with the province of Quebec for over 15 years to allow equal access to construction jobs and construction contracts in both provinces; and

Since Quebec workers and Quebec contractors have free access to the Ontario construction market; and

Since Ontario workers and Ontario contractors are not allowed free access to the Quebec construction market; and

Since negotiation has proved fruitless and the patience of the people of eastern Ontario is exhausted;

Therefore, Ontario should declare a Quebec-Ontario construction employment equity policy which would include the following statement as a condition of tendering for Quebec bidders:

That until the preferential restrictions in Quebec currently applying to non-Quebec businesses and labour are repealed, only those having their principal place of business in Ontario be allowed to bid unless specifically invited.

That the term "principal place of business" will be interpreted to mean the principal establishment from which the business of a firm, as it relates to the tender, is directed and where the supervisory staff and equipment are ordinarily located.

That the coverage of the policy will include for construction prime contracts, subcontracts, goods supplied and installed, services within these contracts.

That there be a term inserted in all construction contracts that a construction contractor or subcontractor must give hiring preference to an Ontario resident over a Quebec resident.

That the Ontario government insist these conditions be included in any construction contract for which it is providing partial or full funding.

That this policy be immediately terminated when Ontario construction workers and contractors have equal access to the province of Quebec.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Mr Sterling moves private member's resolution number 7. Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I want to emphasize the first and the last statement in the resolution, and that is that we in this House in all political parties have professed in the past that all interprovincial trade barriers should be removed in Canada, and the last line of this particular resolution says it should be terminated as soon as we in Ontario, our construction workers, our construction contractors, have equal access to the Quebec provincial market.

It pains me in some ways to bring this resolution to this House, because I don't believe in interprovincial trade barriers. I want to also indicate that every contractor who has talked to me, every construction worker who has talked to me, has said: "We don't want preferential treatment over Quebec workers, Quebec contractors. All we want is equal access to their market, as they have to ours."

Mr Speaker, the question may be asked by those who do not live in eastern Ontario and who are not touched by this problem as deeply as we are, "What are the barriers in each province, the barriers in Quebec and in Ontario?" I want to read to you, sir, from a federal government document on preferential policies.

It outlines for the province of Quebec: "Provincial construction contracts will be awarded only to those contractors having their principal place of business in the province," and "Bidders must engage subcontractors who have permanent establishments in Quebec." For contracts exceeding $10,000, a preference of up to 10% is applied to the correct content of the bids. Then it goes down to Ontario. This is a federal document. "Ontario does not appear to have any preferential buying policies in respect of construction services specifically."

I also want to read from a document which I received from the Ottawa Construction Association, which is very much touched by this problem:

"Employees wishing to work in Quebec are required to have a competency card and pass a mandatory safety course. The competency card is a prime source of distress and is somewhat a misnomer, because in a slow economic period they don't give any of these cards out."

In other words, it has nothing to do with the ability of a worker to pass a test as to his knowledge about safety matters; it has to do with allowing a worker to even apply for work in the province of Quebec.

The worst result of this requirement is permanent job loss for Ontarians. For example, a contractor who has obtained permission to bid on contracts in Quebec in the eastern Ontario area on the first Quebec project he successfully tendered attempted to get competency cards for his employees to no avail. He eventually laid off some of his regular employees and hired a number of Quebec employees with cards.

He has just advised me that he will be going through a regular layoff because of a lack of work in the next week or so. His only logical business choice is to lay off his regular, long-term employees from Ontario, who have been with him for up to 10 years, and keep the Quebec employees because they have cards and can work on both sides of the Ottawa River.

Ontario has no such restriction on employees. Some trades require licensing and apprenticeships; however, there are no restrictions on the numbers at any time. For employers to compete in Quebec, they must be licensed, belong to an employer's association, have office space in the province of Quebec and have a Quebec telephone number. A contractor's ability to obtain a licence varies. There have been reports of harassment and the inability to obtain that licence. To work in Ontario as a contractor, a Quebec person coming this way, regardless of origin, must simply register with the WCB if he has employees.

That is the sum total of the problem that we have here. I am running short of time, but I want to tell you of a number of individual cases where there have been restrictions on Ontario contractors. I refer to the James Bay project where, as anybody who wanted to bid on a James Bay project, the contractor or subcontractor, had to have been doing business in the province of Quebec for a period of 10 years and had to have offices in the province of Quebec in order to bid on that huge hydro-electric project.

This week, in the Commercial News I read about a very small project in the city of Hull to do some landscaping at the Hull tourist train station. It reads, "Tenderers having their main place of business in the province of Quebec are invited to submit a tender." In other words, all of those landscapers, those people involved in the paving industry in the province of Ontario, do not even have the opportunity to bid on this particular contract.

On the other hand, I have a letter from Gaston Lavoie, who owns a cabinet shop in your riding, Mr Speaker, and he writes to me that just recently he has lost a $200,000 job to a millwork shop in Gatineau. He does not complain that they came in and competed with him; he only complains that he cannot go back across into the province of Quebec and bid on construction jobs in that province. He estimates that he has lost $300,000 worth of work over the last few years in terms of being able to do business there.

Mr Speaker, I want you also to know, and other members should know, that this just doesn't affect eastern Ontario. I received a letter from Ken Lilley, president of Modern Railings and Metalcraft, who has been attempting to supply jobs to many of his long-term and loyal employees here in the province of Ontario.

He informs me that subcontracts on the Princess Margaret Hospital, not 1,000 feet from this building, the Solicitor General's building in Ottawa, Queen's University in Kingston, the Attorney General's building in Ottawa, the Kitchener city hall in Kitchener, of course, and the Sick Children's Hospital, again just down the street, all have significant amounts of Quebec workers working on those buildings, Quebec subcontractors who are allowed to come in and bid competitively on those buildings. Mr Lilley doesn't complain about the fact that he has to bid against these people, but he would like the opportunity to go to Montreal and Quebec City and bid on contracts in those areas.

We're not talking about closing borders because we want to exclude competition. We're talking about opening another border to allow our people to have equal access to another market. This started back in 1977. It's been going on for some 15 years. Various governments, including the government of which I was a part, mouthed that they wanted to do away with interprovincial trade barriers. They have tried to negotiate with the province of Quebec to drop these trade barriers and give equal access to the market.

Three things recently have sharpened the focus on this debate. Number one, we have a recession. Number two, the ministers of the various provincial governments and the federal government have decided to meet this summer to try to start to discuss how they're going to get rid of these interprovincial barriers. But thirdly, and more important, a sharp focus was given to this debate, and I must quite frankly admit that a lot of this resolution is copied from the same policy proposal put forward by the Premier of New Brunswick.

Frank McKenna has shown a great deal of leadership in this matter. He has decided to take the bull by the horns. I think it is only fair that construction workers, construction contractors, in the province of Ontario receive the same kind of support as Frank McKenna has given to the contractors and contracting workers in his province.

We live in a federation; we must live with each other. We have shown respect for Quebec contracting workers and Quebec contractors. In my view, Quebec has not shown the same mutual respect. It is unfortunate the way we have to take this step, but we must get them to the bargaining table. We must get to them the message that we mean business.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): The proposed resolution would permit only those tenders having their principal place of business in Ontario to bid on contracts unless specifically invited. As well, it recommends that construction contractors or subcontractors give hiring preference to Ontario residents over Quebec residents.

Mr Sterling: That's not right. Read it again.

Mr Marchese: Clearly, Mr Sterling's motion is in response to current restrictions in Quebec which inhibit access to the Quebec market by the province's construction workers and firms bidding on government business. In contradistinction our government, the Ontario public sector market, is open to other provinces' businesses and workers and, in addition, Ontario's purchasing policies include a buy-Canadian pricing preference and not a provincial preference. That, obviously, is a better way to go.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Your own city isn't even open. They exclude other municipalities, for heaven's sake.

Mr Marchese: Ontario businesses and workers in the construction sector, particularly in the Ottawa-Hull area, have consistently raised the issue of lack of access to the Quebec market. I understand that.

Mr Stockwell: Workers in your own city.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West, the member for Fort York has the floor.

Mr Marchese: I think all members on all sides understand that. There is no question that the inability of Ontario construction workers to work on projects in Quebec is a serious problem that needs to be dealt with.

Mr Sterling says, however, as a strategic move: "Let's deal with that. Let's do what New Brunswick has done." And what has New Brunswick done? It says they will ban Quebec contractors, workers and manufacturers from doing business in their province.

So Mr Sterling says: "Let's take leadership again. Let's do what New Brunswick has done. Do similarly." What does that do? It has done two things, in my view. It has done, first of all --

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville: It gets their attention.

Mr Marchese: Yes, it has attracted our attention, but first of all it has violated the moratorium that was agreed to by all of the provinces to bring down, not to raise new barriers, so that is a problem, and in doing so has breached an agreement that has been agreed to by the ministers on intergovernmental trade affairs. In my view, that's a problem.

Mr Sterling is proposing that Ontario take leadership and violate that agreement as well, in effect breaching the agreement and raising more trade barriers. Is that the answer? Clearly, from Mr Sterling, that is the strategic way to go.

I say that is not the way to go. As you meet with ministers and as premiers meet from all over Canada to talk about how to deal with this issue as a way of getting rid of intergovernmental trade barriers, that we not erect the same barriers to deal with the issue, that, in my view, is contradictory.

Mr Sterling says, "I want to eliminate intergovernmental blocks to trade," and at the same time he proposes to erect more trade barriers as a solution to the other. I think it contradicts his position and his leader's position that we eliminate intergovernmental trade barriers, and I propose several things: that we allow the committee of ministers on internal trade to continue to work on this and not to continue to breach the agreements that they have already reached, upon which progress has been made, and allow for the kind of cooperative, consultative discussions we've been having.

Otherwise, what that motion would do, if it's supported by this government, by all three sides, is make it more difficult for the different governments to get rid of intergovernmental trade barriers.

I think it's important to look at the different strategies that are needed to reach a consensus as opposed to the protectionist approach that is proposed that will lead to further divisions and further attacks from one province to the other.

I hope that Mr Sterling will reconsider his motion, allow the negotiations to continue, let us see what is proposed, let us see what they do, and after they've done that then we can come back to this issue and discuss that again.

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): I was glad to hear the member for Carleton say that he was actually pained to introduce this legislation and having to speak to this legislation because, without question, this is a very difficult and unpleasant undertaking for us to seemingly try to advocate trade barriers. I certainly agree with the member for Carleton, and the members opposite as well, that the last thing we really want to do is have more internal barriers in this country. We want to bring them down. I think we're all agreed on this one.

However, I'm also pained because, frankly, I have a bit of a partisan suspicion on this particular motion. It just so happens that a member of my own party, the member for Ottawa East, has a resolution which addresses the same issue on the order paper to be discussed next week. I must say, I was wondering whether an attempt was being made here to upstage the member for Ottawa East with a resolution which I think is going to produce some results.

This particular motion that we have before us, I think, is getting us and getting the member for Carleton some press attention, and perhaps that's what he was after, but I think the motion that we're going to debate next week has a chance to move this whole dossier forward.

I must support the member for Carleton, however, when he says that this issue is a major irritant in our area. Being from Nepean, which is just next to the member's riding, I have had numerous calls and letters over the years on this particular issue. Frankly, I have taken, again, action on these questions, and I generally like to work with the ministry and with the individuals concerned to see whether something can be done rather than go out into the public and raise some ruckus, as it were.

I wrote, in fact, just at the beginning of this year -- and I've done that before -- on January 13 to the acting regional director of the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology in Ottawa asking what they were doing. I said, and I'm quoting here from my letter: "Every so often I receive calls from irate constituents who complain about discriminatory hiring practices in the province of Quebec. What is your experience?"

Frankly, I got a letter back from the official that I considered rather wishy-washy, I must say. I thought the answer that I did receive was not satisfactory, so I went a step higher.

I then wrote -- and all of this was, in fact, long before the member for Carleton put forward his motion -- to the Honourable Frances Lankin, who's now in charge of this issue, the new Minister of Economic Development and Trade, and here's what I said to the minister on March 26 in my letter -- I haven't received an answer yet, which is now almost two months ago. I don't want to be too critical of that because the minister when she was the Minister of Health had been pretty good in answering her letters and I do expect to get a response from her pretty soon. Anyway, here's what I said:

"You probably know, Minister, that the difference in rules for Quebec and Ontario workers to find employment in their neighbouring province has been a major irritant for many years, especially in this area. From the enclosed Citizen article, it appears that New Brunswick has recently taken steps which many people here in Nepean would like to see taken by their own province. May I ask whether your ministry has analysed the New Brunswick initiative and whether similar actions are being considered by the Ontario government?"

I go on a little bit and I say, "I look forward with interest to your response." As I say, I have not received a response yet from the minister and I am very, very keen to hear what she has to say in response to my letter.

I should say that while I really agree with the member for Carleton that this is a major issue in our area, it is an issue that perhaps has more to do with symbolism than with the actual reality. As the member said, it's been almost 15 years that there have been restrictions -- "restrictions" is really the wrong word, but there has been labour legislation in the province of Quebec since 1977 that really makes it very difficult for Ontario workers to work in the province of Quebec.

Now, over these almost 15 years, frankly, I don't think that either the Ottawa-Carleton economy or the Ontario economy generally has significantly suffered from this particular labour legislation in Quebec. In fact, I think during the boom years we were glad that we had Quebec workers who were able to do the construction jobs that were available in our province. Now, of course, with the recession the situation is different.

I should say also that when we're talking about discriminatory practices, it isn't really on behalf of the province of Quebec a discriminatory practice towards Ontario workers; it's also discriminatory, if you want to use that term, towards the workers in Quebec, because what the labour legislation there does is it allocates a certain number of jobs to certain regions of the province of Quebec. Frankly, it was an attempt by the unions under the PQ government to protect their jobs.

So even if you're a Quebecker and you want to work in a certain area of the province, if you don't have that little card, you can't work. There have been, in fact, numerous articles in the press in Ottawa-Carleton describing the dissatisfaction of Quebeckers themselves with this particular legislation.

Alors, croyez-nous que ce n'est pas un geste anti-Québec ou anti-francophone, mais nous, nous regardons ça comme une question de justice, de «fairness», comme on dit en anglais. Nous aimerions vraiment qu'on s'assoie ensemble pour régler ces problèmes et pour éliminer toutes les barrières pour le commerce dans notre beau pays du Canada.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I am pleased to share in this debate for a few moments and to get some thoughts on the record about the absolute disgrace of the interprovincial trade barriers, what it means to consumers in this country, and the job-killing aspect of the interprovincial trade barriers.

The Canadian Manufacturers' Association gives us an estimate that's actually a little lower, I think, than the Consumers' Association of Canada. It says that the interprovincial trade barriers cost Canadians $6.5 billion a year. The average family of four spends $1,000 more a year because of the interprovincial trade barriers. Those are after-tax dollars, which you know are pretty scarce around this province these days. We cannot allow this travesty to continue.

Not only is it unfair for consumers all across Canada, but the second reason we can't allow it to continue is that our manufacturers cannot compete. We put these barriers up so they have to have a plant in Quebec to sell in Quebec and a plant in Ontario to sell in Ontario. They cannot compete, so the foreign competition, those companies outside Canada, are killing us; they're stealing our jobs. You know what? It's their right to do so, because for them it's not stealing; it's competing.

So we have to look inward. We have to look at ourselves. We're depriving ourselves of these jobs. We're taking jobs away from Canadians. This inward-looking, "Oh, let's hang on; you know, we need this plant in North Bay," which is in my riding, and "We must buy everything from them." Quebec says, "Oh, that's fine, we'll buy everything from our plant." Manitoba says, "That's fine, we'll buy everything from our plant." We've got three inefficient plants, none of them can compete, all three shut down and we lose jobs. We cost consumers, a family of four over $1,000 a year, and we're losing jobs.

For the last 13 years just about, when I was first elected and came here, 12 years I guess, into the 13th year, I have raised the issue, particularly for those of us close to the Quebec border, because our little businesses in North Bay all the way up to Timmins, anywhere where you're within 40 miles of the Ottawa River, which is all of northeastern Ontario, all Highway 11, all the way down to Ottawa, our little businesses get hammered, and they can't compete, and we lose jobs in Ontario because Quebec has interprovincial trade barriers that say you can't go over there and build homes, you can't fix roofs, you can't pave, you can't work in Quebec.

Ontario has said to Quebec companies, "Oh, but you can come over here and do it and work in Ontario." So our little companies get hammered. The Quebec companies, the small ones particularly, get the efficiencies of operation of being able to serve two markets, Quebec and Ontario, and our companies don't, and we lose jobs.

The answer I got from Progressive Conservative premiers, from Progressive Conservative ministers of Intergovernmental Affairs, from Liberal premiers, from Liberal ministers of Intergovernmental Affairs and now from NDP premiers was: "Oh, you've got to be nice to Quebec. We all agree with you, Mike. We want to eliminate these interprovincial trade barriers, but you've got to do it in the right way. You've got to be nice to Quebec. You can't have equal rules here. That won't work. You know, we've got these constitutional discussions coming up." Okay.

This is what always happened. Now, finally, we've got a premier in this country with the courage to come up and say enough is enough, because New Brunswick was getting hammered. New Brunswick was getting hammered too, losing jobs, unfair trade practices, unfair interprovincial trade barriers in Quebec. So there's only one way to bring them to the table, and that's to say, "If we can't do business in Quebec, you can't do business in Ontario." That is how you're going to solve it. The only way Quebec is going to come to the table, the only way they're going to come to the table --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Nipissing has the floor.

Mr Harris: It is a war right now; it is a war we're losing. Ontarians are losing jobs. The closer you are to the Quebec border, the more your children are going hungry because you're losing jobs unfairly. We want no trade barriers, and there's only one way to get that, because for 13 years Quebec has not budged one iota; not one iota.

I tell you this: Premier Davis's approach was wrong, Premier Peterson's approach was wrong, Premier Rae's approach is wrong. It's not being solved. They said, "We've got constitutional discussion." I said, "Fine, let's make sure that interprovincial trade barriers are on the table, for Ontario's sake, in the constitutional discussions." Peterson said, "No; more important issues here." Rae said, "No; more important issues here." Nobody spoke for Ontario at any of these discussions, and we're losing jobs.

Now Quebec is interested in talking to New Brunswick, because Frank McKenna said, "Same rules." I hear NDP members now crying and screaming, the same ones who cry and scream when American companies say, "We want fair rules," the same ones who cry and scream when we say, "As Canadians, we want fair trading rules with the United States, with other countries." But you're prepared to sit here, criticize me and allow Ontarians to lose their jobs because we can't get a level playing field with the other provinces.

I'm supporting this resolution. I think it's a chance for us to send a strong message. As none of our premiers, Progressive Conservative, Liberal or NDP, has had the guts or courage to stand up and fight for Ontario workers, it's a chance for us members to come together to send a message to this leadership at the top, these élites that think they can go off to all these discussions and say, "Oh, we'll be nice to you." Meanwhile, we're losing jobs and consumers pay $1,000 a year more for a family of four.

We can stop it. We can start this process happening by unanimously supporting the resolution put forward by the member for Carleton to say, "Let's have a level playing field today as a means to eliminate completely all of the interprovincial trade barriers." This motion says tit for tat: Every time Quebec says, "We'll drop this one," we'll drop that, and we will get down. But for 13 years I've been here and I've seen what's happened: Not one speck of progress while we lose jobs, while consumers pay more money.

These newly elected NDP members, who have the experience in governing that has led their party to 8% in the polls, think they have better ideas. I ask you to think about this in a non-partisan way, as we are to do here in private members' bills. I ask you to really think about whether we can't come together, not the élites, not the bosses, but just the members, speaking on behalf of our constituents in Ontario, on behalf of consumers, on behalf of those who are losing jobs, particularly close to the borders.

Mr Norm Jamison (Norfolk): It's a pleasure to address this issue, although I have to say that I stand here and scratch my head, because, I'll tell you, hearing that type of line from a party that externally, outside this country, expounds the virtues -- and we've seen those virtues -- of free trade, we have to look at a resolution coming forward here today that talks about putting trade barriers up internally here in Canada.

There have been various Conservative federal ministers who have said clearly that one of the problems is that we have to lower these trade barriers. To that effect, they've said, "We have to get in line with the free trade atmosphere." We don't agree with them about the way fairer trade was negotiated. If they took the same position on softwood lumber, steel, red meat and so on and so on, they'd certainly be proposing today that we would be putting barriers higher and higher externally.

But here we're talking about internally. Within Canada, within this great country of ours, we're talking about forming the battle lines: "Let's dig the trenches."

Meanwhile, in March 1992, first ministers directed internal trade ministers to work towards the elimination of interprovincial trade barriers by 1995. Again, I stand here and I scratch my head. Where is the third party, the Conservative Party, coming from? I don't understand how they can speak out of both sides of their mouths at the same time. But they're doing a good job of that.

The leader of the third party just indicated, "Other people say we've got to be nice to Quebec." On that issue, I just want to reinforce a thought here, one that's been brought forward in this House many times. Quebec transfer payments from the Conservative federal government: 50%, 50 cents on every dollar in certain areas. Our share: dropping to about 30 cents, 29 cents. The leader of the third party, speaking out of both sides of his mouth at the same time, says simply, "You guys were just being too nice to Quebec."

We have made an agreement with all first ministers to work towards bringing down barriers. In this House we have a member of the Conservative Party who wants to build those barriers up. It's mind-boggling, just mind-boggling.

We talk about trade. If the members there were so proactive about fair trade, not just internally but externally, they'd be looking at the steel industry, which is in trouble, which simply, from the federal Conservatives -- and Conservatives are Conservatives. Don't let anyone be fooled. They take a position on external trade and take an opposite position here internally with Canadians. I don't know how they can reconcile those points. I don't know how they can draw the conclusion that they're being consistent; they are not. They're being disruptive -- I'll agree with that -- but they're not being consistent, nor have they been.

Depending on the issue and the day and whatever, it seems that the third party can just sort of put its finger in the air these days and find out which way the wind's blowing and go that route. I'll tell you, what a flip-flop. They like to talk to us about flip-flops. What a flip-flop on trade. I've used the term "mind-boggling." It just makes me wonder what party put forward this resolution. I find it incredible, just incredible. Ontario is open to goods and services from anywhere in Canada and has consistently supported the creation of a fair and open trading environment in Canada.

Ontario's procurement policies are designed to ensure value for money, preference for Canadian suppliers and support for such initiatives as green industry, green procurement.

When we find ourselves dealing with a resolution from the third party of this nature, a destructive resolution rather than a constructive one, I can tell you -- I've said it a number of times today -- we're watching the third party speak out of both sides of its mouth at the same time. Of course, they'll accuse us later on today of doing the same, but you're doing that, speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): It gives me great pleasure to rise in favour of the private member's resolution as presented by Mr Sterling, the member for Carleton.

I must say that I have a similar problem in the riding of Kenora. As you know, the riding of Kenora borders the province of Manitoba. At the outset, I must make the point very clear that eventually I feel that all interprovincial trade barriers should be removed. But more importantly -- and I think some of the members have alluded to it already -- the playing field must be made level. I speak of the playing field whether it be in Quebec, I speak of the playing field whether it be in Ontario or Manitoba. We have to get around to where that playing field is made level.

This is very important to us in northwestern Ontario. I hear it on a regular basis, where even though we have the interprovincial trade barriers and we know they have to be removed, we have to talk about that playing field, more importantly.

Let me give you some examples where the Ontario contractor is at a disadvantage, at a disadvantage in terms of firms, whether they're firms coming from Quebec or firms coming from Manitoba. One of the prime things the Ontario contractor faces is an extra 2% which is going into the employer health tax. Of course, we know a firm out of Manitoba can get around paying that 2%, so on major contracts that are given -- these are major contracts of millions of dollars -- that percentage does make a difference. When we talk about millions of dollars in terms of the payroll, again, we see a good amount where the playing field is not exactly level.

Another area in terms of my riding, again the riding closest to Manitoba, where the Manitoba contractor does have that advantage is in the provincial sales tax. Some people in the House will know that there's not a level playing field there: The Manitoba provincial sales tax is 7% and the Ontario provincial sales tax of course is 8%. It does bring forth other problems than just that 1% difference. What we find in our area is that quite often, by a common carrier, materials can be shipped from Manitoba into Ontario.

It's up to the contractor or the person making the purchase to remit the provincial sales tax to Ontario, and, Mr Speaker, let me let you in on a little secret: Sometimes that is not remitted. Quite often, there is really no follow-through. To a Treasurer looking for revenue, this is a big problem in my riding, a riding so close to Manitoba. As has been said by the president of the local association of contractors -- that's the Kenora association of contractors -- it's only by luck that the province collects the sales tax. Quite often, we see that it is just by luck, because there is no enforcement.

Again I say that this has actually made the playing field unlevel.

When we look at qualified journeymen, we know that many jobs require these qualified journeymen to come in from other provinces and, if they do come in from other provinces, to have qualifications that meet the standards here in Ontario. This is sometimes not the case when we have contractors coming over from Manitoba, firms from Manitoba: They are just not meeting those specifications.

Let me give you one example of where we've had a real tremendous problem here, this being a contractor from Manitoba and doing a job in Ontario. Problems arose in the job. Complaints were made. The Ministry of Labour came out to inspect. Of course, they did not arrive in Kenora till eight weeks later. By then, the contractor had packed up, gone home. As I say, it was eight weeks later before they found out where Kenora was on the map.

I look at a portion of the resolution that says that there be a term inserted in all construction contracts that the construction contractor's subcontractor must give hiring preference to an Ontario resident. Throughout the area, we know who is and who isn't qualified to do these jobs; that when other contractors come into the area, we lose this, and somehow it's lost. I get back to the real, common concern we have in the riding, and that's in terms of the level playing field.

Take a look at Ontario tax dollars flowing into my riding, whether it be anti-recession funding or through Jobs Ontario; take a look at where that money goes. Quite often, Jobs Ontario in northwestern Ontario has become Jobs Manitoba, because when bidding on the contracts, our contractors just don't have the same advantage as those in Manitoba.

I brought this to the attention of the government many times in letters to the various ministers, and we always go back to, "Yes, we have to drop the barriers." But if we're going to drop barriers, we have to get back to that aspect of making sure that everything is equal for contractors from all provinces.

We take a look at the workers' compensation rates: $3.16 per $100 on the payroll in Manitoba compared to $5.78 per $100 in Ontario: a big difference and one we are faced with competing with. I think Ontario contractors are looking for the opportunity to do the jobs and I think they're ably qualified.

Just recently, on May 6, an announcement was made in my riding in terms of a contract for sections of highway close to Sioux Lookout. It was a $2.4-million contract, and guess where that went? Of course, it ended up in the hands of a Manitoba contractor. I have the news release in front of me from the Ministry of Transportation, and nowhere in that news release does it tell us that this contract has gone to that Manitoba firm, but for many of the reasons I have reiterated, it has certainly gone to Manitoba.

In wrapping up, I must say that I want to send a clear message to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade, that when she gets to that table, the table the member speaks about, later on this summer, she should go there with the idea of eliminating these trade barriers, but as well she should go with the idea that we're going to come about with areas that will ensure effective ways that our contractors will be on the same level playing field I have indicated. I hope she takes that message as well.

Mr Villeneuve: C'est avec un certain degré de peine ce matin que je m'élève pour adresser un problème d'inégalité qui dure depuis longtemps dans la province de l'Ontario, dans la province de Québec, du côté des employés syndiqués dans les domaines tels que la construction.

Il y a déjà plusieurs années que je siège au sein d'un comité interprovincial qui essaie d'adresser, de corriger ces problèmes. Puis, je vais vous expliquer la raison pour laquelle j'appuie le projet de loi de mon collègue le député de Carleton ce matin.

There are a number of reasons. I am to a great degree somewhat unhappy about addressing this problem this morning, but it must be addressed.

I can't imagine the member for Norfolk now being in favour of protection against workers from Ontario. I'm surprised he is now coming fully on side with the Quebec unions, those that literally ran the country when the Parti québécois was in power, those that created laws similar to Bill 40, now creating a situation where 20% of journeymen, construction people, are unemployed, and that's coming to this province.

This government is willing to let the Quebec union people come into Ontario and take our jobs, yet because we're in favour of free trade and we're in favour of having Ontario people go to Quebec, they tell us we're inconsistent. I don't understand your logic and I hope someone explains that logic, because as far as I'm concerned there is no logic.

I have addressed this -- and I won't read the entire letter but I'll read parts of it -- to the interprovincial working group back last January:

"Journeymen workers from Quebec are fully able to participate in working within the province of Ontario. However, the reciprocal agreement is not at all the same for an Ontario journeyman labourer attempting to work in the province of Quebec."

I go on and describe problems not only with construction people, but with interprovincial marketing boards, where the poultry produced in Ontario must be processed in Quebec -- a whole bunch of irritants that are there.

Worst of all, we come from the region of Cornwall, economically deprived. In construction right now, many Quebec workers are working in Ontario. I don't even know if they're working legally, but they're working in Ontario, and there is no problem.

The straw that broke the camel's back: The province of Quebec last fall inaugurated a process whereby anyone who is not driving a pickup truck with a Quebec licence plate is subject to a $750 fine if they do not have the Quebec sticker when they are caught on Quebec roads. That decided me that, look, they continue, in spite of everything we've brought forth, to irritate out-of-province people.

The prime example, a pickup truck: A constituent of mine went to the town of Valleyfield to purchase some furniture that was built and retailed in the province of Quebec. The gas police stopped him. He didn't have a sticker. "This is the only vehicle I have, and I purchased some furniture in Valleyfield. I'm taking it home." "Therefore you have a commercial vehicle. You're hauling furniture." The man was charged $750 plus court costs for having gone to Quebec to purchase furniture that was built and retailed in Quebec. That had to be the worst of the worst. Quite obviously, the members of this government support this kind of action.

I have been trying to get legislation, or at least common sense, in place, but no, the government of Quebec saw fit to hire over 200 enforcers to nail people from Ontario. I represent people right up to the edge of the province of Quebec, and they quite often take their pickup truck and go to a ball game in Montreal, or a hockey game. I'm a Montreal Canadiens fan, and if I take my pickup and go into Quebec to go to a hockey game, I could wind up with a $750 fine, plus costs, and the members of this government are encouraging more and more of this? This occurred last fall.

The journeymen workers on construction have been going through this. Every year in the almost 10 years that I've been elected, people come and say, "Look, when are you going to do something?" "Well, I'm on this committee. We're addressing it. We're going to fix it." Did we fix it? It's worse than ever, and because of draconian labour laws the likes of what we now have in Ontario, the Ontario workers are going to suffer the invasion of Quebec workers coming to Ontario. That is the truth. Members in the government are shaking their heads.

Now we have the enforcing of the gas sticker tax. That is adding insult to injury, and therefore I have no recourse but to fully support the member for Carleton's resolution. I want to emphasize, the very final words say, "That this policy be immediately terminated when Ontario construction workers and contractors have equal access to the province of Quebec."

We have to get their attention. They continue insulting the residents of Ontario. If we don't get their attention, we won't be able to solve it. I say to you that we have to get them to look at what our residents are subject to whenever they're dealing with Quebec. I say, amen.

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I would think there's nobody in this House who doesn't agree with this resolution brought forward, but I would like to state that right now there are negotiations that were set up by the committee of ministers on internal trade, an agreement to begin comprehensive negotiations to eliminate interprovincial trade barriers in Canada. As well, ministers confirmed a moratorium on the creation of new trade barriers.

I believe a small amendment should be made to this resolution, and it should state that if the negotiations fail, then we would follow through on this resolution, but what we should do is remain committed to the process and participate fully in negotiations to eliminate barriers and increase worker mobility.

The unemployment rate in some trades, for instance the IBEW, the electrical workers' union, is presently over 50%, and when they see tradespeople from Quebec coming in to do work for which they are denied access in Quebec, there is certainly cause for hard feeling. I know that to work in Quebec in the construction industry the regulations give priority to workers who live in the region where work is to be performed. This system appears to make it impossible for out-of-province workers to gain entry to the Quebec construction industry unless there is a labour shortage.

In addition to affecting out-of-province workers, this system also has serious implications for labour mobility within the province of Quebec.

I know this issue has been raised several times, on barriers, and it's one that's been resurrected on and off for the past 15 years, especially during tough economic times. During difficult times, the construction industry is one of the hardest hit, but there are more beneficial, effective and long-term ways of assisting these groups. Through other government initiatives, such as Jobs Ontario Capital, we are encouraging infrastructure development and improvement programs such as these for the long-term benefit of workers in Ontario and for the province.

Retaliatory actions such as taken in New Brunswick were a reaction to the higher unemployment rates in New Brunswick than in Quebec, and they only succeed in creating further problems.

Ontario needs to remain competitive within Canada and on the global market. We have supported a fair and open trading environment and will continue to do so. This is for the benefit of the workers and the companies in Ontario.

Currently, we have a pilot project in eastern Ontario regarding the apprenticeship Trades Qualification Act. This requires the licensing in mandatory trades such as crane operators, plumbers and electricians. The pilot project was set up to enable the Ministry of Labour construction health and safety officers to check for proper licences on construction sites. This project will not materially change the present situation in Ontario; however, it does produce more of an awareness of interprovincial crossover.

Through the first ministers' negotiations, we will continue to encourage and enhance the growth and development of our labour force and of our province. Effective negotiations produce a more harmonious atmosphere between provinces.

Therefore, I suggest we vote against the resolution put forward by the member for Carleton until after negotiations have ceased, and instead work harder towards reaching a solution that will assist workers, encouraging mobility and access.

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): I just want to tell you today that I don't think the Conservatives know what negotiations mean or how to negotiate.

Presently, before us, we have an opportunity to negotiate with all the first ministers and all the provinces of Canada to resolve these interprovincial trade barrier problems that we have. Yet they still raise in this Legislature a resolution -- Mr Sterling does -- that may jeopardize, indeed may scuttle the negotiations. Obviously, they don't understand negotiations.

I want to applaud the member for Kitchener-Wilmot because I think his suggestion to have an amendment to the resolution that says failing the successful negotiations we adopt the resolution Mr Sterling has presented is a good idea.

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

Mr Sterling: I appreciate the vigour and the enthusiasm in this debate.

This is a serious problem in eastern Ontario. I want to read to you the February statistics with regard to the construction trade. Electricians: vacancies, 5; people on UI, 271, and there are another 500 out of work. Carpenters: vacancies, 3; UI claims, 429. Roofers: 3 vacancies; 73 people on UI. Plumbers: 7 vacancies; 148 on UI. Construction labourers: 5 jobs in February in eastern Ontario; 1,611 on UI. That doesn't count the people who were off UI.

My resolution, as I said in my opening remarks, if you read the first line and you read the last line, says we don't want to have to do this, but the fact of the matter is that all of this pap and talk I've heard from the government benches that, "Let's go back and talk about this some more" -- in 1976, the Minister of Labour, Bette Stephenson, went to Quebec and talked to them and was negotiating.

In 1976, 14 years ago, they were talking and negotiating about it. We've negotiated for 14 years. We now have somebody in this country, Frank McKenna, who's shown some leadership and said, "Quebec, you're going to come to the table and you're going to negotiate in good faith to get rid of these restrictions, these unfair, discriminatory practices."

My resolution simply would arm your minister with a card that she might be able to play this summer during those discussions. She could say to the other ministers: "Ontario is fed up. We want a fair deal for our workers. We want a fair deal for our contractors." I urge you to support this resolution.

EASTERN ONTARIO ECONOMY

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will deal first with ballot item 5 standing in the name of Mr Cleary. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

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 "nays" have it.

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

The bells rang from 1200 to 1205.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Cleary has moved private member's resolution 4. All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing until your name is called.

Ayes

Arnott, Bradley, Cleary, Cunningham, Daigeler, Drainville, Harris, Kormos, McLean, Miclash, Morrow, Runciman, Sterling, Villeneuve, Wilson (Simcoe West).

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please rise and remain standing until your name is called.

Nays

Abel, Carter, Cooper, Dadamo, Farnan, Frankford, Haeck, Hansen, Harrington, Hayes, Hope, Jackson, Jamison, Johnson (Don Mills), Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Lessard, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martin, Mills, Murdock (Sudbury), Owens, Perruzza, Rizzo, Stockwell, Sutherland, Tilson, Waters, Wessenger, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman.

The Deputy Speaker: The ayes are 15; the nays are 34. I declare the motion lost.

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will now deal with ballot item 6, standing in the name of Mr Sterling. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

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.

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

The division bells rang from 1209 to 1212.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Sterling has moved private member's resolution number 7. All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing until your names are called.

Ayes

Arnott, Bradley, Cleary, Cunningham, Daigeler, Drainville, Farnan, Frankford, Hansen, Harrington, Harris, Hayes, Jackson, Johnson (Don Mills), Kormos, Lessard, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Martin, McLean, Miclash, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), Perruzza, Rizzo, Runciman, Ruprecht, Sterling, Stockwell, Sutherland, Tilson, Villeneuve, Waters, Wessenger, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Wilson (Simcoe West), Winninger, Wiseman.

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

Nays

Abel, Carter, Cooper, Haeck, Hope, Jamison, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Marchese, Mills, Owens.

The Deputy Speaker: The ayes are 38; the nays are 10. I declare the motion carried.

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

The House recessed at 1217.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

NEWBRIDGE NETWORKS CORP

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): Liberals are interested to get the economy going again. We want to help business people create jobs so Ontarians can get back to work. That's why I am particularly proud to salute a businessman from the Ottawa-Carleton area who has created, for the second time in his life, a huge success story.

I'm quoting here from an

article on April 18 in the Ottawa Citizen:

"Newbridge Networks was the leading growth stock on major US exchanges last year. How did a small Ottawa-area high-technology firm become the darling of North American markets? And can the company, which makes the electronic brains behind large telecommunications networks, keep up the momentum? Many industry watchers say yes. 'It's not just a Canadian success story -- it's a global success story,' said the analyst with the Baltimore-based brokerage firm Alex Brown."

This is indeed a huge, worldwide success story. I am proud that four years ago in 1989 I visited Newbridge, together with the former Minister of Revenue, Remo Mancini. Why were we there? Because Newbridge, in its early beginnings, took advantage of the Ontario small business development corporation program to raise capital. So let's be proud of Terry Matthews and all his workers at Newbridge, and let's also be proud that the Ontario government five years ago helped this company start on the road to worldwide success.

Interjection.

Mr Daigeler: Five years -- who was the Premier?

TVONTARIO

M. Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & Grenville-Est) : Comme mes collègues vont le faire et l'ont déjà fait, j'aimerais moi aussi rendre hommage à la contribution des conseillers consultatifs de TVOntario.

Je peux vous dire que dans ma région, le conseil de la région de l'Est et le conseil francophone représentent admirablement bien les besoins de leurs collectivités auprès du conseil de direction de TVOntario. En effet, ils ont joué un rôle capital à faire accroître l'accessibilité aux deux réseaux de TVO et La Chaîne. Ils ont réussi à bien faire connaître l'importance du télédiffuseur éducatif au sein de leurs conseils scolaires.

La présence de TVOntario sera encore plus évidente le mois prochain alors que La Chaîne de TVO jouera un rôle de premier plan dans la Semaine franco-ontarienne et diffusera l'émission Panorama à partir d'ici, Queen's Park.

Par contre, il est absolument primordial pour TVOntario et La Chaîne de reconsidérer l'heure de la rediffusion de la période de questions à l'Assemblée législative. Cette rediffusion est regardée par beaucoup plus de gens que nous le croyons, et je crois sincèrement que nous inciterons beaucoup plus de téléspectateurs si l'heure de diffusion pouvait se faire entre 9 heures et 11 heures au lieu de minuit et demi.

Chapeau ! à ces bénévoles qui donnent généreusement de leur temps et de leurs efforts pour assurer que TVO et La Chaîne reflètent fidèlement les besoins de nos citoyens.

TVOntario's commitment to high-quality educational programming is particularly noteworthy in this Education and Training Week.

Today, though, I will focus on the outstanding work done by TVOntario's 90 advisory councillors. This dedicated group of volunteers is drawn from every corner of the province, all walks of life and many social and ethnic backgrounds. These people do everything in their power to ensure TVOntario is successful in its quest to bring top-quality programming to their communities. The councillors raise funds, speak to service clubs, contribute to community events, assist local teachers and advise TVOntario's board of directors.

They will gather this weekend in the northern community of Sioux Lookout to discuss ways of ensuring TVOntario's programs and services reflect the needs of Ontario's diverse population. In particular, they will be exploring how TVOntario can help people living in isolated, remote northern communities, many of which are aboriginal.

I urge other members of the House to encourage constituents with an interest in education programming to keep in touch with their local TVOntario advisory councillor. All viewers will benefit if this important line of communication is kept open.

I would like to add that I am a proud member of the Friends of TVOntario steering committee. Stay tuned in the near future for more statements on TVOntario by the other members of the House.

MANITOULIN FERRY SERVICE

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): Good afternoon, Mr Speaker. Spring is in full bloom on Manitoulin Island and the north shore of Lake Huron. Last week, the Chi-Cheemaun commenced sailing its normal route from Tobermory to South Baymouth.

On behalf of the people and businesses of Manitoulin and the north shore, I invite members of this House and all Ontarians to come and visit our area for its renowned scenery, great hospitality and just friendly folks. The people of Manitoulin and the north shore are ready, eager and thrilled to welcome you.

Unfortunately, this summer the ferry service has been reduced. The Chi-Cheemaun's little sister, the Nindawayma, has been mothballed by Bob Rae. Bob Rae doesn't believe that the improved service of two ferries helps the area's tourist economy. Bob Rae believes that travellers waiting four hours between ferries is better than waiting two hours.

The Manitoulin Tourist Association, the Manitoulin Municipal Association, numerous chambers of commerce in the north, including the Elliot Lake chamber of commerce, don't share Bob Rae's view.

Put the Nindawayma back in service, Bob, or the Nindawayma tied up in Owen Sound will be a symbol that this government is like the Nindawayma: dead in the water.

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

Mr Dave Johnson (Don Mills): Less than two weeks ago the Finance minister announced to municipalities cuts in the unconditional grants. Municipalities have been in a state of shock since that time as they try to reassess their budgets.

Many municipalities have worked exceedingly hard over the past number of years to bring in lean budgets. Many succeeded. Many got to a 0% property tax increase this year through efficiencies, through reducing services and through downsizing. It takes planning, sound judgement and an awareness of the economic climate to make this happen. Municipalities have been practising restraint for some time.

But considering the timing of this announcement, one must ask, where was the planning on the part of this government? Where is the partnership? Municipalities are understandably concerned when faced with cuts after their budgets have been set, and set for some time, and tax bills prepared.

Was it not possible to be upfront with municipalities and to respect their budget time frame? If municipalities are required to bring provincial budgets under control, then so be it, but consultation, and even more importantly consultation on a timely basis, would make the process more harmonious for all concerned.

Is this the type of timing, the type of planning, the type of partnership that municipalities can expect in the future?

FAMILY OF THE YEAR AWARD

Mr George Dadamo (Windsor-Sandwich): I rise in the Legislature today to honour two people who reside in the town of La Salle, an area which grows in popularity and is fast becoming the home of many Windsorites, by the way.

Many awards are given for many different reasons, and awards are bestowed for obvious reasons. In the town of La Salle comes an award which is the beginning of something I think is entirely new. The award is called the Family of the Year. It has landed on the front porch this year of Albert and Lucy Moore, who I know are viewing the proceedings this afternoon. I spoke with Mrs Moore yesterday.

Lucy and Albert Moore and their five sons were recently named Family of the Year by the Knights of Columbus of Sacred Heart Council 9500.

I'd like to furnish you with a bit of background on the Moores. Albert has been the president of the St Vincent de Paul Society of La Salle and for 36 years has been a Knights of Columbus member involved in the La Salle youth centre. Albert Moore will not join a club or organization unless he can do something for others. A jovial man, Albert is not motivated by awards. He certainly doesn't perform kindness for any applause or any accolades.

On the other side of this award is Lucy Moore, who began the La Salle friendship centre more than 20 years ago and has seen the membership rise to 325. Her family acknowledges that volunteer centres have a way of finding her.

I'd like to wish many thanks to the Moores and gratitude from the town of La Salle, Mayor Vince Marcotte and myself for being chosen the Family of the Year in La Salle.

CANADA 125 AWARDS

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): This evening I have the honour of presenting the Canada 125 Award to 25 wonderful people who have devoted countless volunteer hours in my riding of Eglinton. North Toronto is truly fortunate to have so many people who have committed so much of their time and energy to benefit our community. These individuals have helped seniors and adolescents, churches and schools, tenants and home owners, the physically challenged and the economically depressed.

Each one of these 25 people is talented and committed to improving his community for the good of all. They have been instrumental in the development of the Health Station, the North Toronto Memorial Community Centre, community associations, youth groups, sports organizations and advocacy groups.

The individuals receiving awards tonight are Phil Aber, Tim Arnaud, Howard Birnie, Robert Blakely, Fran Brown, Howard Brown, Jane Bunting, Barbara Coupal, Les Davis, Freda Finley, Mackenzie Hall, Anne Johnston, Susan Kee, Marg Ann Lougheed, Cynthia Luks, Charlotte Maher, Jannie Mills, Diana Morgulis, Nan Percival, Clarke Pulford, Don Ritchie, Agnes Roy, Julia Wallis, Audrey Wilson and John Withrow.

On behalf of the people of Eglinton riding, I would like to express our enormous gratitude to these individuals for their invaluable contributions to north Toronto.

SENIOR CITIZENS

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): It's no wonder Ontario's seniors feel they are being asked to carry the weight of NDP government mismanagement. Seniors waited three years for the government's long-term care reforms only to find out that, under Bill 101, their extended care health services will be delisted as an insured benefit under OHIP, to be replaced with a two-tier system determined and controlled by civil servants. Access for seniors will be further reduced through the NDP eligibility criteria to determine which seniors might obtain future health services. All this while the NDP is considering opening Ontario hospitals to wealthy Americans.

The NDP Treasurer's mini-budget will arbitrarily cut, without consultation, seniors' benefits under the Ontario drug benefit plan, forcing them to pay increased user fees while welfare abusers will still be getting their drugs free.

The NDP mini-budget cuts to municipalities create a $500-million shortfall that will have to be made up by huge property tax increases, which are harmful to seniors on fixed incomes, since their ability to pay isn't acknowledged. Seniors remember recent NDP cuts to the Ontario property tax grant, which offset rising school board taxes.

Rather than making seniors its favourite target, the NDP should target inappropriate government spending: reduce welfare fraud, halt the misuse of the Ontario drug benefit plan and stop OHIP cheaters with bogus cards.

As elected representatives, we have an obligation to respect the contributions of our seniors. They certainly deserve better from this government.

BOWMANVILLE ROTARY CLUB

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I rise today to apprise members of the Legislature of the Rotary International worldwide project Save the Planet Earth. The project covers tree planting, environmental education, clean water and clean air. This international project was implemented by over 1.161 million Rotarians in 26,000 clubs in 187 countries.

I want to speak directly to the efforts of the Rotary Club of Bowmanville in my riding of Durham East. In 1991 the Bowmanville Rotary Club planted 23,000 trees, in 1992 they planted 25,000 trees, and in 1993 they planted 20,500.

To carry out this task, the Rotary Club enlisted the support of local schools and organized the children into teams. The positive and enthusiastic attitude displayed by the children is something that everyone could use as an example, in particular members of the opposition parties who appear to be preoccupied with doomsday philosophy. They should take an example from the children in my riding.

The Rotary International and the Rotary Clubs in my riding of Durham East deserve our congratulations for the valuable lesson being taught to our children through this program. Everybody over there should take an example from the children in my riding. They're enthusiastic, positive and upbeat, which you are not.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

DRIVERS' LICENCES PERMIS DE CONDUIRE

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): I'm pleased to inform the House of an important safety initiative this government has taken to protect the lives of Ontarians and help make our roads the very safest in North America. Today I'm announcing that the government will implement a graduated licensing system for all new drivers beginning next fall, the fall of 1994.

We're doing this after much consultation and discussion with and support from citizens and groups concerned with safety. I would especially like to thank the Traffic Injury Research Foundation of Canada, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, Ontario's chief coroner, the Insurance Bureau of Canada and, of course, the Ministry of Transportation and its staff.

I know that all members of this House take very seriously the fact that driving is not a right but a privilege. It's a privilege that must be earned by demonstrating both driving skills and knowledge of the rules of the road. Members may be aware that the Ministry of Transportation in Ontario issues more than 350,000 new drivers' licences each year and that no other province sets tougher standards for testing and licensing than Ontario does.

But there is overwhelming statistical evidence that inexperienced drivers pose a very serious safety threat, a threat not just to themselves but to other people on the roads. Traffic collisions are the leading killer of people between the ages of 16 and 24 in Ontario. But the statistics show that all new drivers, regardless of their age, have a much higher collision rate than experienced drivers.

Safety experts in Ontario and around the world agree that for new drivers, the likelihood of becoming involved in a collision is greatly reduced if the new driver gains experience gradually, in conditions where the risks are low, of course. Many studies have concluded that it takes between two and five years of driving to develop all the skills and judgement needed to avoid collisions.

Je sais que tous mes collègues sont aussi inquiets que moi quand ils lisent dans les journaux -- ceux du lundi matin, par exemple -- et qu'ils prennent connaissance du nombre de décès sur nos routes au cours de la fin de semaine, un nombre, hélas ! trop grand.

Un trop grand nombre comprend les nouveaux conducteurs, surtout les jeunes entre 16 et 24 ans, qui sont surreprésentés, qui représente à peu près le double de la moyenne ontarienne. Le système que nous proposons vise à réduire de façon significative ces chiffres.

The two-level licensing system will allow new drivers to gain valuable "hands-on" driving experience. This will be accomplished by gradually granting driving privileges during the first two years on the road.

Level 1 will last 12 months, but drivers will have the opportunity to have that reduced to eight months if they successfully complete an approved driver education course. You take the course, you save four months.

To enter the second level of the program, all new drivers will be required to pass a basic test on driving skills with a government driving examiner. Level 2 will last a minimum of 12 months. At this level there are more driving privileges, but blood alcohol and passenger limitations will remain.

At the end of level 2, drivers will have to pass an advanced test, focusing on their ability to recognize and take appropriate actions when presented with hazardous conditions, before receiving their full licence privileges.

A licensing system with similar conditions and limits will also be implemented for all first-time motorcycle drivers in the province.

Because graduated licensing is a subject of great interest to many Ontarians and because this government is committed to establishing the fairest and most effective of graduated licensing, I'm tabling a draft bill in the House today. The bill will then go to a standing committee of the House for review during the summer months. Everyone of course will be invited to participate.

Making our roads safer is a responsibility we all share. We welcome further comments to improve our graduated licensing program proposal. We are seeking input into our program to ensure the final legislation for the program reflects the best possible system for all Ontarians.

Mes collègues le savent : Modifier le système actuel de délivrance des permis afin de mettre de l'avant un système de délivrance graduelle de permis est une importante tâche administrative pour mon ministère. Notre but est de présenter la loi à l'automne et de mettre en oeuvre le programme de délivrance graduelle des permis de conduire pas plus tard qu'au printemps 1994.

My honourable colleague the Chair of Management Board will also be addressing the issue of road safety today and the impact collisions have on Ontario residents. The timing of his statement is not coincidence. Rather, it recognizes the government's commitment to road safety and it builds on our commitment to ensure the quality of life for all Ontario residents.

L'amélioration de la sécurité routière épargnera des vies, mais elle épargnera aussi des coûts d'assurance, des coûts de santé, et du temps perdu à l'école et au travail. Ces coûts sont évalués à non moins que 4 milliards de dollars pour toute la population ontarienne.

A strategy for improving safety has been designed to improve the quality of life in Ontario without increasing the public debt or imposing costs on future generations. This safety vision will be realized through education, awareness, enforcement and legislation. Implementation of our strategy focuses on three key areas that directly influence safety. These key areas are drivers, vehicles and the road.

I know that the vast majority of Ontarian residents support graduated licensing and I know that this goes beyond partisan politics. Members of the Legislature from all parties, including my honourable colleagues the member for York Mills and the member for Nepean, have demonstrated their support for graduated licensing. I look forward to the continuing support and cooperation of all members as we move forward to implementing graduated licensing.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): It's with great pleasure that I rise today to inform the House of important progress in the government's program to reform and improve Ontario's automobile insurance system. I have two announcements. Both involve measures we are taking to protect the rights of accident victims.

The first deals specifically with initiatives to ensure fairer treatment of people injured in automobile accidents. I'm releasing today the report of the Task Force on Rehabilitation and Long-Term Care Benefits, which I commissioned earlier this year to address a range of issues concerning adequate care for accident victims and the need for a system of cost control.

This report represents a remarkable achievement in that it contains nearly 100 recommendations which have been unanimously forwarded by a diverse group of people. The task force comprised individuals with a broad range of interests, from organizations representing the insurance industry, consumer groups, accident victims and rehabilitation specialists.

Among the many issues addressed by the task force there are recommendations to increase the current monthly cap on attendant care from $3,000 to $10,000 for catastrophic injuries and to move the current lifetime limit on supplementary medical and rehabilitation benefits from $500,000 to $1 million.

The task force proposes a comprehensive framework for rehabilitation and identifies a number of areas where regulation is required to clarify obligations and responsibilities on the part of insurers, injured persons and professionals. Taken together, the report's proposals are designed to ensure a systematic approach to the provision of benefits by establishing mechanisms for both cost control and standards of care.

I consider it a significant accomplishment that this group of individuals came together and worked in a commonsense, practical fashion to build a consensus around a series of difficult issues which have been at the centre of concerns expressed by both the insurance industry and by accident victims.

It is precisely these concerns which in the past have generated a great deal of debate. The industry saw uncontrolled pressures and expressed alarm at the potential impact on premiums if there was no action taken to contain costs. Accident victims have insisted on their right to adequate rehabilitation and long-term care.

The government has always shared these concerns and is determined to take appropriate action. The convening of this task force represented an essential step forward in bringing together and reconciling interests which do not have to be in conflict. I am now pleased to see that its report points the way towards a constructive regulatory reform and, in doing so, clears a path for everyone involved.

I will be reviewing the recommendations to determine those which require adoption as regulations under the Insurance Act. But I want to emphasize that, as with all aspects of the government reform strategy, we will continue with an open process and will be seeking further input and feedback on these recommendations.

My second announcement concerns our commitment to improved claimant advocacy within the auto insurance system. I am pleased to report that Professor Harry Arthurs of Osgoode Hall Law School has accepted my invitation to review advocacy services available to auto accident victims who claim benefits under the Insurance Act. Professor Arthurs, former president of York University, will be consulting insurers, the legal profession and accident victims' groups in the course of his review.

I would like to add one final point, Mr Speaker. As you know, improved rehabilitation and care for accident victims are key goals of Bill 164, our auto insurance reform legislation. Once Bill 164 passes third reading, it will provide the legislative framework for fairer treatment of those injured in traffic accidents, especially those suffering severe and long-term injuries.

We heard earlier from my colleague the Minister of Transportation. His statement concerning graduated drivers' licences is important in its own right, of course. But in addition, it affirms the commitment of this government to a comprehensive approach to the related issues of road safety and the protection of accident victims. In this context, the government's reform process is thorough, forward-looking and sets a course that will benefit all Ontario drivers on the road ahead.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): Yesterday I received a report from the Deputy Minister of Health, Michael Decter, on the progress of our negotiations of a new social contract. As members of this House will know, Mr Decter is the province's chief negotiator at these talks. Mr Decter advises me that there are grounds for optimism and that a number of parties to these negotiations are making progress.

These are historic negotiations. Our goal, announced on April 5 by Premier Rae, is to meet the fiscal challenge which faces us in a fair and constructive way. On April 23 our proposals for a social contract were shared with all of the public sector employers and employee groups. As one element of our plan, we are asking workers and employers to help us come up with ways of trimming our total compensation bill for the public service and the broader public service by $2 billion in 1993-94.

I am confident that with the help and cooperation of everyone involved in this, the process will work. But this is a very large and complex undertaking, and therefore it is understandable that Michael Decter and his team have asked for more time to conclude this task. We have agreed to this request and have approved a mandate and set a deadline of June 4 for the achievement of a framework social contract agreement.

This decision will not interfere with the tabling of our 1993 budget. I would like to advise the House that I will present the 1993 Ontario budget to this Legislature on Wednesday, May 19, at 4 pm.

Without divulging any of the details, I can tell the members that the docum