Hansard Transcript 1986-Jan-28 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Members are no doubt now aware of the tragedy that took place at Cape Canaveral a little more than two hours ago, when the space shuttle Challenger exploded shortly after takeoff.

I wish to express the sorrow of the government and of the people of Ontario. Our hearts are with the families and friends of those who took part in the mission. We share their grief. We feel their pain.

C'est une occasion très triste pour tout le monde.

We share the admiration for the heroism of those who joined in the mission out of a desire to help advance our understanding of all that surrounds us.

If I may, I would like to ask all members of the assembly and people gathered in the House today to rise for a moment of silence in sorrow for this world's loss.

The House observed one minute's silence.

Mr. Grossman: Before the balance of the government statements, I simply and briefly want to join with the remarks of the Premier in expressing the very grave distress we all feel when an event such as this occurs. It is one of those sadly, tragically unique moments that strike one's life when one learns of these kinds of events. It is a moment one never forgets. With modern-day communications, we have now probably all had a chance to witness the shocking events on videotape.

We in this party join with all Ontarians and Canadians in expressing our deep regret and sorrow at the event. It is something that causes each one of us to step back from those matters we debate so violently here some days and to reflect upon the mortality of each of us. It also gives us an opportunity to reflect on the fact that only occasionally, thankfully, do we get a chance to feel and see at first hand tragedy and loss of life.

Perhaps it reminds us all that, on days such as this, those many brave people, together with hundreds if not thousands of others in less exciting but more tragic circumstances, still will be losing their lives to hunger and war as we speak here today. If there is any sad and tragic lesson to be gleaned from these horrible events, it is perhaps to remind us all of the tragedies that occur less sensationally but equally or more touchingly.

Mr. Rae: Our hearts go out to the families of those who so tragically, like millions of others, were watching the takeoff of the Challenger and to the families of those who were on board the flight. Enough has been said by the Premier and the leader of the official opposition. I can only say that recent events in my own family have reminded me of the awful fragility of life, the preciousness it has and the enormous personal tragedy that is borne by those who witness and survive these events.

We are also reminded of the enormous courage of those working and who have worked on this wondrous adventure of mankind in many countries in the world. It is a reminder perhaps that for all of the achievements of humankind, nature has a way of reminding us of the fragility of our condition and the way in which our lives in a sense are simply borrowed from time.

INTEGRATED HOMEMAKER PROGRAM

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Today, the government of Ontario would like to introduce two major initiatives to assist the frail elderly and physically handicapped adults to remain in their own homes: one dealing with the introduction of a new integrated homemaker program and the other with a major expansion of our current home support program.

Independence and self-determination are two of the major attributes of an adult person. It is an important part of the government's mandate to help people to maintain these attributes, and one way of doing so is to arrange for services in the context of an individual's own home. To provide effective help, a full range of in-home services should be available and should be provided by both paid staff and volunteers. The services should be well planned and directed to those in greatest need.

Towards this end, we are announcing initial sites for the integrated homemaker program and a range of other community support services. This integrated homemaker program, a joint effort on the part of the Ministry of Community and Social Services and the Ministry of Health, provides community support for frail seniors and adults who are physically handicapped, the people who require some help to remain in their own homes.

My colleague the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) and I have been working closely together for the past several months to ensure the smooth delivery of this program and the ready availability of funding. We are in complete agreement that the integrated homemaker program will be funded by my ministry and delivered through existing Ministry of Health home care units.

The integrated homemaker program will be phased in and then expanded across Ontario during the next few years at a total cost of approximately $60 million annually when fully in place. It will be started as six initial projects in the counties of Leeds, Grenville and Lanark, Thunder Bay, the district of Cochrane, Huron county, the district of Parry Sound and Waterloo region.

The initial sites for introducing the integrated homemaker program were selected on the basis of a number of criteria. For example, each must have a significant population of elderly persons, there must be a well-established home care program in the area, there must be an adequate number of trained homemakers available in the chosen area, each area must be small enough for management of these first initial projects and the sites must reflect an appropriate geographic, province-wide distribution.

I am especially pleased that these communities have undertaken to work with my ministry and with the Ministry of Health in forming part of the advance guard in this program for frail elderly people and physically handicapped adults.

2:10 p.m.

Current recipients of homemaker services must qualify under a medical test through the Ministry of Health or under a needs test through the Ministry of Community and Social Services. This practice often resulted in services being denied to those who could well use assistance to stay in their own homes but could not qualify under the existing criteria. With the new integrated homemaker program, service will be available based on need. There will be no medical or financial test.

The local home care unit, acting as a "one-window" approach for an elderly or handicapped applicant, will decide whether that person needs professional health services or whether he or she needs some help from a homemaker to remain confidently at home. A homemaker, under the integrated homemaker program, goes into a person's home to provide basic services such as light housekeeping, help with dressing or other personal matters, cooking, laundry and shopping.

Many of our province's seniors and physically handicapped people wish to be active and independent in the community and to remain so as long as possible. Handicapped people do not want to be relegated to a role of observer; seniors do not want to join the seven per cent of elderly Ontarians who live in institutions, and my colleagues and I see no reason they should. All Ontarians have the right to play as full a part in community life as they can, and we in my ministry will help them to do so in any way our mandate can allow.

Now that I have announced the initial sites for the integrated homemaker program and reminded members of the far-reaching possibilities of the program, my colleague the Minister without Portfolio for senior citizens' affairs (Mr. Van Horne) will explain our major expansion and new initiatives in home and community support programs.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I have a copy of the statement of the minister who is just rising, but I notice page 8 is missing. I have no idea what is on that page. Is he going to send that to us, or is he just going to read it to us quietly?

Hon. Mr. Van Horne: Page 8 is on its way over to the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston), and I want him to know, along with all other members, that it is an oversight. We have no intention of overlooking such an outstanding member of this Legislature.

SENIOR CITIZENS' SERVICES

Hon. Mr. Van Horne: While this is going on, I will point out that the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) and I are both pleased to be making a statement. I want to bring members of this House up to date concerning the additional ways in which the government of Ontario is strengthening support services for Ontario's elderly who live in the community.

This added support, amounting to $11 million, was announced by the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) in his budget of October 24, 1985. I point out very clearly that $11 million for seniors is being earmarked for each succeeding year.

The views I heard when I travelled throughout the province have contributed greatly to the new directions we are announcing. My colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services and I have collaborated to achieve what we believe is a practical and realistic plan that will assist our seniors in retaining their well-earned place in their own homes in their own communities for as many years as possible.

Those of us who have special responsibility for seniors have been informed by them that this is what they want: they want to remain at home. The Minister of Community and Social Services and I are prepared to provide as much support and backup for them as possible so they can do so.

With this in mind, I want to give the House details of the Ontario government's plans to expand community social support services for seniors through the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

The community support initiatives will be introduced in two phases, some effective immediately and others early in the new fiscal year. The immediate provisions are ready and will be operative now. These immediate initiatives provide for expansion in the following areas.

First, there will be an extension of existing community support services such as Meals on Wheels, escorted transportation and home help. An initial allotment of $2 million has been made available for these services.

A second area for expansion involves the establishment of an additional 50 elderly persons' centres. The new centres will help older citizens to overcome social isolation and encourage them to take part in community activities. Some centres will become focal points from which community support services can be delivered. Operating costs of $750,000 have been allotted for the new centres.

Now I will turn to the important subject of volunteering. We all know the value of the work done by the men and women known as senior volunteers in service. They are the dedicated seniors who volunteer to be recruited and trained by the Ministry of Community and Social Services so they can help provide support, as volunteers, especially for seniors living in isolated rural areas.

In the past, out-of-pocket expense money of up to $60 a month for each senior volunteer in service has been provided by the Ministry of Community and Social Services. This amount is no longer sufficient and will be increased to $100 a month.

Next, the senior volunteers in service program has proved to be so successful with seniors throughout the province that it will be expanded. The sum of $40,000 has been set aside for the recruitment of more of these special volunteers who are of such great value in the communities they serve.

Continuing with the subject of seniors who volunteer, I want to stress the importance of senior talent banks. These banks consist of groups of seniors in various communities who offer to their community agencies the skills, talents and abilities that have been honed and perfected during a lifetime of learning and practice. Senior talent banks have already been established in Sarnia, Oshawa, Lambton county, Richmond Hill and Toronto.

The government of Ontario is committed to the concept of using the skills and talents available through the senior talent banks. For that reason, it wants to help the Senior Talent Bank Association to establish additional talent banks in other communities throughout Ontario. Funding of $60,000 has been earmarked to set up new senior talent banks.

In addition, in this list of increased support for seniors that will start immediately comes a special provision that will benefit isolated communities, especially in northern Ontario. Four community development officers will be hired to go into isolated communities where they will help to organize and develop community support services for the elderly people who live there.

The purpose of this initiative for isolated communities is the same as the intent behind the entire community support services program: to enable seniors to remain in their own homes or communities for as long as possible. To set up this needed support in these isolated communities, $735,000 is being committed.

These, in brief, are the six initial major community support services improvements for seniors.

Now I would like to mention the further initiatives I referred to earlier in this statement. These initiatives will be put into operation early in the new fiscal year.

In addition to the $2-million expansion of community support services, we are committing an additional $3.1 million to enhance these programs further. Some of these services will be targeted to francophones, native people and underserviced communities. We shall also ensure that respite care is more readily available to families caring for elderly relatives at home.

2:20 p.m.

I now will mention a problem that is unfortunately becoming more common as so many of our population become older, a problem that causes great unhappiness and almost unbearable stress. I refer to Alzheimer's disease, the irreversible sickness that afflicts so many of the elderly.

There is an urgent need for services to help those suffering from this disease, as well as their families. Therefore, the government has earmarked $1 million to fund projects that include day care for those who have Alzheimer's disease, relief services at home for the families who are caring for a family member with the disease and counselling, training and education for the family care givers. The projects will be developed in co-operation with local Alzheimer societies.

A fund is also being created to assist in recruiting volunteers to provide support for needed research and to encourage a more sensitive attitude on the part of the public towards the ageing and the aged.

Finally, as part of a long-term plan we shall be exploring ways to improve the funding system for in-home support services. Our objective is to address some of the difficulties that agencies and communities have experienced in introducing new services. For improving the present system of funding and the research and recruitment that I mentioned a moment ago, the government of Ontario has set aside approximately $3 million.

These improved community support initiatives demonstrate our government's commitment to the elderly. I believe we are on the threshold of a new era in community support services for elderly citizens in Ontario. Our seniors have earned their place in that community. I would urge us all to do our level best to make sure their later years can be spent in that community.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Page 8 of the minister's statement dealing with Alzheimer's disease is missing. I would like a copy of it, if possible.

RESIDENT ANGLING LICENCE

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I know the members are all aware of the importance of tourism revenue to Ontario's economy. They are also aware that the tourism industry is built in large part upon our province's wealth of natural resources: the scenery, the wildlife, the lakes and the fishery.

One of those resources, the fishery, is particularly important in drawing tourists from other provinces and from the United States to Ontario year after year. In addition, 38 per cent of Ontario residents, approximately 2.25 million people, fish at least once a year. All together, sports fishing represents some $700 million annually to our economy. This is the equivalent of 25,000 full-time jobs.

We are proud of the abundance and the variety of fish and fishing opportunities offered by this province, but it is a fact that in some areas of Ontario fish populations and fishing opportunities can be improved.

The Ministry of Natural Resources currently spends more than $30 million a year to look after the fishery. This money is used for programs such as fish and habitat protection, cleaning up fish habitat, fish stocking, research and public involvement and education programs.

However, we still need to do much more. For this reason I am proposing today that Ontario introduce a resident angling licence. I am recommending this --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The member for St. George (Ms. Fish) can go fishing.

This is an important part of the statement, so members should listen. I am recommending this on the condition that most of the revenues generated by the licence be used directly for programs to improve Ontario's fishery and also on the condition that my proposal meet with the acceptance of the majority of anglers of Ontario.

We estimate that a resident licence could add $10 million a year to our fisheries management budget. The increased budget will allow the Ministry of Natural Resources to expand its existing programs and to initiate much-needed projects.

A resident licence will also give my ministry staff important information on how the resource is being used. In other words, it will tell us who is fishing, where and for what.

The benefit of this is that our fisheries management programs will be better geared to the needs of the resource user. We believe the majority of anglers support the concept of a resident fishing licence as a means of helping to pay for the protection, maintenance and rebuilding of the resource they use.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I cannot believe they are all fishermen over there.

My ministry would like to see a licence introduced in 1987. While we are proposing that residents aged 18 to 64 pay $10 a year, and those over 65 pay $5 a year, I must emphasize these terms are only a starting point for discussion and negotiation.

We want the public to participate in shaping the conditions, including the cost of the licence. To this end, a round of public meetings will be held across the province during the next three months. This will enable public discussion and participation.

As I noted earlier, the concept of "user pays" in fisheries management has received wide support across the province. This support comes from anglers and interest groups such as the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, the Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association, the Federation of Ontario Naturalists and the Canadian Wildlife Federation.

I am pleased that representatives of two of those organizations, Ken Lounsbury, president, and Rick Morgan, executive vice-president of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, and Rod Munford, president, and Bob McKercher, executive director of the Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association, are here with us in the House today to share my enthusiasm for this announcement.

DOMINION STORES

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I would like to correct the record if I may. While discussing the withdrawal by Dominion Stores of $62 million from their employees' pension fund yesterday, I stated, "That was a decision agreed to by the union and management, and the contract in that case and in other cases has to be agreed to by both parties."

The latter statement is correct in that companies may withdraw moneys from pension funds only when their collective agreement specifically so allows. However, the former statement inadvertently implies that the union agreed to this withdrawal which, as the member for York South (Mr. Rae) indicated, was not the case. The union involved knew it had agreed to withdrawal by the company in principle but in no way approved of this individual instance.

I apologize for any misunderstanding my statement may have caused.

RESIDENT ANGLING LICENCE

Mr. Harris: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I think you may want to take under consideration whether our privileges as members have been violated by the statement of the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio).

He came out with a statement that appeared in the Kenora Daily Miner and News last November. It is right here with his picture in the Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association magazine with pretty much the identical statement he has not seen fit to share with the House until today.

Mr. Speaker: The member has suggested it may be a point of privilege. I believe it is something definitely stated outside the House. Therefore, I cannot deal with it as a point of privilege.

Mr. Harris: I will try not to take up too much time, but you might consider whether we need to waste the time of the House, then, if all these announcements are going to be made outside the House.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

2:30 p.m.

ORAL QUESTIONS

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr. Runciman: I have a question of the Premier (Mr. Peterson). His government has been in power since last July --

[Applause]

Mr. Runciman: -- adequate time, one would think, especially in such an open and honest government --

[Applause]

Mr. Runciman: Someone is applauding for it. Perhaps I should start all over.

The government has been in power since last July, adequate time for cabinet ministers --

[Applause]

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is question period. Would the member place his question, please.

Mr. Runciman: Perhaps we should put some time on the clock. I will try it again. This government has been in power since last July --

[Applause]

Mr. Runciman: I am going to keep doing it.

An hon. member: Sure, why not? We can play as long as you can.

Mr. Runciman: Those guys are a real laugh.

The government has been in power since last July -- I think they have the message -- adequate time for cabinet ministers to disclose financial holdings that could cause conflict of interest. As of last Friday, not one minister, including the Premier, had filed any disclosures with the Clerk of the House. When might we expect to see these documents?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My impression was that they were all filed. The member may know something I do not. I will check with the clerk. He has no standing to speak in this House but it is my impression that it has all been taken care of.

Mr. Runciman: We have a copy of the Premier's guidelines regarding conflict of interest, dated September 1985, in which it states quite clearly that disclosure should be filed by the end of the year 1985. The Premier is saying they have been filed. I am assuming they have been filed today since we had information they were not filed on Friday.

Can he tell us when they were filed, were they filed in accordance with his guidelines, and if not, is this a collective administrative oversight or is it an example of an arrogant, cavalier attitude towards ethics?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I take these things very seriously. We had a very esteemed counsel from the law firm of Tory, Tory, Deslauriers and Binnington, which the member and his colleagues know well, look at this matter and check these things very closely.

I will personally look into this. My impression was they had all been approved, not only by independent counsel from Tory, Tory but also by the legal official in the administration, the assistant deputy minister of civil matters, who is an authority on these things. He had seen all these things and they were all filed. If there is some technical misunderstanding, I will be very happy to check into it and clear it up.

Mr. Runciman: I was just handed a note that they are not filed yet. Obviously the Premier is going to blame this on a Tory, whether it is Tory, Tory -- that is traditional for this government.

Given the delay, according to the facts in front of us, and dithering in getting its ethical ducks in a row, will the Premier today assure the House that he is committed to the principles of ethical, honest government and that he will act firmly and promptly should a member of the executive council be found to be in violation of these principles?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I told the honourable member, obviously these are things one takes very seriously in the construction of the cabinet. I can assure the member a great deal of attention was given to these matters last summer when I was in the process of making the decisions that I did.

Extensive documentation was filed and, to the best of my knowledge, every little, tiny detail has been tied up and everything is as it should be, in conformity with the guidelines. I should point out that I have had legal opinions on that, so if he has any suggestions, if he is standing in the House and suggesting there is a conflict of interest somewhere, I will be delighted to hear his charge or allegation, but I do not think it is quite fair to stand up and make some blanket allegations in the absence of some facts.

Mr. Runciman: I have not made any allegations other than to say that the Premier has not filed and I asked a question.

This question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. Will the minister confirm that officials of his ministry are involved in negotiations with Hearst Forest Management Inc. regarding a forest management agreement? Will he tell us whether he has had any discussions with the Minister of Northern Development and Mines (Mr. Fontaine) concerning this matter?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: On as specific an issue as that, I would have to take it as notice and get back to the member.

Mr. Runciman: The Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations regulations call for notification of a company director's change of status within 10 days. As of last Friday, the directors of record for Hearst Forest Management were Lauryanne Joanis, Charles Lecours, Laurent Lecours, Benoît Lecours, Denis Lecours and René Fontaine.

Does the minister not think it is a major conflict for his ministry to be offering a significant benefit to his friend, colleague and fellow minister of the crown?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I do not think I can change the comment I made. I would have to examine the issue and get back to the member. I would not comment on it further than that.

Mr. Runciman: In my original question, I asked the minister if there had been any discussions with the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. He declined to answer.

We have found no public record indicating that the Minister of Northern Development and Mines has removed himself from the company. Even if he has recently made such a move, does the close involvement of the Ministry of Natural Resources with this company not beg a great many questions when Lauryanne Joanis, the sister of the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, remains as a director?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I am suggesting for the third time that I should take that as notice and get back after I have examined it. I have not been privileged to the questions the member has raised with the ministry as to who, why or where. I am pleased to bring forward any information my ministry has. I have no reason not to do that.

DOMINION STORES

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Premier arising from the circumstances that he and I discussed yesterday about the withdrawal of $62 million from the pension plan by Mr. Conrad Black.

I wonder whether the Premier is aware that the annual report of Hollinger states that Dominion applied in 1985 for regulatory approval for recovery of a portion of the surpluses in its pension plans resulting from overfunding by Dominion, as it described it. It then goes on to say the money will be used for a variety of purposes, including employee termination costs among a number of other items.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Rae: Since the Premier's own superintendent of pensions on November 29, 1985, issued a new set of revised rules regarding refundable amounts of surplus assets to plan sponsors, would the Premier tell us why this application by Dominion Stores was approved and why steps were not taken to resist any such efforts until such time as the government produced new guidelines?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: First, I was not aware of the Hollinger annual report. I do not read those things as a matter of general interest.

Second, I was not aware of the circumstances brought forward by the member today.

My understanding is that the Pension Commission of Ontario -- which is independent; it is at arm's length from government -- has the authority to make releases of so-called surplus pension funds when there is an actuarial certificate or guarantee that the fund contains 125 per cent of its legal obligations to pay out in terms of benefits. That is the current law and presumably in this case the law was followed.

2:40 p.m.

Mr. Rae: The commission has discretion. From April 1980 to March 1981, the amount withdrawn from active plans was $2.6 million. From 1984 to 1985, the amount withdrawn from active plans and from plans that are being wound up is more than $248 million. That is almost a hundredfold increase in that five-year period. What will the Premier do today to stop the haemorrhaging of the plans, in particular to stop the runs on plans, asset-stripping and skimming off, since the announcement by the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) 10 days ago?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: In a sense, I am not here to justify anything, except to explain to the honourable member that those accumulations of large surpluses were essentially a function of very high inflation. We saw pension funds grow massively in the period of high inflation. The member's point is that the money should stay there for the benefit of the people for whom the money is intended, i.e., the employees.

The member should ask himself this question: Supposing there had been a deficiency, who would have paid paid for that deficiency? The answer, generally speaking, is that the employer would have had to make up any actual deficiency in the fund. However, the point he raises should be assessed again. As I said, the minister is in the process of doing that.

Mr. Gillies: The Dominion Stores workers I spoke to this morning have no idea whether there will be sufficient money in their pension plan to take care of their needs when they retire. Has the superintendent of pensions informed the government whether the plan at Dominion Stores remains actuarially sound and that the employees will get the benefits to which they are entitled?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I assume the honourable member, as a former member of the executive council, will understand that the answer to the question is a very clear yes and that he will tell the employees that before there can be any withdrawal of surpluses, 125 per cent of the amount of the entitlements under the fund have to be guaranteed. If he wants an answer for the employees, it is a very clear yes. I know the member is responsible enough that he would not unwittingly inspire any lack of confidence in those people on this matter.

Mr. Rae: The Treasurer made an announcement some 10 days ago that admittedly was vague and not specific with respect to pension surpluses, but nevertheless was sufficient to earn him several headlines across the province, for which we all congratulate him. What does the government intend to do to stop a run on plans, a haemorrhaging of plans and a raid on funds by employers who read the newspapers like everybody else and know legislation is coming in April or May?

What is he doing to deal with the Pension Commission of Ontario to ensure the run on plans stops and is frozen so nobody else suffers the way the workers have suffered until now?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am sure the employers are reading the newspapers and probably are reading some of the things the member is saying. My guess is that will not inspire a run on the plans. Employers have faith in the even-handed administration that now runs this province. I am not worried about that. What we have seen, as I think the member has pointed out in the statistics he has used, are massive surpluses that have accumulated as a function of inflation. We will monitor the situation and we will not allow any situation to develop where anyone's pension entitlement is in jeopardy.

STELCO TAX CONCESSIONS

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Premier concerning the sweetheart deal with Stelco made in December 1984, involving tax concessions and the Griffith mine. I wonder whether the Premier can give us a clear statement as to precisely what agreement was arrived at in December 1984 and whether there are any written documents surrounding that agreement.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: May I refer that question to the Treasurer since the discussions with Stelco emanated from the Treasury about a year or a year and a half ago?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Is that all right with the member?

Mr. Rae: That is fine with me.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I remember the occasion very well. I was sitting on the opposition benches when the Premier of the day, or perhaps it was one of his ministers, indicated he had been informed by Stelco that the mine was about to be closed. I believe that was followed by questions. An announcement came some time afterwards that the government of the day was doing whatever it could to postpone the closure. I think approximately 250 jobs were involved there.

He indicated that the government was prepared to assume some of the costs of keeping the mine open for an extra year at least to phase down the utilization of the mine and at the same time maintain employment for an extra year. It was more or less an open-ended commitment. Our government could neither find nor was aware of any commitment in writing with respect to timing, the number of jobs to be maintained, the number of dollars to be delivered or anything like that.

The upshot of the matter was that the Deputy Treasurer was given the responsibility of dealing with Stelco in order to effect the announcement that was made by the former Premier, or perhaps by his minister at that time. The net effect was also influenced by a statement made by the government after some changes in the tax policy of the government of Canada, which are somewhat intricate for me to describe on the spur of the moment or, to tell the truth, at any other moment.

I should indicate that the policy of the province was that they would not follow --

Mr. Speaker: Order. That appears to be ample time for a response.

Mr. Rae: Some kind of deal must have been struck in December 1984, because the Minister of Northern Affairs at that time, now the member for Kenora (Mr. Bernier), said, "This will come as a real Christmas present to the workers and their families, who have been facing a very uncertain future over the past number of weeks."

Is the Treasurer aware that in January 1985, 20 per cent of the work force was laid off? Is he aware that for three months in 1985 the mine was closed? Is he aware that 116 people are now working in the mine and that further layoffs are anticipated before April 1986?

Precisely what kind of deal was made whereby Ontario gave away $2.6 million and does not appear to have gained the guaranteed opening of the mine for a full year from April 1985 that we had bargained for?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The arrangement was made by our predecessor government. We were left to pay the bill.

The report in the press is as the member has read it. We were informed by the Deputy Treasurer, and properly so, that he had been asked -- in fact, instructed -- by the government of the day to do what was necessary to keep the mine open. There was no written commitment in the arrangement made at the time. It is regrettable, but that is the fact. There was no written commitment by Stelco to maintain employment.

As I have tried to tell the honourable member in the limited time available, there are other commitments by the government of the day having to do with not paralleling the tax decision taken by the government of Canada with regard to the mine's profits.

Mr. Rae: I cannot understand why the Tories are not asking questions on this.

Can the Treasurer confirm that there was no written agreement, no guarantee with respect to jobs and no explicit setting out of exactly what the arrangement was going to be; and that despite this fact, the Liberal government paid the bill for $2.6 million. You forgave taxes owed to the government of Ontario for $2.6 million, in exchange for which we have had a mine closed for three months and several thousand working hours lost as a result of the decision that was made? The government bought a pig in a poke, paid for it, and cannot even justify the payment.

We have no jobs in return for the money paid out of the Treasury of Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: We fulfilled the commitments made by the predecessor government.

2:50 p.m.

RESIDENT ANGLING LICENCE

Mr. Harris: I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources concerning his ridiculous statement today. He said, "I am recommending this on the condition that most of the revenues generated by the licence be used directly for programs to improve Ontario's fishery."

How does the minister have the gall to stand up in this House, after having announced it in several other places, and use words such as "on the condition that"? Has he not sorted it out? Can he not assure us that the money will be put into fishing? When announcing something like this, why can the minister not stand up and say, "I assure you all of the money will be put into fishing?" Do the people who are here watching today, understand the condition, that he is saying "maybe" and "most"?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: It is obvious the former minister is very much incensed that this government is moving ahead in such a responsible way. The resource is going to be well managed and we are going to provide --

Mr. Grossman: The minister should answer the question; he should not embarrass himself.

Mr. Stevenson: Why did the minister cancel the fish culture station on Lake Simcoe?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Through my ministry, the government is going to manage the resource. We are going to use moneys that will be transferred, but we cannot say specifically how. The member might have learned in the short time he was in the ministry that the moneys go into consolidated revenue and the Treasurer, very properly, is going to act in the best interest of improving the fishery, so we can say we are going to do things in habitat and fishery control that will help the people buying the fishing licences.

We are never going to enter an arrangement whereby we ask people to buy a licence and then we cancel it in the middle of the year, send the money back and do something the previous government did that was absolutely ridiculous.

Mr. Harris: Does the minister not understand he is insulting the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters and groups such as the Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association when he comes forward and says, "Maybe the moneys..." and "Maybe most of the moneys...." Those are not the proposals for which these groups are asking and have come to the minister. He cannot assure any of the money and he is only asking for most, not all.

At a time when increased economic activity and inflation have added $2 billion to the provincial Treasury, increased taxes have brought in another $750 million and there has been another $250 million from Ottawa since the last budget -- that is $3 billion -- can the minister explain to me why he still wants to charge another $15 to a grandfather who wants to take his grandson for one little hour of fishing on the family dock?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The obvious has escaped the member. Much of the increase he is talking about is paying some of the debts the previous government accumulated. Those deals it made under the guise of good management have been a disaster for the people of Ontario. Naturally, we are going to pay off those debts, but we are also going to be very responsible to the people in this province.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is the members' time that is being wasted.

Mr. Laughren: Will the minister make a firm commitment on two points. First, it will not be somewhere near that amount of money that is spent on restocking and conservation, but precisely the equivalent amount that will go towards improving the fisheries. Second, any resident angling fee that is applied will be a family fee?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Now there is a sensible question. I must share with my friends who made all this possible the fact that those are the kinds of things we are going to discuss at the open houses. Certainly we will accept someone's submission that we should have a family fishing fee. We want families to go fishing in Ontario. However, the fact remains that this ministry, through the community fisheries involvement program, is doing good things right now in this province to improve the habitat, to build hatcheries and to provide fishing for the people of Ontario and our visitors. I am going to use the money for that cause, and all members are going to be very happy when they see it come to fruition.

Mr. Stevenson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The minister comes in here today pretending to give something to the fishery industry of Ontario, but the same minister cancelled --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the honourable member take his seat.

INSURANCE RATES

Mr. Hayes: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

One of my constituents is trying to expand his boat building industry. This will mean jobs if this business is expanded. The problem is that the owner, Mr. Hector Renaud, has gone to three insurance brokers and they refuse to insure his business. He plans to move his operation to the United States because he can get coverage there. This means a loss of jobs in Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Hayes: We cannot wait for the minister's task force. What will he do to ensure affordable insurance in the meantime?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I thank the member for his question. If he had called our office, we could have helped him.

To answer his question about what I am doing in the meantime, we are not waiting for the task force to solve the immediate problem. Our market assist program has been very successful. I do not know of a single instance in Ontario right now where insurance is not available, albeit at a higher price. If he will have that man contact my office, we will be able to help him.

Mr. Hayes: The minister has been really feeding us a line that the insurance problem is international. Jobs are now being lost in my riding because insurance is easier to get in Michigan.

If this is an international problem, will the minister explain to this House why is it easier for a new business to get insurance in the United States than it is in this province?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I find the question interesting in that for the last couple of weeks I have had various members of the opposition say to me one of the problems of the insurance industry in Ontario is that it is being classified with the insurance industry in the United States and that I should go to Europe and let the reinsurers know we are not part of the United States. I would like to have that information. I personally do not think it is correct, but I will be happy to look into it.

Mr. Runciman: In the minister's statement on January 9, he said the insurance situation has been made more critical by the year-end decision of the reinsurance industry to limit its participation in underwriting Canadian reinsurance needs. The minister has emphasized that time and time again.

If he really believes that, can he tell the House why he or his government or his officials have not contacted Lloyd's of London to discuss the differences between the United States and Canada, and Ontario especially? Why has he not contacted Mr. Wells, Ontario's Agent General, to arrange a meeting with the reinsurers to discuss this problem, and why has he not contacted Mr. McMurtry? If this is so important, why has he not done anything?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The reason I have not done it is that I did what I should have done, and that is to contact the federal Minister of State for Finance, who has responsibility for reinsurance. She is one of the honourable member's colleagues in Ottawa. She gave me her undertaking that she would look into it.

3 p.m.

ASSISTED HOUSING

Mr. McCague: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. What is the minister's policy regarding the eligibility of psychiatrically disabled people for assisted housing through the Ontario Housing Corp. or its authorities?

Hon. Mr. Curling: We made provision in our last housing policy statement to accommodate psychiatrically handicapped people.

Mr. McCague: That being the case, I cannot understand the holdup. That policy was announced last June by the then Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the member for Don Mills (Mr. Timbrell).

I have a letter from a constituent who has been told by the authority that it cannot find her any housing and that because of her psychiatric disability she may be a danger to people. When can I tell my constituent she will have some hope of obtaining assisted housing through the authority?

Hon. Mr. Curling: The honourable member has mentioned a specific case. If he has that person call my office, maybe we can be of help to her. If I can have the name, I will deal with it.

INSURANCE RATES

Mr. Wildman: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Is the minister aware that in the past year liability insurance for tavern owners in this province has virtually dried up? Many insurers have dropped out of this class of insurance even in mid-term.

If the minister is aware of this, what is he doing to ensure that other companies besides Pafco will look into the insuring of tavern owners so we do not have a lot of liquor outlets operating in this province without insurance of any type?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I again refer to my market assist program, and I will take a moment to explain what it is. It is a group of professionals in the industry, led by a lawyer and an insurance broker, who are canvassing the market and finding solutions to these problems.

All members will know there was a headline article in the Globe and Mail this morning that referred to the possibility of putting together a subscription arrangement that would cover exactly that problem. It was one of the problems listed. I am encouraged by these efforts. I expect that we will have a resolution and that this problem will be solved.

Mr. Wildman: Is the minister not aware through his canvassing of the industry that the only company providing insurance for tavern owners right now is Pafco? Is he aware that Pafco is so flooded with applications for insurance that it is very careful about which companies it will insure? Can the minister tell us what can be done in the interim, while he is doing his canvassing, for companies such as the Sinton Hotel and Tavern in Thessalon, which has been told it cannot get any kind of insurance?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: We are no longer canvassing. I have said to the honourable member that we have this problem virtually solved. We have a new subscription arrangement. We have a group of companies that are prepared to underwrite this kind of risk. We are finalizing the arrangements and we will do something about it very shortly.

Mr. Gregory: I am quite surprised at the minister's answer and at his information that somehow he had something to do with this arrangement between insurance companies. In fact, any arrangement between insurance companies getting together to cover these risks came about through fear of some supposed motion of no confidence. How can the minister stand in his place and take credit for that arrangement?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I am not taking credit, but I will tell the members about the man who should take credit. He is sitting right in the gallery, Mr. Al O'Donnell. He has been working for our market assist program and he has put that deal together. It had nothing to do with the insurance companies being afraid of anything. He did the job; he put them together. As soon as we get it finalized, it will solve some of the problems; not all, but some of them.

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY

Mr. Baetz: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. The long-standing strained relationship between the executive director and the board of directors of the Children's Aid Society of Ottawa-Carleton has culminated in the sudden firing of the executive director without specific cause being stated by the board. This firing has resulted in the resignation of several board members and widespread concern among staff members and can easily lead to a deterioration in the essential services to children and families provided by this agency.

What specific steps has the minister taken or is he prepared to take to ensure that the present impasse is resolved and that the services of this vital agency do not deteriorate?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The honourable member will know that the ministry and the Ottawa-Carleton children's aid society jointly sponsored a study into the management difficulties of that agency. The study, which has since been released and made public, clearly pointed out the range of difficulties and strongly suggested the board and the executive director sit down to work out their mutual differences. Instead, the board decided to dismiss the executive director. It is within its legal rights in doing so.

My staff in the Ottawa area immediately contacted the board and indicated that it would be monitoring very carefully and on a regular basis the services being made available to children and that if at any time those services deteriorated, we would have to have further discussions with the board as to ongoing events. We have also made it clear that although we may not necessarily agree with how the board has handled it, it is within its rights to proceed as it has and we will not intervene directly in the autonomous operation of that board.

Mr. Baetz: It is an autonomous board, but the minister knows or should know that ultimately he is responsible for the delivery of those social services to the families and children by the Children's Aid Society of Ottawa-Carleton. He is responsible. In view of the fact that the situation has deteriorated and come to an impasse in spite of his report -- in fact, his own report suggested this would happen -- what is the minister going to do to correct the impasse?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Our responsibility is to assure ourselves that the services being delivered to children and families are adequate and appropriate. We are doing that on an ongoing basis. We have indicated to the board that we are prepared to work with it to help resolve this impasse, but we are not prepared to step in and take over the operation of that board. We are prepared to work with them and to ensure that the services are appropriate, but at the same time, it is an autonomous board and we are not prepared to take it over.

Mr. Baetz: The minister is responsible for the services.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: We will maintain those services.

Mr. Baetz: Okay.

3:10 p.m.

INTEGRATED HOMEMAKER PROGRAM

Mr. R. F. Johnston: My question is for the same minister. I do not think I will bother the minister for the elderly on his potpourri of rehashed Tory programs and a couple of good new initiatives. Rather, I will take on the Minister of Community and Social Services for what is an incredibly disappointing failure to deal with the whole question of integrated homemaker service.

Will the minister admit to this House that in his budget for this year, only three per cent of the total allocation for senior citizens is going to provide help for people to stay in their own homes? The rest is going to institutions in this province. If one adds in nursing homes, it will be only one per cent of the money.

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: How can the minister justify adding only $3 million to this program to go to homemakers for this year?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: There is no doubt that the history of services to seniors in this province has been dependent largely upon institutional services. That is correct. However, the honourable member should be aware that the major change in direction of this new government has been towards the provision of services in the community and in the homes of seniors and the physically handicapped.

The $3 million that has been announced for this program is only for the first year. The announcement says clearly that it will be phased in over the next few years and that the annual amount for this program will be $60 million.

I also point out that the additional services announced by my colleague will add an additional $11 million. There has not been a single year in which as much new money has been put into services for the elderly in the community and in their homes, as there has been this year and as there will be in succeeding years.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: It is not my intention to try to support the pitiful record of the former government, but the minister must recognize that he will be spending less on this whole program than he has on the 300 new beds for nursing homes he has already approved in this province this year.

How does he expect there to be any change when he is giving only $500,000 to each of these pilot projects? If it is that cheap to do, if he is going to spend only $500,000 per project in the six communities, why not do it for the whole province? What about the whole human rights question and the rights of other people in the province to those same services?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The point has been clearly made that this year's program was based upon the selection of six sites with several criteria, including geographic distribution, to work out the local, municipal and agency mechanics of tying together several existing programs. They are programs that come under the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

This approach is a significant advance in that previously, a number of people were not able to qualify because they had to have a medical reason or undergo a needs test. That is no longer necessary.

The other significant change is that there will be a single point of admission for these people; they will not have to go to two or three different agencies. The third significant change is that there will be an ongoing case management service provided to seniors so that as their needs change, the services will change.

Mr. Cousens: It is not a pleasure to raise this because what is in the minister's announcement today is a rehashing or a regurgitation of a Tory announcement of some months ago. I am sorry the minister did not give credit where credit was due.

Mr. Speaker: Is your question, "Do you agree"?

Mr. Cousens: I am leading up to it. When one talks about giving credit, why does the minister not do something -- here is the supplementary --

Mr. Rae: How bad is it?

Mr. Cousens: Oh, go suck a bone. The member should do something he is good at.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the member have a supplementary or not?

Mr. Cousens: Yes, I do.

Mr. Speaker: Then place it.

Mr. Cousens: I am trying to. When is the minister going to do something about the 4,200 nursing home beds that were already approved by our government? When will he start doing something about them as part of this regurgitation and rehashing?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The honourable member is asking me to give credit to the previous government, which initially announced this program in 1981 but which never implemented it. As a matter of fact, the dollars for this program were put in every single budget of the previous government, beginning in 1981, and the program was never implemented. In other words, for five years the seniors of this province were denied this service. That is not something the Tories will want to take credit for.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The minister has had ample time to respond.

The Chairman of Management Board has a response to a question asked by the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris).

SMALL MARINA EXPANSION PROGRAM

Hon. Ms. Caplan: Yesterday, the member for Nipissing asked a question about the small marina expansion program. As he will know, the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development programs were all reviewed this past summer, and that program has been postponed owing to the lack of BILD funding. In 1985 and 1986, BILD funds were provided only for existing, ongoing programs. In fact, application forms were never provided for this program, since BILD funding was not available.

Mr. Harris: I remind the minister that BILD funding was provided, the program was announced and letters from the Ministry of Natural Resources went out to all the small marina operators throughout the province. The response was fantastic, as the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) will tell the minister. Unfortunately, the minister has never asked for the money to go back in there.

The Chairman of Management Board has acknowledged today that the program has been cancelled. Yesterday, she did not know about the program at all or where it was. Had the Minister of Natural Resources ever talked to her about this program, yes or no?

Hon. Ms. Caplan: Members of the cabinet speak to me in my capacity as Chairman of Management Board about many of the unmet needs, many of the items they would like to initiate. We are beginning the estimates process now, and the honourable member would be amazed at the marvellous, wonderful, good ideas that the ministers are coming forward with.

CANCER TREATMENT CENTRE

Mr. Gordon: I have a question for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. The minister said last week he was going to speak from the heart for cancer patients who require treatment in northeastern Ontario. Can he tell us whether he is prepared to put up the one third in capital funding that the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation apparently says it does not have, to show the people of the north that he truly is the minister for the north?

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: The Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) and I are studying this issue and will have an answer pretty soon.

Mr. Gordon: The minister has had some time to study this issue. When one considers the number of patients who come out of the north, it is the only region in Ontario that does not have a full-fledged cancer treatment centre. Surely the minister can allay the fears and concerns of those families and those patients by telling this House today that he is going to provide those moneys for that capital construction.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: I remind my honourable friend that five of my family have died of cancer during the past seven years, and there was no place in the north to treat them. We cannot change that overnight.

Let us take our time. The Minister of Health and I are looking into it. There is a budget coming up, and there are some estimates. We are working on it, and there will be a decision in due time.

3:20 p.m.

IRRADIATION OF FOOD

Mr. Swart: I would like to put a question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations about the proposed increase in the irradiation of both domestic and imported food.

Does the minister share the concerns of many groups about the harmful changes to food from the process and about the need for people to know whether the food they are buying has been irradiated? Has he replied to the questions from the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in Ottawa about the labelling of irradiated foods, and if so, what did he say?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I have not had any communication on that subject. Those items are a federal matter. We raise items in our ongoing relationship with the federal department, but that is under federal jurisdiction.

Mr. Swart: Is the minister telling this House he has not seen or concerned himself with the communiqué that has been in his office for two months and for which the deadline for response is January 31? Will he look into this, as he should already have done, and reply insisting that all food packages be prominently labelled, not with some vague logo but with the word "irradiated" so customers --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question was asked.

Mr. Swart: -- will recognize what they are buying?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I will be happy to look into the matter.

OVERTIME WORKERS

Mr. Speaker: The Attorney General (Mr. Scott) has a response to a question previously asked by the member for York South (Mr. Rae).

Hon. Mr. Scott: Yesterday, the leader of the third party asked about the statement that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) had made with respect to the decision not to lay charges against employers and employees for early breaches of the Employment Standards Act.

The practice in the ministries of government and the dictate of the Ministry of Labour Act is that the ministry is responsible for initiating charges and developing prosecution policy. The Ministry of the Attorney General becomes involved only once an information has been sworn and a prosecution launched.

Mr. Rae: The minister has to be kidding. He is the chief law officer of the crown and we have the Minister of Labour announcing a blanket exemption from all prosecution for violations of the Employment Standards Act because he says the employers never thought the government was serious about enforcing the law.

Can the Attorney General tell us what other legislation the government does not take seriously and what other kinds of blanket amnesty he is going to award to every employer who wants to break the law in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Scott: There was an awful lot of editorial comment in that question. I take it the point of the question is, what are the responsibilities of the respective departments? If my friend takes the trouble to read the Ministry of Labour Act passed by this Legislature and paralleled by other ministry acts, he will see that the initiation of enforcement is the responsibility of the ministry that has the responsibility to the statute.

Once the process is initiated by the laying of an information, it becomes a matter for the staff of the Ministry of the Attorney General. On the merits of the case, which have nothing to do with me, the act entitles the ministry to prosecute both employers and employees.

I take it that the question was, bearing in mind the determination by the previous government traditionally not to prosecute for breaches in this case, is there any point in launching prosecutions now with respect to overtime worked by employees, in some cases months and in some cases years ago? The prosecutions would have to be taken against the employees as well as the employers if the discretion of the ministry were not exercised. There is no practical point to it at this stage; that is the truth of the matter.

RED MEAT PLAN

Mr. Lane: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. On November 1, I asked the minister whether the national tripartite stabilization agreement had been signed, and if so whether it would cover the cow-calf producers for 1985 production. He answered that the agreement had not been signed, but would be soon, and that he hoped it would cover production for 1985.

Since his statement on November 26 saying the national tripartite stabilization agreement had been signed, he has responded to questions in the House from the official opposition that perhaps indicated the cow-calf production would not be covered. Could he tell the House today whether the cow-calf producer can expect some assistance for 1985 production?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: The answer to that question is no. Had there been a cow-calf stabilization plan in place in 1985, a stabilization payment would not have been made simply because the calves sold for a higher price than the established stabilized price. The federal-provincial committee is currently working on a cow-calf program which we hope to be able to put in place to cover the 1986 cow-calf program, if the price is such that the stabilization price would have to be activated. There would not have been a retroactive payment in 1985 had there been a program in place. Yes, we hope to have a cow-calf program in place in 1986.

Mr. Lane: I am sure the minister is aware that most of the farmers in the beef industry in northern Ontario are cow-calf producers. They have their money invested for at least three years, some of them for longer, before they have a calf to sell. In the light of the large payments cow-calf farmers in Saskatchewan and Alberta are getting -- the minister has included in the program the short-term feeder cattle owned by feedlot operators for 60 days or more, and he has forgotten the cow-calf farmers; there are many unhappy cow-calf farmers in northern Ontario --

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary please.

Mr. Lane: Will the minister now tell the House what he intends to do to correct this situation? Is he saying his government does not care about the farmers in northern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I have talked to quite a number of sales barn agencies throughout Ontario and they have confirmed that calves sold for a relatively higher price than slaughter cattle. They fully understand the reason calves would not have qualified for a stabilization program in 1985. The same could be said for the cow-calf operators in northern Ontario.

It might interest the member to find out exactly what the calves did sell for in northern Ontario and then come back tell me what figures he was able to put together. I am sure he will find the calves sold for more money than the stabilization plan would have paid.

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Martel: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Would he send someone from his top staff at 400 University Avenue to review a company which refuses, unless it is so inclined, to provide gloves or masks for the workers when they are working with paint or around grinding machines, and where employees working in noise have to provide their own earplugs?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I thank the honourable member for the question. I would be only too pleased to act in that way. I must share with the House the fact that my friend has raised this matter with me privately and I thank him for doing so. If the allegations are true, I would share his deep concern about that plant. I will ask him to indicate to me privately, if he would, the name of that company, and I would be only too pleased to have an inspection done by senior officials from 400 University Avenue very quickly.

Mr. Martel: While this inspection is going on, would the minister have his inspector confirm that there is proper ventilation and that there is a health and safety committee in place? There are more than 50 workers there. Why is it that management always shuts down certain pieces of equipment and sends the workers to the washroom for a smoke 30 minutes before the inspector out in the field comes into the operation?

3:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I am prepared to do the first two as part of a very thorough inspection. On the last comment, the implication of the member, which I accept, is that there is prior warning. This minister has indicated since taking office that we will act appropriately when action is to be taken against anyone who would give prior warning. There is no point in an inspection being launched if a work place has prior notification. Every member of this House would understand that.

I will give the member a commitment that our inspector, in visiting the establishment, will question a number of workers very closely to ascertain whether there has been any previous early warning of an inspection. I take these matters very seriously and I give the member that commitment.

SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTIONS

Mr. Speaker: I would inform the members that I have been listening to and watching question period during the last number of weeks. On quite a number of occasions members have asked questions and ministers have taken those questions as notice. I have been allowing supplementaries.

However, I thought today was a typical example of where I should not allow supplementaries which lead really to the same answer, that the minister would respond at a later time. I hope the members are all agreeable that I do not allow supplementaries if a question is just taken as notice.

Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: It has been the practice in this chamber for the 15 years I have sat here to allow supplementaries or to provide for supplementaries on answers given to previous questions. Speaking for our party, I can say we are not agreeable to a blanket removal of that right.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member for Don Mills (Mr. Timbrell) that the precedents of this House, since I have been elected, are that supplementary questions are permitted when ministers come in the subsequent day with an answer to a question. It is necessary to safeguard the rights of the members and allow this tradition to continue. It is a very important point whether the table regards it as such or not.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, if I may comment along with the other two House leaders, I can say on behalf of my colleagues that we have no objection to having supplementaries based on those answers put to us. As a matter of fact, we look forward to them.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps I did not make myself clear. I suggested that when a question is placed and a minister states that he will take it as notice -- in other words, when there is no response -- the question must flow out of the response.

Because of this discussion, I will watch it during the next little while and we will discuss it further.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for not understanding your point. Because of the way you are moving questions along at a speedy clip, when a member has a question to place and a minister takes it as notice, the member may well wish the minister to report back on additional information on a subsequent occasion. I would therefore ask you to be very careful before you cut off the right of members to supplementary questions.

Mr. Speaker: All right. We have had plenty of discussion. I understand the feeling of the members and I will carry on the way they suggest. No problem.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 28(b), the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) gave notice last Friday that he was dissatisfied with the answer to his question by the Minister of Northern Development and Mines (Mr. Fontaine). This matter will be debated at 10:30 this evening.

PETITIONS

SALE OF BEER AND WINE

Mr. Ward: I have a petition from Victoria-Haliburton that reads as follows:

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"As members of the United Church residing in the Lindsay presbytery of Bay of Quinte conference, we are concerned that the proposed legislation allowing sale of beer and wine in corner stores is not one which will enhance the quality of life or contribute to the total health concept for the citizens of Ontario."

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Mr. D. W. Smith: I have a petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It is signed by two constituents of Lambton and reads as follows:

"Dear Mr. Premier:

"Ontario is a multiracial, multicultural and multifaith society that is well served by a strong public school system. Your government's proposal to extend public funding to Roman Catholic separate secondary schools is a backward step since it will grant special status to one specific denominational group. We urge you and your government not to proceed with this divisive proposal."

It is signed by two people from the Coalition for Public Education.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

RENFREW VICTORIA HOSPITAL ACT

Mr. Eves moved, on behalf of Mr. Yakabuski, seconded by Mr. Gillies, first reading of Bill Pr50, An Act respecting Renfrew Victoria Hospital.

Motion agreed to.

OTTAWA LITTLE THEATRE INC. ACT

Ms. Gigantes moved, seconded by Mr. Breaugh, first reading of Bill Pr12, An Act respecting the Ottawa Little Theatre Inc.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wrye moved second reading of Bill 65, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: On November 26, 1985, I introduced an amendment to the Labour Relations Act to provide for the arbitration of first collective agreements. At that time, I reviewed the essential features of the arbitration procedure in some detail and I do not propose to repeat my comments today. However, there is one important point which requires clarification and emphasis.

The bill is intended to assist parties in establishing collective agreements where the normal process of bargaining has faltered following certification. Some commentators have suggested the bill represents a codification of an existing jurisprudence and requires the applicant to demonstrate that the other party has bargained in bad faith and, therefore, has contravened section 15 of the act.

This restrictive interpretation was not intended, nor do I think it is supportable when the language of the bill is carefully examined. Without analysing the bill line by line, I would like to draw attention to certain of its provisions which carry its application far beyond the narrow test of bad faith bargaining.

To begin, I would note that subsection 40a(2) authorizes the board to order the settlement of a fast collective agreement by arbitration where it appears collective bargaining has been frustrated. The concept of frustration is new to the Labour Relations Act and, significantly, it focuses attention on the existing state of affairs between the parties. The impasse may be attributable to deliberate misconduct but, equally, frustration may result from uncompromising positions derived from unrealistic expectations or inexperience with the bargaining process.

3:40 p.m.

The full spectrum of possible causes for frustration of bargaining is set out in clauses 40a(2)(a) through (d). I direct members' attention to clause 40a(2)(d) in particular. It empowers the board to find that bargaining has been frustrated for any reason it considers relevant.

The important point to remember is that access to arbitration is based on the concept of frustration, not on a test of bad-faith bargaining. In my opinion, the language of this section is clear and can bear the expansive interpretation necessary to achieve the government's objectives. However, I am prepared to consider necessary changes to the bill to put this matter beyond doubt by expressly conferring upon the board the power to order settlement by arbitration irrespective of whether the parties have bargained in bad faith.

There are certain technical and other improvements which I intend to propose at the committee stage to strengthen the legislation. These refinements include additional adjudicative powers to enable arbitrators to effectively fulfil their responsibilities under the bill, a provision to reconcile applications, termination or certification proceedings and clarification of the timing of retroactive awards.

I will send over to my official critics in the two opposition parties more details on these technical amendments so they may have some idea of what amendments will be coming forward.

Mr. Gillies: I look forward to reviewing those amendments and I am sure that my colleagues and I will want to give them every consideration before committee stage is reached on this bill.

This bill and the whole question of first-contract arbitration is one that has taken a considerable amount of my time and concern in the weeks that have passed since the minister first introduced the legislation. I would like to say at the outset that our caucus, the Progressive Conservative Party, is very sympathetic to the problem and the phenomenon that the bill attempts to address. I have to tell the minister, however, that on reviewing the legislation, we find that it is not supportable in its current form.

I would like to talk a bit about the substance of the bill about what the minister is doing and what he is trying to do. In a spirit of co-operation and in terms of addressing the principle of the bill, but also with respect to sharing thoughts and information about this whole section, I hope we will have a fairly stimulating debate this afternoon.

I would be the first to admit that probably the most protracted and bitter disputes that ever mar our collective bargaining system in Ontario are those surrounding first contracts. This is not a new phenomenon. I am sure we can all go back over the years. Some of the names that come to mind are the dispute at Fleck Manufacturing, the dispute at Radio Shack and, most recently, the dispute at the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce with the Visa workers. We are all concerned about this.

We have a situation where a bargaining agent has won the right, through the means that are now enshrined in law, to represent a unit and then goes on from that certification process to achievement of a first contract. I understand there are some 400 first contracts for which there is an attempted negotiation every year; at least this has been the approximate number in the last couple of years.

I further understand that about 85 per cent of those are successfully negotiated between the two parties. So we are talking about 15 per cent, or perhaps 50 or 60 contracts a year, which are not negotiated and are not settled. In many cases, what happens is that the workers become frustrated with the inability to win a contract with the employer. The ground is there and then ripe for decertification to take place and for the work place, in some cases, to return to the earlier arrangement without a bargaining unit.

There are as many ways to come at this problem as there are members of the House, and they are all packages that we could mentally put together to attempt to reach the end. What is the end that we want? We want much closer to 100 per cent of those first contracts to be successfully negotiated, as about 85 per cent are now. I am sure the minister would agree that, for a new bargaining unit and for an employer faced for the first time with a bargaining unit, the healthiest and most satisfactory solution by far is for the two parties to come together and negotiate that fast agreement themselves.

While I am far from an expert on matters of labour-management relations, it seems to me this would help cement the relationship between the employer and the new representatives of the employees. When one removes that hands-on negotiation and puts it in the hands of a third party, be it the Ontario Labour Relations Board or a private arbitrator, while it may be necessary in some cases, this puts it at arm's length from the people who are most directly involved in the process and who have the most at stake. That, however, is in an ideal world.

The situation we are faced with is that about 15 per cent of the first contracts are not negotiated in that manner. Why? In the past number of weeks since the minister brought this bill forward, I have had an opportunity to conduct quite a consultation on behalf of our party, with representatives of labour, employers' groups, labour lawyers -- both those who act for employers and those who act for employees -- and also interested people, people who read as we do about these disputes and wonder what might be the best way to avoid them.

Part of the problem seems to be a weakness in the certification process. The minister and I had a brief opportunity to discuss this during his estimates. Part of the problem is that the efforts of the newly certified bargaining unit are often frustrated, or there is an attempt to frustrate their efforts in the event of a first contract, because in the employer's mind the certification process was often not satisfactory and he is continuing the battle. In other words, he does not feel he has had his innings.

I am almost directly quoting a conversation I had with a very prominent labour lawyer here in the city. The employers do not feel they have had their innings or that they have been treated fairly. Therefore, they continue the battle at the next stage, which is the achievement of a first contract. As is always the case in human affairs, sometimes the feeling that they are not treated fairly under the certification process is fair and sometimes it is not. However, this is in the mind of an employer when he is faced with a bargaining unit for the first time.

We have to wonder whether the legislation the minister has proposed addresses the root problem or whether it addresses the symptom. I see the minister nodding because he is wondering whether this is the correct approach.

We have to wonder whether a package of reforms should be brought in that will lead to a much higher degree of satisfaction on the part of employees and employers as to both the certification and the achievement of a first contract. I wonder whether all the parties involved have enough information before them at the time both these steps are undertaken.

These are some of the thoughts I put forward to the minister as a more complete and reasoned approach to this problem. It has been suggested to me that perhaps the mechanism of the conciliation board should be looked at again. It is a mechanism that has not been used very much for a number of years, as the minister knows.

However, if the conciliation board was brought back as an intermediary step after certification and before everyone throws up his hands and says, "Forget it, this is not working," it might lessen the need for arbitration. The minister and I have had words about this and we probably will again.

We have to wonder whether everybody -- management and employees -- would be more satisfied with the certification process if a secret ballot of all the employees was part and parcel of that process. We then have to wonder whether the employer would feel he had had his innings -- he now has a bargaining unit and has to deal with it -- and then would proceed to bargain in good faith with the new bargaining unit.

3:50 p.m.

We have to wonder also whether that would alleviate some of the concerns expressed by some employees that they do not know what is going on at the time of certification and are being somehow dragged into something they may sense a majority of their colleagues do not want to be part of. It might put the whole situation on a much firmer foundation for both parties to be satisfied that the process they are going through is fair.

The bottom line is that in our party we do not feel bargaining should be discouraged in any way. I say this with as much emphasis on employers who would wish to frustrate the process as on the wish of employees sometimes to protract a dispute.

I look also at similar legislation in place across Canada, as I am sure the minister and his staff have done in drafting this legislation. The acts in several provinces vary in the way they approach this. On reviewing what is going on in other jurisdictions, I came to the conclusion that the legislation proposed to this House is most similar to that in place in British Columbia.

Does the minister believe the legislation in place in British Columbia has been a roaring success? I think he would have to agree it has not. A very small number of cases have been adjudicated in the BC experience. That bill has been in place for some time and does not appear by any means to be meeting the challenge of achieving first bargaining rights and a contract.

The minister and I have exchanged words about this before. I am the first to accept that the Minister of Labour as his primary concern should be listening to working people and bringing forward their aspirations to this House. I do not dispute that. However, the minister should afford very serious and sympathetic attention to the points of view put forward regarding legislation of this sort by employers, especially small employers.

Mr. Martel: We have been doing that for the last 42 years.

Mr. Gillies: I do not sense that is at all the mood or practice of the current Ministry of Labour administration. I do not believe their arguments are being listened to with any degree of sympathy and they should be, because it is a two-way street. If we want harmony in our labour-management relations, then everybody has to feel he is being listened to and his point of view is being afforded attention.

Mr. Martel: Do the Eaton's workers feel that?

Mr. Gillies: Here we go again. The member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel), who always has more to say during other people's speeches than during his own, again has his mouth open and his ears closed.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): Order.

Mr. Gillies: Mr. Speaker, I am sure it frustrates you as much as it certainly frustrates all of us who have to endure this from time to time.

Mr. Martel: If the member is frustrated, he should leave. He is an apologist.

Mr. Breaugh: The member for Brantford should go suck a bone.

Mr. Cousens: That is not very nice. You need teeth to do that.

Mr. Gillies: I will not even touch that one.

With respect to the legislation itself, the minister had every opportunity to review the reaction when it was tabled in the House. There is a very strong suspicion among many observers of labour legislation that this bill will not satisfy either party. It will not satisfy labour and it will not by any means satisfy the employers. Frankly, it does not satisfy us either.

What the minister has brought in here is neither fish nor fowl. He knows very well the position --

Mr. Barlow: The member had better talk to the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) on that one.

Mr. Gillies: I do not want to get into more arguments about animals.

What the minister has brought in is not satisfactory. It is not what the Ontario Federation of Labour wants. I want to go through the bill briefly to look at some of the specific clauses. However, it does not satisfy the aspirations of the OFL and, at the same time, it certainly flies in the face of the arguments that are being put forward on the other side by such groups as the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. I think we should review some of those arguments and try to demonstrate to the minister why his bill does not fit the bill.

First of all, I have had several opportunities to sit down with representatives of the OFL since I became critic for my party, and the OFL feels the bill is weak. They draw the analogy between it and the British Columbia legislation. They do not feel that in its current form it will come close to meeting the need as they see it.

The minister knows very well that the bill, as they would envisage it, would have a completely different section 40a and that the preconditions that are put down in this legislation would not be there.

On the other side of the coin, the minister also knows that representatives of employers would be less antagonistic towards this legislation if, as a prerequisite for going to arbitration, there had to be a fording of bad-faith bargaining.

The minister has listened to both sets of arguments and has come down four square in the muddy middle. Let us look at section 40a.

The Acting Speaker: Not too closely.

Mr. Gillies: Not too closely, because a detailed clause-by-clause examination should be done in committee, but just on the principle of what he is trying to achieve in section 40a.

There are four clauses listed in the bill as preconditions after application by either party for going to arbitration and on the finding of the board that arbitration is justified. There has to be an examination of four preconditions.

I have to say to the minister I have not had a chance yet to read his proposed amendment in case any of this is changed in substance to what I am saying.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Those are technical.

Mr. Gillies: Oh, okay.

These are the four preconditions in section 40a:

"(a) the refusal of the employer to recognize the bargaining authority of the trade union;

"(b) the uncompromising nature of any bargaining position adopted by the respondent without reasonable justification;

"(c) the failure of the respondent to make reasonable efforts to conclude a collective agreement; or

"(d) any other reason the board considers relevant."

A lot of labour lawyers and a lot of representatives of both employees and employers are scratching their heads over section 40a. They are saying: "We do not know what that means. How is the labour relations board going to interpret these things? Is it going to interpret them very narrowly or is it going to interpret them very broadly?"

Does any combination of those four preconditions almost come to a prima facie need to find bad-faith bargaining or does it not; or does the labour relations board take a very broad interpretation or, I hesitate to use the word, a small-l liberal interpretation of those preconditions? It may; then fine, we will know. It may say, "One of these appears to have been infringed upon, one of the parties appears to have met one of the preconditions, so we will go."

I suggest to the minister that Bill 65 leaves far too much to the discretion of the labour relations board and we would have been well served by a more specific piece of legislation.

We go back to section 40a -- this is after either party has asked to go to arbitration. It says, "The board shall consider and make its decision on an application under subsection (1) within 30 days of receiving the application...."

Everybody I spoke to -- lawyers, members of the labour relations board and others -- said it was completely unrealistic to expect a small employer who has never dealt in matters of collective bargaining before, to retain counsel and adequately prepare a case to go before the labour relations board within 30 days. It is unrealistic, and we in this party consider it to be unreasonable.

4 p.m.

When the time comes for this bill to go to the committee stage, based on the discussions I have had, I will move an amendment that a reasonable number of days is 45 days, not 30 days. We have to be fair. We have to give the parties adequate time to prepare a reasonable argument to take before the board. One can bet one's life that when the board finally deals with it, there will be high-powered people involved, experts in labour law. We want to make sure the parties going before them have access to adequate and proper representation.

Mr. Rae: Absolutely; let us give the lawyers a fair chance.

Mr. Gillies: These are the people who represent the parties, and they need time to prepare their cases.

Looking at subsection 4, the time lines and strictures placed on the Ontario Labour Relations Board are perhaps too short. Representations were made to me by labour lawyers, and more particularly by people who work with the Ontario Labour Relations Board, that with the current backlog of cases and the increasing number of types of cases that go to the board, those time lines are probably also unrealistic.

Having looked at the subsection, there is no way I am going to move an amendment to take the Ontario Labour Relations Board off the hook and implicitly take the minister off the hook. If they are overworked, if the 21 days is not going to work and if the minister is going to have to give a ministerial variance in every case that comes up, I do not want to take the heat off the minister.

If the minister has to put in adequate resources to meet this need, he had better do it. Everybody who works in this area is laughing at his 21 days. They are saying, "The minister is going to have to bring in an order for a variance in every case." The way the Ontario Labour Relations Board is structured and staffed at present, it will seldom, if ever, meet that deadline.

Another specific concern is that subsection 40a(15) of the act, as set out in section 1 of the bill, amplifies some of the problems I see. I will not repeat them. However, there is a specific problem I want to bring to the minister's attention, and I would like to hear from him in reply. We often ask questions when we already know the answer and are trying to embarrass somebody; I really would appreciate the minister's answer on this.

Subsection 40a(18) of the act, as set out in section 1 of the bill, is a clause of nonapplication: "This section does not apply to the construction industry." I well know, and the minister will agree, that the vast majority of construction workers in what we call the ICI sector, the industrial, commercial and institutional sector, bargain province-wide. The system is well in place; it is institutionalized at this point and those who bargain province-wide probably do not need coverage under Bill 65.

However, I ask the minister to tell me why other sectors of the construction industry -- for example, the sector that works primarily for Ontario Hydro and has different designations and different categories and so on -- that bargain directly between the local bargaining unit and the employer should not be covered under Bill 65?

I have had representations from people who act for that sector of the construction industry, specifically the law firm of Koskie and Minsky. I met with representatives of the building trades unions a week and a half ago. They feel very strongly that because they do not bargain province-wide, they have every bit as much of a problem in cementing their contract relationship with an employer, especially in an ever-changing type of employment such as construction. They feel strongly that they should be included in the bill. Is there any good reason why we should not amend subsection 18 to include the parts of the construction industry that do not bargain province-wide?

The minister will be aware of some of the concerns put forward by various representatives of employer groups. I am sure he is also aware of some of the concerns expressed by representatives of labour. I would like to quote to him from a letter addressed to me by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. It expresses some great concerns that I feel should be on the record. The letter reads in part:

"The CMA, Ontario division, believes that the first-contract arbitration legislation now being proposed by the Ontario government will fundamentally erode the economic balance between employers and unions in this province. Moreover, it is our view that the imposition of a contract in these circumstances is an attempt to treat the symptom of a problem rather than the problem itself."

It goes on to say:

"The underlying problem rests with the certification process, whereby certification is automatic if more than 55 per cent of the total number of persons in the bargaining unit have joined the union. The automatic and often minimal nature of the certification process can result in the certification of a union that does not enjoy the true support of the people in the bargaining unit."

We can question that.

Mr. Warner: Does the member support that?

Mr. Gillies: No; I say we can question it. I am reading some concerns into the record.

"Employers similarly are often left with the impression that the true wishes of the employees have not been represented by the process and the union does not have the support of the employees. Both these factors contribute greatly to difficulties in negotiating a collective agreement. The CMA believes that bargaining rights should only be granted to a union if it obtains majority support of the employees in the proposed unit through a government-supervised secret ballot.

"This is a position which CMA has held publicly for many years and which becomes even more important in the face of proposed first-contract legislation."

While I do not buy that sentiment 100 per cent, there is some validity in what they are saying. They are saying, as we have done so often in the past on matters of major labour legislation, that we can address a problem in such a way as to be of benefit to working people if we simultaneously attempt to redress some of the injustices that are perceived on the other side.

In other words, if we are going to get at the question of first contracts, we also have to get at the question of the certification process. I believe this will lead to a continuation of the balance, a very fair balance, that has existed in labour-management relations in this province. The minister can do it with the support, I believe, of every member of this House.

Mr. Martel: Why does the member not say what he really means? What is he advocating? Is it 65 per cent or 70 per cent support?

Mr. Gillies: That would not be for me to say. Let me tell the member --

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): Order. Come back to your topic.

Mr. Gillies: I should have read on. I will continue to read to my friend the member for Sudbury East. This is also part of the CMA's letter:

"The principle of a government-supervised secret ballot as the prerequisite to certification is an extremely important one. In this regard, the CMA would be agreeable to allowing organized labour to establish the percentage of the bargaining unit which must be signed up to the union to trigger a secret ballot."

There is the answer, and I have no problem supporting it. If there is going to be a secret ballot and if a certain percentage is going to be required to achieve this, I agree with the CMA: Let labour set the percentage. I would like to hear my friend the member for Sudbury East disagree with the principle that labour should set that percentage. It is an excellent idea.

At the appropriate time, I will move amendments to this bill, one of which, in the case of the construction industry, will be of benefit to some working people who are excluded under this legislation.

Mr. Warner: Is the member for or against the bill?

Mr. Gillies: I have already indicated that we will vote against this bill on second reading.

Mr. Warner: He is against the bill. That is a surprise, is it not? They have been fighting the working people for decades.

Mr. Gillies: I say to the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Warner) that if I had been fighting working people for years, I would not be here today as the representative of the city of Brantford. If he thinks --

The Acting Speaker: Order. I ask the member for Brantford to please ignore the interjections and to address his remarks to the topic.

Mr. Gillies: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; I certainly will. I am sure you will agree I was being unduly provoked by some members of the third party.

The bill is inadequate. It fails to meet the agenda of labour and certainly that of management. It is too vague; it leaves too much to the interpretation of the Ontario Labour Relations Board. It addresses a symptom of the problems of labour-management relations as opposed to the root cause of the problems.

We will be voting against this bill on second reading. If the bill passes the House, we will be moving amendments that we hope will result in a better piece of legislation.

4:10 p.m.

Mr. Rae: I appreciate the chance to participate in this debate. I was sitting in this same seat on June 4, 1985, when a speech from the throne was read by His Honour, who at that time was Mr. Aird. I am interested in the offers made at that time, written by the government of which the member for Brantford was a member and which stated:

"Amendments will be introduced to enhance collective bargaining rights. A procedure will be proposed to enable first-agreement arbitration to be requested when the normal processes of negotiation, conciliation and mediation have failed to produce a collective agreement following the acquisition of bargaining rights."

That position on June 4 is no longer the position on January 28. The member for Brantford has moved to the right of the June version of the member for Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller). I want that to be clearly on the record.

When they were fighting for their lives, trying to remain the government of this province, they were prepared to introduce first-contract legislation. Now that they have been put into opposition, where they so heartily and deservedly belong, they have abandoned that position and gone back to the old nostrums and bromides of the past, saying there should not be first-contract legislation and they will not be supporting it.

Let the record show the two-faced, double-dealing attitude on the part of the Tory party in this province. When they are trying to cling to power by the ends of their fingernails, they will desperately call for anything. On first contracts, we said at the time we did not believe them. We were right not to believe them. That has been demonstrated today by virtue of what has happened. What utter double-dealing. What utter duplicity.

Mr. Runciman: Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

Mr. Rae: The member for Leeds (Mr. Runciman) has obviously won the day in his caucus. The libertarians have succeeded in capturing the mind of the Tory party. We all know how difficult a task that is, because before one can capture something, one has to be able to identify and find it.

I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate. The minister will know this bill was produced after a long process of discussion and negotiation. I am going to talk to him about the problems and limitations on access. In my judgement, the minister has listened too much to those inside and outside his ministry who have never accepted the principle or necessity of first-contract legislation.

I have been in estimates and in discussions. I have had private conversations with senior officials in his ministry, and I have had discussions with representatives of various employers. I have had these discussions over the past four or five years since becoming active in provincial politics. I think I have a pretty keen assessment of where they are coming from when it comes to the principle of first-contract arbitration.

This will take a little time because there is a certain history to this issue and to the resistance to the introduction of legislation; it is not new and goes back some time. This is a field in which I take a special personal interest because of my education and experience, such as it is, in the field of labour law. I cannot claim it to be vast and extended. Nevertheless, I have spent some time thinking and talking about these matters and teaching and practising them at various times.

There are real problems with this legislation, and I hope the minister will be prepared to listen to the objections out there, not simply those in the labour movement but also those that are far more widespread than that, even from within his own ministry and from people who will have some responsibility for administering this legislation. There are real problems with it and I want to touch on them.

Before touching on them, without being too boring and pedantic, I hope to spend a few minutes looking at the history of this issue and at the adequacy of the solution that has been proposed by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye).

All this discussion goes back to the events that led to the passage of the Wagner Act in the United States in 1935, the position that was taken in Canada during wartime and the subsequent legislation in peacetime in Ontario when labour relations reverted to the provincial jurisdiction.

The essential purpose of the Wagner Act and all the various pieces of legislation that are parallel in the provincial jurisdictions in Canada and in the federal jurisdiction affecting federal employees -- and it is a framework that has stood for 50 years -- was to get away from the violence, the antagonism, the uncontrolled hostility between employers and employees over the question of recognition of a union.

Collective bargaining took place in Canada prior to the Wagner Act. Collective bargaining relationships were established in a great many places in the work force. Nevertheless, collective bargaining did not extend as far as it needed to, or as far as it still has to, for the simple reason that employers refused to bargain and recognize the trade union movement voluntarily. The only way to get an employer to recognize a trade union was to go out on strike.

During the past 100 years in the United States and Canada, there has been no more bloody antagonism and cause of civil violence -- and I mean bloody; lives were lost, heads were bashed, people were killed -- than the refusal of employers to recognize trade unions. The only way trade unions could get recognized and force recognition was to go out on strike.

The Wagner Act was the famous legislation passed by the Roosevelt Congress after the formation of his government in 1932. It made possible the extension of trade unions to a whole new range of industries that had grown up since the industrial revolution in the United States and since the First World War.

All those were new industries where crafts were no longer adequate jurisdictions in which to negotiate. Industries such as the car industry, the packing house industry and the steel industry were suddenly able to get collective bargaining because the Wagner Act set up a framework for collective bargaining.

The Wagner Act said basically that once a union has been certified, bargaining must take place. Once bargaining takes place, the expectation was that an agreement would flow from that.

That legislation became law in Canada in 1943 by virtue of Privy Council order 1003. After the Second World War, that legislation became part of our provincial way of life in various provincial labour acts that have been passed since then.

4:20 p.m.

Collective bargaining is specifically called for by the Labour Relations Act. It is supposed to be encouraged by the public policies of Ontario. We all know unions remain, politically in many respects and in terms of public opinion, vastly misunderstood in the work they do. Union bashing is something even the Premier (Mr. Peterson), until relatively recently, was wont to engage in quite frequently. Attacks on trade union leaders are constant and never-ending. I have even heard such an authority as Dr. Earl Myers insist the Ontario Medical Association is a very democratic organization, as opposed to the trade union movement which is undemocratic.

The framework of the Wagner Act and of our labour relations law naturally included this notion of something called an unfair labour practice and attempted not only to encourage the parties to bargain but also to give the labour boards, which have the jurisdiction over the conduct of bargaining, power to try to help assist parties when bargaining has not been taking place in what has been called "good faith."

I do not want to go into a long history of the notion of good-faith and bad-faith bargaining, but it is fair to say the idea of an unfair labour practice and of giving some remedial power to labour boards, in particular the one in Ontario, is one that has a real history in this province and, at the same time, with respect to giving the labour board remedial powers, is relatively recent. There is a very real philosophical tension, if you like, a value tension and a very practical tension between those who argue strongly that once bargaining commences there is little point in talking about good or bad faith. Bargaining is essentially a power relationship. It is a market relationship and it is the market force which is going to determine the nature of the bargain which is eventually arrived at.

The literature is full of comments made by various experts in the field and commentators at different times saying bargaining is not something which should or can be conducted according to the Marquis of Queensberry rules. They say collective bargaining is of necessity a power relationship and there is no way for a board to assess it. There are those who say a board has no business interfering in the conduct of the parties and all it can do is simply supervise that relationship and make sure unions are recognized and allowed to bargain.

That same school of thought has been expressed very clearly by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association in its brief to the government dated November 11, 1985, and by the member for Brantford, who is as adequate a spokesman for the CMA as the Tory party will be able to produce in this debate. They have expressed the point of view that something called free collective bargaining is a be-all and end-all. Any attempt to intervene in the process of the power relationship between employers and employees, management and union, is inappropriate.

At different times, that view has been widely held. At one time I think it was probably almost as widely held in some trade unions as it was in many management circles. It has been widely held by a great many commentators on the labour scene who have historically been very resistant to the notion of the labour board, government or public policy, attempting to inject any notions of fairness or ideas outside the bargaining process into the collective bargaining process itself. There are those who argue, as the CMA has, that this legislation, in and of itself, amounts to an attack on the idea of free collective bargaining.

I want to suggest some perhaps revolutionary thoughts today. I do not think they are too revolutionary, but they are worth considering. The first point I want to make is that when North America passed and accepted the notion of the Wagner Act, we already accepted the notion that the marketplace in and of itself was not always an arena that produced a just response. The idea of advancing the cause of collective rights and of recognizing the collective rights of employees, in and of itself, was already a statement that we were not going to allow the free market to determine in every single instance the economic circumstances of people in the work place.

I happen to believe it is important in many instances to make markets work and to let them work effectively, but I also happen to believe very strongly that when it comes to the labour market and when it comes to people in the work place, we have to consider questions of economic justice.

There will always be some tension between the principle of simply letting the market prevail on the one hand and judging that process by the standard of fairness and by the standard of justice on the other. Somewhere between a completely planned labour market, in which some determinations of a normative nature are made by one individual or by a panel of people who say, "This is how much you and you will make," and a completely free market situation is, I suggest, where we have to strike the balance. We will always be making that judgement at different times in different ways.

The first point I want to make is that I do not think the minister should be moved very much by those in his own ministry, outside his ministry, in the Canadian Manufacturers' Association or in other places, who would suggest to him that there is something called free collective bargaining and that under no circumstances whatsoever should it be tampered with, because there are some very unjust results that we do have to deal with. I suggest to the minister that the whole evolution of our public policy with respect to labour markets and collective bargaining is that in the balance we strike between economic justice and the workings of a totally free and untrammelled market we should move as we progress in our society -- and I believe this very strongly -- towards economic justice.

We can do this without completely dismantling or even wanting to dismantle the tremendous benefits we have arrived at as a result of the free collective bargaining system that we have in the province, or the collective bargaining system -- the word "free" is such a value-laden idea; what is free one day is not free the next day -- nevertheless, the system we have of collective bargaining.

I notice with some sense of humour that Tory and Liberal governments have over the years frequently interfered in collective bargaining, but hardly ever have they interfered in collective bargaining on behalf of employees. There was no resistance to interfering in collective bargaining when it came to the Anti-Inflation Act of 1975-76. Pierre Trudeau said in 1974: "Do not listen to Stanfield. You are going to be zapped the next year." All collective bargaining was shut down, not just in Ontario but in all of Canada, for a space of three years. The whole machinery was basically chopped off.

We had the same thing in the public sector here in Ontario with the bills the Tories passed, which were supported by the Liberal Party when it was in opposition. It was the same process of just shutting it down.

I suggest to the minister and to the Tory party that I find there is such a complete double standard on the part of those who are opposed to this kind of legislation in principle, because the Tory party and many Liberals have consistently been in favour of getting rid of collective bargaining whenever it was convenient to do so, but they would never do it on behalf of employees, always on behalf of the employer in every instance. They cannot name one case when it has not been done on behalf of the employer.

4:30 p.m.

I listen to those who say, "No interference with free collective bargaining." I listen with a certain sense of irony and with a bag of salt right next to me, because one has to take those arguments with more than a couple of grains.

I put the case in as clear a way as I could during the dispute at the T. Eaton Co. Ltd. in this province. However, the Eaton's dispute was not the only one. My colleagues who have been here for many years know these disputes better than I do.

There were the strikes at the Fleck Manufacturing Co., Irwin Toy Ltd., Eaton's, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, Graham Cable TV-FM and Radio Shack. I will be coming to these cases.

What I find intriguing is that the member for Brantford said, "I think about the small employer who is worried about reaching a first agreement." Let me go through the names again: Fleck -- not a small company -- Eaton's, the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, and Radio Shack. These are not small employers.

This is what I want to focus on for the next few moments. What is the problem? The member for Brantford said: "The problem is the fact that there is not a secret ballot. It is not fair if 55 per cent of the people sign their union cards, send them in, pay their money and indicate they want to join a union." That is not enough for the Tories. That is not adequate for the Tories. That does not indicate how the workers really feel.

I want to tell the House what my definition of the problem is and I want to be very blunt about it. The problem is, alas and tragically, no different than the problem was when the Americans passed the Wagner Act in 1935 and when we introduced legislation in Canada in the 1940s. The problem is that the employers in this instance do not genuinely accept the idea that their employees want to join a union. They do not believe in the principle that their workers have a right to bargain collectively. They do not believe it.

This view has been given enormous credence in the United States by virtue of right-to-work legislation, the intellectual revolution to the right that we have seen with the emergence of Ronald Reagan as President and the domination of the American intellectual economic scene by Dr. Friedman and other economists of that ilk.

We can open up any management magazine or any business magazine we want and if we were senior management personnel, we could go to dozens of seminars on how to keep the union out, how to have union-free relations, how to have a nonunion environment, a union-clean environment or a union-free environment. They use all these phrases.

It is part and parcel of the objective of that kind of management philosophy that there will not be a union. They do not want a union and they do not accept a union. This is what we are up against. This is what we were up against in the 1930s, it is what we were up against in the 1940s and we took the steps that were necessary to deal with it.

I would suggest that if the minister put himself back in time and listened to those same people, they would have been saying: "We do not want all this cumbersome labour board stuff. We do not want all these cumbersome things; just let those people who can get a collective agreement get one. That reflects the reality of their bargaining situation. If they cannot get it and they cannot force a recognition strike, then they do not deserve a collective agreement." The same people back in time would have been saying exactly the same thing.

Only now, the ground has shifted. Instead of arguing about the fundamental question of recognition, as we were in those days, today we are arguing about the question of recognition as it affects those who are bargaining now for the first time, such as those service industries. I would suggest that similarly, after the major manufacturing revolution, we went through this process of incredible resistance to the notion of trade unionism.

In the history of Sudbury and of every town in northern Ontario, there were incredible conflicts because people were frozen out for months on end while trying to force a company to recognize them. Miners were blacklisted right across northern Ontario. They could not get a job anywhere because they had been courageous enough to insist on their right to join a union. They were beaten up and physically hurt, and their families were destroyed, wiped out. The courage of those people was astonishing and was completely misunderstood and misrepresented by those who said that somehow there was something evil in joining or being represented by a union, or in the meaning of a union.

The minister knows about this from his own community. He has only to talk to someone such as Paul Martin to learn at first hand what it was like to deal with the extent of anti-union animus that existed in the community and in the hearts of employers, and to learn the kind of sacrifice that went on in the 1930s and 1940s at every single plant in trying to get recognition.

I am proud to be able to say that in Canada there has been far more of a thrust of trade unionism than in the United States. Our labour situation is totally different. More than 35 per cent of the labour force in Ontario is in trade unions today. They do not have that situation in the US, where it is between 15 and 20 per cent.

The same drive or spirit is affecting new industries that have not been unionized before, such as banks, the insurance industry, service industries and the retail trade. They have been very difficult to organize, but finally people are trying to organize them.

The banking industry is a notorious example. For a long time, the position of the Canada Labour Relations Board was that the bargaining unit had to be the whole bank. If one wanted to organize the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, the bargaining unit was the entire bank across Canada. One can imagine how absurd that was from the point of view of trying to reach an agreement. They then said, "We will make it every branch." It has been enormously difficult. Nevertheless, piece by piece and bit by bit, it has taken place. However, in the background there has always been the fundamental hostility of the employer to the idea of collective bargaining.

In my judgement, the legislation will give a field day to lawyers. I was interested to hear the member for Brantford say that we need to give the lawyers more time to argue and prepare their cases. Let me give an example, and I speak with some experience as I am a member of a labour law firm. One of my colleagues successfully argued the case for the bank employees that was awarded yesterday. I discussed it with him and talked about the process; 17 days of hearings, after the workers had been out on strike for seven months.

The headlines all say, "Day for Economic Justice" and "Victory." What kind of a victory is it? Could it not have been done a lot more easily? What are we going to have in this instance with this legislation? It will be different. People can apply to the board. I am not saying it is the same as with the Canada Labour Relations Board; I am not making that point.

I warned the minister, the Premier and the deputy minister about it before they brought in the legislation. I did my best to state the case as I saw it, that the more restrictive one makes access to the labour board, the more it is going to become a long-drawn-out legal process that will benefit not the parties but their advocates. I do not think that is in the interests of collective bargaining and a good relationship between the parties, nor do I think it is in the interests of economic justice.

4:40 p.m.

The minister has argued that the access contained in the bill is significantly different from the notion of bad-faith bargaining. If he genuinely believes that, he has been misled by those who have told him so.

I must congratulate the drafters of the bill for at least being clever. In the legislation setting conditions under which the board will exercise its discretion, the minister will not find the phrase "bad-faith bargaining." What will he find? He will find the definitions of bad-faith bargaining determined by the jurisprudence, not only in Ontario but in British Columbia and in the Canada Labour Relations Board.

What the minister has established is a bad-faith test by another name. All he has done is strung out the list of reasons labour boards have given over the years to determine the notion of bad-faith bargaining and put them in the legislation. The same problems we have had defining bad faith during extensive and, frankly, pointless and fruitless disputes and debates in front of the labour board, the same problems over what activity constitutes bad faith and what does not, have all been institutionalized in the bill. That is the problem I have with it.

In principle, we support the legislation obviously, because it does provide for the arbitration of disputes in first contracts. However, the access question and problem for us is crucial. I know the pressures the minister is under when Vern Denholme says publicly this is an anti-business government. I know the kinds of pressures being brought to bear on equal pay, the environment and every other issue. The ears of the Premier are wide open to those who say, "No, we do not want that kind of intervention."

Let me refer to one dispute, the Eaton's dispute. Let me remind the minister what the labour board found in the Eaton's dispute. After being out on strike for months in Ontario, the union finally got the labour board to organize hearings on bad-faith bargaining. This is what the board said:

"Section 15 of the act provides a legal standard against which the board is to measure the bargaining conduct of parties. It does not set out a moral standard. Moreover, the act does not give the board a general authority to decide the contents of collective agreements. That is a matter left to the parties. On the evidence, we are satisfied that the company is prepared to enter into collective agreements with the union, although those collective agreements would preserve to management many of the rights it now possesses and would not give to unionized employees any greater benefits or wages than those currently enjoyed by unorganized employees.

"For its part, the union is not prepared to agree to the terms proposed by the company, but instead, seeks to obtain better conditions of employment for the employees it represents. If a settlement is to be reached, it will be because one or both of the parties reappraised their positions in light of the importance they give to their objectives and the economic costs they are able to inflict on one another."

That is the classic expression by the labour board of the view which it has expressed in many cases, that is, hard bargaining is not to be discouraged and legislation is not designed to deal with the problem of hard bargaining.

On November 26, 1985, in introducing this legislation, the minister said: "In the absence of any misconduct, both the employer and the trade union may have adopted uncompromising positions at the bargaining table. A tough bargaining posture may be taken to protect legitimate corporate or union interests, and where both parties have made reasonable efforts to reach an agreement, there is no cause for intervention."

That is the logic of the Eaton's decision. That is the same reasoning that was given by the Ontario Labour Relations Board in the Eaton's case. What I want to say to the minister is quite simple. A charitable explanation would be that the minister has been hoodwinked. I think another explanation would be that the minister is, frankly, being less than vigilant on behalf of employees who have been frozen out by virtue of the conduct of employers.

It may be of interest to many lawyers on both sides to spend days, indeed weeks, in front of the labour board, arguing as to whether conduct constitutes hard bargaining or surface bargaining, whether they can find the existence of what is called anti-union animus, whether failure to reach an agreement is really unreasonable or whether it is simply the tough expression of what the minister has described as a legitimate corporate interest.

All I am saying to the minister is that this will be a field day for those management lawyers and those companies that have never accepted the validity, necessity and public policy worth of the idea of collective bargaining. It will always be possible for them to so couch their behaviour and frame it in such a way that it can be justified as simply an example of hard bargaining.

This becomes even more the case where one has a unit of part-time workers. Let us take another instance where many of them are women. Let us look at the Simpsons situation and the Eaton's situation, all of the areas where people are now for the first time coming into the world of collective bargaining.

If the minister says and if the labour board says, "We are not here to dispense economic justice; we are here simply to measure the relative bargaining strengths of both parties," then I say many unions are going to get broken. Many people are going to be left out in the cold for a long time, and we will not have made the advances we could make.

I do not know, but I have heard by hearsay that there are those who are attracted to this legislation, who say, "Eaton's would not have happened and Radio Shack would not have happened." All I will say to the minister is that he is going to have to persuade me. He is really going to have to show how that is the case, because I do not think the evidence at the moment is persuasive.

I would refer the minister to a couple of texts, because I know he is interested in these matters. We will have a look at what George Adams has written in his recent text, Canadian Labour Law, pages 610, 611 and 612, where he talks about first-contract legislation. I am going to quote from him and then I would like to quote from the book written by my colleagues, Jeffrey Sack and Michael Mitchell, Ontario Labour Relations Board Law and Practice. I think everyone would recognize Sack and Mitchell, following as it does the text of Sack and Levinson, as the definitive text on the work of the labour board in Ontario.

4:50 p.m.

It has a very lengthy section dealing with surface bargaining, avoiding a collective agreement, the whole area of unfair labour practices and the definition of bad-faith bargaining. What they say is precisely parallel to what the minister said in the House. In differentiating between hard bargaining and what constitutes surface bargaining:

"The board has regard to the totality of the bargaining relationship, the conduct of the party, and while it will not sit in judgement on the reasonableness of the party's proposals, it does take their substance into account.

"Since patently unreasonable proposals which have no business justification may be an indication of bad faith. ..." It goes on to state the various grounds on which the board will and will not find bad faith.

My argument with the minister is that I have yet to understand, apart from the lobbying efforts of employers and of some others, the resistance to making access one of right. I referred to the Eaton's case, and perhaps it would be appropriate to compare the experience of Eaton's workers in Ontario and Manitoba. I know the Manitoba legislation is being challenged by Eaton's and being taken to the courts on the grounds that it is an interference with their rights under the charter, but it is worth comparing it.

In Manitoba, on May 22, 1985 -- and the minister knows that Manitoba provides first-contract arbitration as a right -- the union made application for arbitration of a first agreement. On May 23, the board requested documentation. From June 25 to June 27, hearings were held. On July 23, a decision was handed down and a first collective agreement was effective as of that date.

In Ontario, we had a strike that lasted from November 30 to early May. During that time, we had the hearings of the Ontario Labour Relations Board on bad faith, which went absolutely nowhere.

The minister is creating problems for himself in not putting forward legislation which is far simpler. The reason I feel this very strongly is that he is simply giving a potential, legal harbour to those employers and to their counsel who do not believe in collective bargaining.

My judgement has always been that to make the situation very clear, one is much better off giving the union access to arbitration as a right. It is clearer and simpler and it will mean that people will not be out in the cold for months on end. It means, in particular, that people with very little bargaining power will not be left without any leverage at all.

I remind the minister of the reality that the people whom this legislation is intended to help are people who have very little bargaining power, whose wages are low, who may be working part-time and whose economic leverage is small.

I mentioned the Graham Cable strike. I live in a part of Toronto that is covered by Graham Cable. It is extremely difficult for those workers to exercise their leverage in any way that will have an adverse effect on their employer.

They are not permitted by law to shut down the employer or stop the employer from having trucks of workers who are scabs going across the picket line. They are basically in a position where the only argument they can make to the government is that the employer is bargaining in bad faith, that a collective agreement is in the best interests of public policy and that the minister needs to refer that matter to the Canada Labour Relations Board. They are in an enormously weak position.

The reason we are encouraging collective bargaining is not simply that we want to make markets work, but rather that we want to inject a degree of economic justice into the marketplace. It is not because we want the result to be what the market would have created and produced anyway, but because the use of collective bargaining and first-contract legislation is designed specifically to deal with those people who otherwise would not have a contract. It is designed to help them.

There are those who will say -- and these people have ultimately persuaded the minister in this first draft -- that the vast majority of collective bargaining disputes in the province, whether they are about first, second, or third contracts, are settled amicably between the parties; that if one creates first contracts as a right one will have a flurry, an epidemic of applications; that there will be the complete eradication of the role of the marketplace in determining wages and benefits in certain institutions; and that we will end up giving artificial strength to those who are not strong in the labour market on its own terms.

I do not agree with that point of view for the simple reason that the kind of decisions handed down by those who are determining first contracts surely have to be decisions which resemble the conditions which would apply in similar industries. The same kinds of criteria would be used as have been used by various government boards of arbitration in these matters. Our arbitration system is sophisticated enough to produce a result which would not be a windfall to employees.

The problem I have with that argument is not only that I think it untrue, because in my experience whether it is true or not depends entirely on the kinds of arbitration decisions that come down, but also the argument fails for another reason because it seems to be saying there are workers who do not deserve a union. There are workers who are so marginal and whose economic power is so small they do not deserve a collective agreement. The argument seems to be that unless they are able to inflict a degree of suffering on the employer, they do not merit a collective agreement.

There are trade unionists who feel that way. I am not one of them. I suggest to the minister that in looking at the amendments to this legislation which will be introduced by our party, he has to decide whether the government is sincere in wanting to extend collective bargaining rights and whether it genuinely wants more people to be covered by collective agreements. If it is genuine in that desire and if it is a basic question of public policy that the government has to decide right off the bat, then I do not see the argument for putting in the restrictions.

5 p.m.

I want to conclude my remarks. I have gone on for some time and I appreciate the indulgence of the House. I have argued and I feel very strongly as an individual and as the leader of my party, that union bashing is probably one of the most facile things to do, but it is not a new phenomenon. It goes back a long way. Nobody has to tell the labour movement that one only gets the things one gets by virtue of sacrifice. The real history of social improvement and the quality of life in this province has an awful lot to do with the sacrifices working people have been willing to make because they believed there was some strength in solidarity. They believed they owed their fellow workers something. Solidarity was not just a word in a song; it meant something in their lives, in the way they treated one another and in trying to arrive at some collective benefits and justice.

I do not think that cause is unfashionable. I think that cause is very fashionable and very necessary. The people who need to be the recipients of that spirit are very different from the people who were the recipients of it in the 1920s and 1930s. However, they need economic justice just as strongly as their cousins, uncles, brothers and grandfathers needed it in the 1920s and 1930s.

If we are going to do something, I believe it is worth doing right and worth doing well. If we are going to do it, let us do it properly. Let us ensure the following: Once a union has been certified, it should have a choice in terms of the first agreement; that choice is basically to bargain or to go to arbitration. If they decide in their merit that arbitration is the route to go after the experience of the certification process, then that should be theirs as a matter of right.

It is not in the interest of public policy that people should be out on a picket line for six or eight months, walking up and down and getting strike pay instead of working for an employer, having a job and having a decent collective agreement. I was outside last night at the corner of Scarlett Road and St. Clair Avenue; it was minus 20 degrees. There were workers who had been there for six months because they cannot get a collective agreement with their employer. There is something wrong with that in 1986. People say: "We have advanced. We do not need trade unions any more." The lie is put to that statement every day of the week.

There are amendments we will be moving and changes we will be insisting upon. We will be asking, cajoling, persuading and attempting to get the government to move on them. I do not expect to get the whole lot from the Liberal Party of Ontario, but I do expect the government to be open to persuasion.

For example, I expect the minister to look very hard at the access section and to listen to the arguments I know are going to be made to him about the practicality of those suggestions, their real history and what the language really means.

Given the backlog at the Ontario Labour Relations Board, the open-ended time frame that is provided, whereby the minister can extend any time limits set out in the section, is just an invitation to another series of delays and protractions that nobody needs.

We will be making suggestions. We know the bill is going out to hearings. We will be supporting the bill on second reading with the kinds of reservations and concerns I have expressed today.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: My colleague the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) is having a press conference at this hour on a matter that affects me not as the Minister of Labour but as the member for Windsor-Sandwich.

I have already spoken about this to my friend the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere, who will be speaking next. My parliamentary assistant will be here as the debate continues on the bill. I give the member my commitment to have a look at his remarks, and I look forward to reading them. I will return as soon as I can, but I would like to be at that press conference.

Mr. Warner: I very much appreciate the courtesy extended by the Minister of Labour. He did indicate in advance that he had another engagement, otherwise he would be here listening to the debate. From what I have seen, he takes an active interest in his legislation that is before the House and appears to listen to the comments made by members of the opposition. I, for one, appreciate that kind of approach.

I hope that approach will be extended beyond the second reading debate so that when the bill goes to committee, all the suggestions put forward, not just by members of the opposition but also by members of the public, will be taken very seriously by the government. It is apparent there are some difficulties with the bill, and we hope we will have an opportunity in committee to remedy those difficulties.

I do not need to go into a great deal of the history, which the member for York South (Mr. Rae) so aptly described, going back to the 1930s, but in the next little while I wish to touch on a number of other elements of more current history.

I want to say at the outset that because the principle of the bill as stated is for the settlement of first collective agreements by arbitration where collective bargaining has been frustrated, naturally we support that principle. It is in that spirit that I make the following comments.

First, I want to mention that the whole problem of first-contract settlements has been one of historic difficulty in this province. It is a tribute to the Ontario Federation of Labour, as well as to individual unions and particular individuals, that this legislation has been brought to the floor of the House today. Many of the unions and the OFL have serious concerns about the substance of the bill, but the principle that we are going to have an approach to first-contract problems is one the unions are very pleased to see.

There is another major reason why this bill is before us, and that is the fact that it is part of the reform agenda to which our two parties agreed. That agenda set out a number of very serious concerns; generally, they were areas in which the previous government had refused to move over many years. It was felt that this was a historic opportunity for two opposing parties to come to a meeting of minds on particular issues. This happens to be one of them, and it is an extremely important issue.

Some members may not realize how widespread the issue is and how many people's lives it touches. In very large measure it is a women's issue, since for the most part the first-contract problems in 1984, 1985 and 1986, specifically at Eaton's, Radio Shack, Fleck and others, primarily affected women.

I want to talk a little about Eaton's, because it is close to home for me; there is an Eaton's store in my riding. Like many other members, when the Eaton's strike was on, I tried to find time in my busy schedule to participate in whatever helpful way I could for the people who were out on strike at the Eaton's store.

I stopped by the picket line and joined the picketers for a while. I tried to do my best to cheer them up and to indicate we were fighting the Tories as best we could in trying to help solve the problem. They understood very clearly what the problem was: There was no legislation in place that would help them in first-contract disputes.

5:10 p.m.

Some very interesting dynamics occurred on the picket line. It was almost entirely women who were out on strike, all of them for the first time in their lives. Some were women who had worked for 30 or 35 years and did not realize the enormous power the employer had at his disposal and did not realize, until the crunch came, who their friends were and who their enemies were.

Most of those women were ordinary people leading ordinary lives. They were typical Canadian, law-abiding, decent, kind individuals, who for the most part enjoyed working and felt that by working they were making a contribution not only to the company but also to their families as well as somehow making a contribution to society through the taxes they paid because they were working.

They felt it was only fair and proper that they should have a voice in the things that affected them at work. Naturally, one tries to think what those things are. What kinds of things would an ordinary working person, as a clerk in Eaton's, be concerned about?

Wages, obviously: "Am I being paid fairly for what I am doing in accordance with other people? Do I get some kind of financial reward for my experience over time?"

Benefits: "Will I have the opportunity of a pension? Will I be able to pay into a pension plan and receive a pension at some point? Will my Ontario hospital insurance plan premiums be paid? Are prescriptive drugs covered?"

Sick leave: "What happens when I am sick? Do I get covered, or do I simply lose my salary?" The latter is often the case. We members, of course, have sick leave. We get paid whether or not we work; some do not work, but we always get paid. Many workers, if they are sick and cannot come into work, do not get paid; there is no sick benefit. Therefore, many workers come to work when they should be at home.

Seniority: "Because I have been employed by Eaton's for 20 or 25 years, do I have any seniority rights when it comes to layoffs? When it comes to consideration for a promotion, will seniority be considered in any way?

"What happens if I am unhappy with decisions made by the immediate management? Is there some way I can voice my dissatisfaction without automatically being feed?" A grievance procedure, in other words.

"What precisely are my terms and conditions of employment? Do I have the right to have a job description? What am I going to be asked to do? If I am hired as a clerk at Eaton's, will I suddenly find myself in the shipping room three weeks later or doing a variety of jobs that were not told to me at the time I was hired?

"Do I have the right to know when I will be working and for how long? What about my hours of work? Can I be called in at any time? Do I have to put in compulsory overtime? Do I simply have to work whenever my employer, the T. Eaton Co., decides I should work?"

Vacations: "Am I entitled to a vacation, and of what duration? After so many years of service, do I get additional vacation time?"

These are all fairly obvious and standard questions for any person who is employed. The problem, as many of the women found out, was that in each of those, they did not have a voice. All those questions are contentious, but in the question of seniority, what it boiled down to was that Eaton's wanted the opportunity to dismiss people on the basis of personality: "I like you; you stay. I don't like you; you go."

It did not matter that the second person, the one the manager did not like, happened to have been around for 25 years, while the manager had been with the company for about five years. That did not mean anything to the T. Eaton Co. It wanted to retain the right to simply hire and fire as it saw fit, without any regard to the individual's servitude, his record of employment or how he had performed his duties over a long period. The company had no interest whatsoever.

Seniority was a very contentious issue; another was grievances. It was rather plain at Eaton's: "If you're going to complain, there's the door." It did not matter whether the complaint was legitimate; the fact that a person complained was noted on the individual's record and the person was gone.

I recall one Saturday when we had an excellent turnout at the picket line. A variety of community groups had joined in at the Scarborough Town Centre. In the midst of our picketing, a young fellow from Eaton's personnel department came down with a video camera. His job was to videotape all the picketers so the Eaton's employees who were picketing could be identified and dealt with later in some way. There is no limit to the imagination of employers as to how they can get back at people who are attempting to stand up for their rights.

What is fascinating about the Eaton's dispute is that the company made a fundamental error. The company figured that because it was almost exclusively a group of women, it could somehow push them around and that if it pushed them around a bit and forced them to strike in the bitter-cold weather -- it was the kind of weather we are having today -- the women would give up, go away and quit.

The company got a surprise. As I said, these were women who had never participated in a strike, who had never been part of a collective agreement, who had never had the advantage of a union and who in some cases had worked for 30 or 35 years; there were older women as well as younger women. These women were absolutely adamant that they were not going to be pushed around.

There was no way the T. Eaton Co. was going to push them around. They saw very clearly what was happening. To use the language of the bill, they were frustrated; they were frustrated beyond belief at the treatment they were receiving.

There is another little anecdote I can tell. I remember it quite vividly; I will not forget it. A very pleasant woman -- she was aged about 40, I suppose, although she looked much younger -- mentioned to me that she had never been on a picket line before. She was a long-standing Conservative; she had voted Tory her whole life, and her family before her.

Mr. Sheppard: She probably still does, does she not?

5:20 p.m.

Mr. Warner: No. As a matter of fact, as of today she has a membership card in the New Democratic Party in Scarborough-Ellesmere. Now that I have captured the interest of the members to my right, perhaps they would like to know why.

At the height of the strike, she wrote a letter to her party, the Conservative Party, wanting to know whether first-contract legislation would be introduced to assist them. Because the situation was so apparently unfair and because in her view the Conservative Party had a sense of fairness, she felt it would respond. We know the rest is history. The response was devastating and she was devastated. The people she had trusted, to these 40 years, had abandoned her and she suddenly realized who her friends and her enemies were. She said, "The Tories are the Eaton Co. and the Eaton Co. are the Tories and the twain shall meet."

It is a fascinating little story, and she was not alone. Other people on the picket line expressed similar feelings. I will not forget that, because that lady went through an experience at fast hand.

In addition to the freezing weather, we had extremely bad treatment by Eaton's. It is not a lot of fun trying to live on $50 a week. That was the strike pay. It was getting close to Christmas. There were single-parent mums on that line.

Mr. Wiseman: Is that all the unions pay?

Mr. Warner: That is strike pay, generally.

Mr. Wiseman: Is that all the money they got?

Mr. Warner: In some cases one does not even get $50 a week.

Mr. Martel: They do not get all the donations that farmers get from the government.

Mr. Wiseman: All they give is $50 a week, and they get all those union dues.

Mr. Martel: They do not get a cent, as the farmers do.

Mr. Wiseman: But $50 a month. The member ought to be ashamed to announce it.

Mr. Warner: It is $50 a week.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough-Ellesmere has the floor.

Mr. Warner: I was listening to the intriguing interjections by the member for Lanark (Mr. Wiseman). It is unfortunate that we do not have time now for an instructional session on the problems of working people, because the member might really benefit from such an instructive session. However, I will not be deterred from my main goal, which is to discuss this bill, right? The Speaker appreciates that. He is doing a fine job.

I know it is difficult for the Tories to understand the plight of working people, so it is no surprise that they oppose this bill. Over the years, the Tories have traditionally attacked working people, they have attacked unions and they will continue to do so. I guess that is the lot of Tories in this world. It gives us some comfort that certain things never change.

As we go through this we know that I support this bill, the New Democratic Party supports the principle of the bill and the Liberal Party supports the principle of the bill because they introduced it, but the Tories oppose the principle of the bill. That is generally the way the world unfolds.

I want to mention some of the pressures that are brought to bear and why we require this bill. If we look at the status quo without this bill, without any legislation to assist in first-contract settlements, the disruptions that occur in individual lives are enormous.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have no control over your colleague the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel)?

Mr. Warner: I do not know who is worse, the member for Lanark or the member for Sudbury East. It is a toss-up.

Mr. Speaker, am I permitted to take off my jacket? Is that allowed in here? It is too warm.

Mr. Speaker: We do not want you to get too worked up.

Mr. Warner: Yes. He has me all worked up here. I have to get this jacket off. Now the shirtsleeves.

Most of us, or at least those of us who have been on picket lines over the years, realize that a number of other severe pressures come to bear and I hope that if we have some decent fast-contract legislation in place, those pressures will disappear.

Number one is the use of strikebreakers. The use of strikebreakers in this province was always condoned by the former government and it continues to be allowed in Ontario. When one has strikebreakers, one increases the opportunity for violence. Companies are able to hire goons, and often do in order to ensure access to the plants, both entrances and exits.

Can the member for Sudbury East tell me if Securicor was the name of the infamous outfit?

Mr. Martel: Yes.

Mr. Warner: Yes, Securicor, an infamous outfit, active in the Radio Shack situation. They are the folks who were hired by the infamous Tandy Corp. to infiltrate. An agent was hired, and I understand he was given $1 million. That, at least, was the press account of it and the testimony before the board. He was told by Tandy to spend whatever he wanted. The idea was to break the union. One does that by causing as much disruption as possible on the picket line.

So the agent, hired through Securicor, is hired into the plant as part of the picketers. His job is to stir up controversy and, he hopes, some violence on the picket line. By so doing he would give the striking workers a bad name. We hope this legislation will bring a halt to that kind of practice, where it will be redundant; it will not be required.

The use of police has always been a questionable practice. The police generally have been viewed as agents of the management and have, in many instances, assisted management. Many of us remember the Fleck strike. Does the member for Sudbury East remember how many women were out on the picket line to face a couple of hundred riot-geared police?

Mr. Martel: I think it was somewhere around 80.

Mr. Warner: I would like to get the numbers straight. I was there, and there was somewhere in the neighbourhood of 70 or 80 women and 200 police in full riot gear. My God, if that is not ridiculous, I do not know what is. That was intimidation, and intimidation by use of the police has been a management prerogative. It has to end. Maybe this bill, if it is passed, will end that.

I do not know how accurate my observations are -- I hope they are -- but I want to contrast two situations. Quite frankly, my observations from those two situations, both in Metropolitan Toronto, were that there has been an incredible improvement on the part of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force as to how the police conduct themselves at strike locations.

One was the Becker's strike, which happened out in Scarborough in 1976 or 1977. I was absolutely astounded when I arrived on the scene to find fewer than 20 women on strike. They were in the middle between, on the one side, transport trucks with goons inside carrying baseball bats, and, on the other side, no fewer than 10 mounted policemen. There were six squad cars and about 20 motorcycles. There were horses on the one side, transport trucks on the other side and this group of 20 women in between, who were absolutely frightened out of their wits. There could not have been a gap of more than 15 metres between these two opposing groups with the women in the middle.

5:30 p.m.

It was astounding. I could not believe that would be allowed to happen. It came up in the House that day. It was raised in question period to the then Solicitor General and, sure enough, the horses were withdrawn. That was in 1976 or 1977.

In the Eaton's strike of this past year, I encountered a plainclothes police officer -- a sergeant, I think -- who was very understanding of the situation. He made reasonable requests, did not use a show of force as a way to intimidate the strikers and did not seem to be assisting management in any way. I was very pleased.

It appears that in the intervening 10 years, the Metro Toronto police have attempted to have a different approach to labour disputes, with specially assigned officers whose task it is to try to handle situations as diplomatically as they can. That is a far cry from the flying squad of head-breakers -- that is what they were known as -- who came from different divisions. One could never identify them; they would remove their badges.

I encountered them in the Becker's situation and their job was to break heads. That was 10 years back. That situation has changed and I applaud the Metropolitan Toronto Police for having done that. That is my observation from those two circumstances. The Fleck Manufacturing one was different because it involved the Ontario Provincial Police and its troops.

Mr. Wildman: And the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell).

Mr. Warner: I am not going to mention that.

Those are some of the pressures. There are others. The agent provocateur is familiar in Ontario labour scenes. We hope that is going to end as well.

One of the other pressures that needs to be addressed, a very severe one, is the scab situation. As members know, companies in the midst of a first-contract settlement or any other strike situation are permitted to hire scabs, and they do. The idea is to undermine the union position.

It seems to me that it would be entirely reasonable, especially in first-contract disputes but also in others, that where there is a valid, legitimate breakdown of the collective bargaining situation, and where the workers are in a legal strike position and are exercising that right, the company should operate by way of management and not be allowed the luxury of hiring replacements for the workers. Surely to goodness that would solve a lot of problems. It would get rid of the strikebreakers. In most cases, it would get rid of the need for police to be there. It would get rid of Securicor and others of that ilk. It would probably reduce a lot of the tension and pressure on the picket line.

When the majority of the workers are in favour of having a collective agreement, I do not think a six-month strike to secure a contract is in anyone's best interests. I cannot see how it is in the best interests of the company to have its highly trained, highly skilled, long-serving employees out of the work place for half a year. It does not serve the interests of an employee to try to survive on $50 a week through the kind of weather we have at this time of year, or to have other pressures put on him or her by strikebreakers or anything else. It is in no one's best interests.

I think it is in everyone's best interests to have a decent collective bargaining situation whereby one can avoid a work stoppage. Workers do not like going out on strike. They do not like having to resort to that. They know the consequences.

I hark back to the Eaton's situation. A single-parent mom trying to survive on $50 a week does not want to go out on strike. She did it because she had to; she had no other recourse, and because we have no mechanism for solving the problem in Ontario, she was out there for more than six months. That is wrong. It is a matter of fundamental justice. It is absolutely wrong that workers should go through that.

I wish to allow other members the opportunity to participate, so I will wind up. I want to say to the minister I appreciate the fact that the bill is here, regardless of how it got here. Obviously, it is some tribute to the reform agenda. I appreciate the fact that it is here and I appreciate the fact that the minister appears to be someone who listens very carefully to what people say. That is his reputation, and that is good.

I honestly believe there are some serious problems with the legislation and I hope that when the bill goes to committee the minister will take into account not only our comments, those of opposition members, with respect to possible changes, but also the comments from other groups and individuals -- from everyone, including the Tories' friends the CMA, the unions and individuals who show up -- so we can take what is a basic foundation and build on it something of which most of us will be very proud and something that will serve well the working people in Ontario and the employers as well.

Not all the employers in this province have reached the age of enlightenment in understanding why people want a collective agreement and that if they used a bit of imagination and a bit of applied intelligence, they could make that collective agreement something that both the company and the employees could be proud of.

I have been a party to negotiations on a collective agreement on both sides, both as management and as labour. It can be of benefit to management as well as to labour to have a decent working relationship, an understandable relationship, a good, objective way to work out grievances without having to resort to a picket line. All that is possible.

It is with some pleasure and pride that I support the principle of the bill and I look forward to the opportunity to make some of the progressive changes that are needed to strengthen the bill.

Mr. Martel: Earlier this afternoon as I listened to the member for Brantford, I could not help recalling a book I read a number of years ago called Labour's Untold Story. I wish some of my friends to my right would take the trouble to read about what the struggle has been and what forces have tried to prevent the establishment of trade unions.

I sit here day after day, and although I am not a farmer, I try to get a handle on their problems. However, very few people, if any, in the party to my right even bother to look at what the trade union movement is all about or at what it has done for contemporary civilization.

Mr. Pollock: I belong to one.

Mr. Martel: Then the member should get up and confront his colleagues when they take the stand they took today in moving to oppose this bill, because that is the intention of the Tories: to oppose this legislation. If that member is a trade unionist, he will be up on his feet arguing against his colleagues.

I have over the years tried to sympathize with and understand something about agriculture, although I must admit I am no expert on it.

Mr. Mancini: The member probably knows more than the Tories do.

Mr. Martel: In some cases that might not be hard. None the less, I have tried. What I find offensive --

Mr. Wiseman: The member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) is going to be away back in that corner.

Mr. Mancini: I was never fired.

5:40 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Essex South is not in his seat. He will please refrain from interjecting.

Mr. Martel: I want to reiterate, I have never ceased to be amazed. I have listened to the debate on the medical bill. I have heard all the classic arguments about how trade union movements are not democratic and that, once one brings in a trade union, democracy is dead. I hear all these comments and they are from farm boys who have never read anything in their lives.

Mr. Andrewes: How does the member know?

Mr. Martel: I know from their reactions. One has only to listen to know their depth of knowledge in this field is zero.

Mr. Andrewes: That is not fair. They have read about Social Credit. They have read a few socialist pamphlets.

Mr. Martel: I can recommend a number of books for my friend if he wants. If he wants to start with one of the better ones, he should read Labour's Untold Story. It will take a couple of nights; it runs to about 900 pages. It would tell him how Pinkertons and famous agencies like that got involved to execute and slay trade union organizers. It will tell him how, for example, in the Pullman strike in the United States, the government got involved in eliminating those radicals.

If one looks at the history of Ontario, one also knows the scream for years by certain individuals was that the trade union movement was infiltrated and totally dominated by Reds. One listens to the arguments being presented and some of the interjections and one knows very little has changed.

I recall my friend the previous member for Cornwall, the father of the gentleman who now occupies that chair, who was Minister of Labour at one time. Fernie Guindon came to me one night when we were sitting at the Royal York Hotel and said: "After all this battle, I am now Minister of Labour. I used to think trade unionists were just awful and they were the people not prepared to negotiate. That is all nonsense. The only people who are prepared to compromise are the people in the trade union movement. Management is much more intransigent."

He gave me a couple of examples. A couple of people who were opposed to increasing the minimum wage showed up at his office. They were from the tourist industry. As he looked out his window, in those days at the backyard, both of them drove up in Cadillacs. They were there to oppose a minimum wage. Can one imagine? Poor Fernie could not get over that. He said: "I could not believe it. I knew these birds were coming. I watched them come in with their Cadillacs to oppose the minimum wage."

I listened to the claptrap of the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) today. He is going to equalize things. As I understand it, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association wants to require a vote because 55 per cent of the cards signed is not sufficient to indicate that a majority of the workers in a plant want certification. It is not a clear 50 per cent plus one, but 55 per cent. However, the member wants a vote.

Does that mean one has a vote, and if there are only 80 or 90 employees, one can hire 35 more on a part-time basis, give them a vote and eliminate the possibility of having a vote which represents only the workers who are there? My friend the Minister of Labour is well aware of that. He is well aware of what the manufacturers' association is presenting. What it wants is a tradeoff, which has been the history of the Tory party in labour legislation in this province. It has had to give a little, and then it took some back.

I have never seen the Minister of Agriculture and Food do that. He goes out there and fights like blazes for the people he represents. The Minister of Tourism and Recreation does exactly the same thing. I give them credit. That is their responsibility. However, when it comes to labour there has to be a tradeoff; I am not sure why.

Shortly after I arrived in Toronto one year in the middle of December, I ended up on a picket line at Proctor-Silex. It was a famous case in those days. In fact, we left Morton Shulman in the Legislature by himself. My colleagues and I, all 19 of us, left Morty to handle the business of the day and we went down and broke the injunction.

There have always been obstacles for labour. Do my friends who know something about trade unions remember the ex parte injunction? Management could go to a judge and get an injunction in the middle of the night, serve it on the union the next day and say, "You cannot picket." That was not long ago. I was involved in a number of the demonstrations where we deliberately broke the injunction. We knew that with the Tories in power and with their determination at that time, there was no way they were going to bring in legislation. Therefore, we had to confront them outside the Legislature.

Of course, they did not send the Ontario Provincial Police in to arrest all 19 of us. They would have had we not been members of the Legislature. People frowned and screamed that we were violating the law and that we, as makers of the law, should not do it. At times, the law is an ass, and when the law is an ass, one changes it. We are on the right track here, but part of this new bill falls into that category. I will come back to that.

I have been on picket lines and they are not pleasant. Anyone who thinks a picket line is a great place to have fun has rocks in his head. If the members do not believe me, they should come with me to the next picket line and see. Everyone thinks people like to go on strike and that it is a great thing to do. It is not when one is on strike and has no income. It means a person does not have much choice. A point has been reached where one will not be pushed any longer and decides to strike. It means one has been pushed to the wall.

The teachers' strike in the separate school system in Sudbury last year is an example. Can one imagine nuns on the picket line? They had been pushed to the wall. When a person goes on strike, he or she has been pushed to the wall. It is not done frivolously, but there is this idea to my right that it is done in a cavalier sense.

As my leader said earlier this afternoon, the only time I have seen government intervention in the bargaining process was with the original bill in Ottawa in 1976, I guess it was, freezing wages for three years, which was followed by two years in Ontario. Then we could intervene with impunity. Of course, we did not freeze profits and interest rates; we did not freeze anything except labour's wages. I say to my friend the member for Brantford that unlike the doctors, they never got a catch-up. Is that not strange?

5:50 p.m.

I can recall a strike I was at in Sudbury. My colleague the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere talked about the thugs some firms hired. Dare Foods had German shepherds a couple of years ago. They do not do that at Inco. Since we finally got organized in Sudbury, they do not bother to hire any thugs or pug-uglies to try to break a strike in any of the mines, nor do they hire thugs, pug-uglies and infiltrators in the construction trades. They do it where there are a lot of women.

There have been a lot of nasty strikes with thugs, pug-uglies and infiltrators where there are women. Look at some of the worst disputes and see what the predominant sex of the people in those strikes has been. It has been women, the people who are the most vulnerable and who are least in a position to afford that tough type of situation.

Simpsons in Sudbury has a new policy of three days a week for everybody. Whoop-de-do! Has the minister ever thought about trying to support a family on three days a week? He should try it some time. I do not mean at his wage; I mean at the minimum wage. That is what is going on all over out there today as never before. It is open season on women.

The only thing that is going to happen is that we are going to have five or six months of dispute, and we are not sure they are going to fit a category. That is really a weakness. If the minister wants to go down in history, he should put his chin on the line, put it out for a change and say: "That is enough. We are going to have first-contract legislation that will work."

My friend the member for Brantford said, "Give them more time." Has he calculated yet how much time they have under this bill? Let me check to be precise. From beginning to end, not counting the strike, the whole process is 103 days. If it goes to private arbitration, extend the time limit by 10 days. That is 113 days. The minister can correct me if I am wrong, but that is how long I figure the process can take.

After they have been on strike for maybe two, three or four months, the member for Brantford wants to lengthen it beyond that. Although it is 113 days already, almost four months -- in fact, 120 days is four months -- he wants to lengthen it. He is desperate for something to hang his hat on to avoid voting for this legislation.

Not only has he bought the Canadian Manufacturers' Association line that we should not recognize the bargaining agent if it has only 55 per cent of the cards, but there has to be a vote. That will give management time, of course, to bring in a bunch of scabs, add to the number of voters and make sure the union does not get organized. That is what is behind that whole ploy. To hang his hat for not supporting this legislation on not giving sufficient time, or on the time factor, he must have been scratching desperately for a reason.

I could see it if he were saying, "We are not supporting this because it is not easy to get access." Take the very clause he was talking about. If he were to say he was not supporting the bill because he thinks we should remove the refusal of the employer to recognize the bargaining authority as one reason, the uncompromising nature of the bargaining position adopted by the respondent without reasonable justification as a second and the failure of the respondent to make reasonable efforts to conclude a collective agreement as a third, and that it should be easier; if he were saying he was not supporting the legislation for those reasons, I would applaud my friend.

But no, he looks for a weasel way out. The Canadian Manufacturers' Association said we have to recognize the union through a secret ballot first. Once we have the secret ballot, then they are prepared to name the time limit. All management wants is lots of time to bring in lots of people in order to destroy the vote. If my friend cannot see that, then he is more naive than I thought he was.

In order to impose these restrictions, as my leader said today, there will be slick discussions and lengthy legal haggling as to whether there was real negotiation or tough negotiation, and they are going to have to prove whether that occurred or not. When companies go out, they do not really care how much money they spend to prevent a union from getting a first contract. If one reaches that situation or impasse where one cannot get a first contract, one knows full well that company has no interest in having a union. One only has to look at Irwin Toy.

I remember being on the picket line at Irwin Toy, and it was a vicious strike. It involved predominantly women. They ended up getting 10 cents an hour more than the company wanted, after months of strike. What hurt the company was the boycott on the Atari video games it was producing. The boycott and the cost around Christmas time was affecting the company badly.

One would have had difficulty proving bad-faith bargaining, as in most of these instances that go to the arbitrator where one has to prove bad-faith bargaining, because management would hire the best lawyer going. It does not care what it pays in legal fees to defeat that particular union, whether it is the Ontario Public Service Employees Union or any union one wants to name.

As my friend puts up the obstructions or the barricades in a sense to clear access, he makes this legislation less palatable. We will support the legislation, but at the same time we intend to move a series of amendments. I hope my friend the member for Brampton will see the error of his ways. I am not sure. Anybody who is prepared to quote the Canadian Manufacturers' Association --

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The former member for Brampton?

Mr. Martel: No, not Brampton. Pardon me. I keep mixing the two up. The member for Brantford was quoting the Canadian Manufacturers' Association.

On motion by Mr. Martel, the debate was adjourned.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.

January 28, 1986

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

SPACE SHUTTLE CHALLENGER

INTEGRATED HOMEMAKER PROGRAM

SENIOR CITIZENS' SERVICES

RESIDENT ANGLING LICENCE

DOMINION STORES

RESIDENT ANGLING LICENCE

ORAL QUESTIONS

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

DOMINION STORES

STELCO TAX CONCESSIONS

RESIDENT ANGLING LICENCE

INSURANCE RATES

ASSISTED HOUSING

INSURANCE RATES

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY

INTEGRATED HOMEMAKER PROGRAM

SMALL MARINA EXPANSION PROGRAM

CANCER TREATMENT CENTRE

IRRADIATION OF FOOD

OVERTIME WORKERS

RED MEAT PLAN

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTIONS

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

PETITIONS

SALE OF BEER AND WINE

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

RENFREW VICTORIA HOSPITAL ACT

OTTAWA LITTLE THEATRE INC. ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT