The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

NATIVE LAND CLAIMS

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I'd like to bring to the attention of the House the ongoing land claim discussions between the government of Ontario and the Teme-Augama Anishnabai nation in the Temagami area.

As members will be well aware, since 1975 the Teme-Augama Anishnabai nation has had a land caution on most of the south part of the Timiskaming riding for all that time and because of that caution development has not been able to happen. We've not been able to have prospecting and development of new mines and other activity for the benefit of the economy in the north.

Discussions are going on and I'm receiving many letters from my constituents in regard to the slowness of these negotiations. I stand in my place today to plead to the government of Ontario and the Bear Island band to really get on with the discussions because the government has set a deadline of March 1993 and the people of Timiskaming want to see that deadline come to fruition.

We know there must be a settlement. We want to see a just settlement on all sides, but we must have a settlement so that the economic activity of Timiskaming can continue.

POLICE STAFFING

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): For the past five months I've been writing to the Solicitor General requesting a copy of the Ontario Provincial Police report on the province-wide review of service delivery and uniform staffing levels. I have received several replies from the Solicitor General each time denying my request for this information on the ground that senior officials within the ministry are reviewing the report.

I believe it is essential that each member in this House be provided with this vital information on OPP staffing levels across the province. The Solicitor General is merely increasing the concern of my constituents by hiding relevant information from the public on police staffing levels and service requirements.

In some parts of my riding of Wellington, burglaries have increased by as much as 48%. According to the June 3 issue of the Erin Advocate, within the 500-square-mile jurisdiction of the Guelph OPP detachment, there has been a significant increase in crime: 535 burglaries last year as compared to 361 in 1990.

Since 1986 the population of Wellington county has grown by 17%. In some municipalities the growth has been dramatic. The population of West Garafraxa, for instance, has grown by over 36%. With increases in population, there is a parallel need for the service infrastructure to support such growth.

To best represent the safety and security interests of my constituents, I must have access to the report which the Solicitor General has denied me. I would then be in a position to fully assess the precise extent of the OPP staffing shortfall in my riding relative to other areas of the province and to continue to bring the issue to this government's attention. I call upon the Solicitor General to end the secrecy and table the report on OPP staffing levels in Ontario, and he should do so today.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I rise today to inform the House of yet another group of citizens who are opposed to the proposal of the Ontario Waste Management Corp to build a waste treatment facility in my riding.

The Concerned Citizens are a group of Lincoln activists who have taken it upon themselves to help keep the public informed of the ongoing environmental assessment hearings that are currently considering the OWMC proposal. These people have sacrificed hundreds of hours of their time to drive to the hearings in Oakville to represent the public. They are relentless writers of letters to the editor of all of Niagara's newspapers in order to let everyone know what is happening in Oakville. Much of the time they are the only people present who are not engineers or lawyers, yet they are as knowledgeable as anyone at the hearings.

Many of these people are farmers who must perform their daily farm chores before and after attending the hearings. In addition, they read report after report on toxic waste technology and are right up to date on the evidence being presented at the hearings. These people are not looking for recognition. The only thing they want is that this outdated, ill-conceived proposal be denied.

HURON LODGE

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I wish to bring to members' attention the plight of 34 elderly residents who are concerned about their home because the Ministry of Community and Social Services has denied an emergency request for $52,000.

Elliot Lake's Huron Lodge, which is in my riding of Algoma-Manitoulin, has been walking a tightrope since the welfare-burdened Algoma district social services board announced that it cannot fund this lodge beyond June 30 of this year. Four area municipalities served by the lodge have agreed to fund $45,000 of the shortfall, and the city of Elliot Lake has now pledged the remaining amount of money, but we have 34 elderly residents who are uncertain about their future. They are uncertain whether they will be able to remain in their home after this fiscal year ends.

Elliot Lake has had 2,000 new residents come for its retirement living program. Elliot Lake needs a commitment to the seniors' campus, which this government continues to drag its feet on. In the interim, I would urge the Ministry of Community and Social Services to pledge the money necessary to keep the people at Huron Lodge in their home.

BOATING SAFETY

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement concerns the fact that lower speed limits, stricter law enforcement, boater education and the licensing of boat operators were among the 22 recommendations made by a coroner's jury examining the deaths of a King City man and a Waterloo woman who were killed in a 1990 Labour Day boating accident on Lake Joseph in Muskoka.

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

An editorial in the June 22 edition of the Orillia Daily Packet and Times under the headline "Jury Was Right On As Inquest Concludes" says:

"It's interesting to note the stringent rules that apply to driving an automobile in the province, such as enforced seatbelt laws, speed limits, types of automobiles, and how they're driven.

"But on the public's waterways, which are also transportation routes, there appears to be a degree of anarchy."

I urge the provincial government and my colleagues here in the Legislature to give second reading to my private member's Bill 17, An Act to provide for the Licensing of Motor Boat Operators, coming this Thursday morning, so we can send it to a standing committee for public hearings, where it could be amended to meet any concerns that might be raised.

When we look at the statistics, we see the grim problem we're having here. It has supplied all the necessary stats required to rationalize implementation of such a very important bill.

1340

WELLAND HISTORICAL MUSEUM

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I appreciate the opportunity to tell members what I did on Saturday just past. I had the opportunity to meet Bas Degroot, his wife and his three kids.

Mr Degroot, who is well known in Holland or the Netherlands for his artistic endeavours, is now living in Wainfleet down in Shirley Coppen's riding, Niagara South. His art work is on display at the Welland Historical Museum.

Mac Swackhammer, the curator of that museum, never fails to amaze me. Once again, he's done it. He's put on a first-class display. He had a first-class opening. I was so pleased to meet young Dagmar Degroot, the youngest child of Degroot, whose painting of the boy is one of the paintings on display.

The Welland Historical Museum, with a modest budget and excellent staff under the leadership of Mac Swackhammer, who came from out west but now lives in Welland, has carried on the tradition that it's established of outstanding displays. Along with the Degroot art display, which everybody should make it down there to see, is also a display of old maps and photos of the city of Welland, and indeed of Crowland in the south end of the community.

On July 16 the dinosaurs are coming to the Welland Historical Museum. No, not some of the older members of this Legislature, but real dinosaurs that are going to be on display to the amazement and thrill of youngsters and oldsters alike.

I welcome all of my colleagues here down to the Welland Historical Museum to see Mac Swackhammer and his staff's great work.

DRIVER EXAMINATIONS

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): It's well known to all members of this Legislature that young people are having a particularly difficult time as they face summer employment in 1992. I want to raise once again in this chamber a concern I've raised -- I know my colleague from Trenton has raised it -- and that is the ongoing difficulty that a lot of young people, and in some cases people who are not so young, have in trying to get a driver's test in a timely fashion.

People in my constituency in eastern Ontario, in communities like Deep River, are being told now that they are going to have to wait up to three months to be tested. I know my friend the member for St Catharines was reporting earlier today that he had a constituent who was in his office over the weekend saying that he was not able to hire a young person because that person could not be tested for the needed driver examination in a timely fashion.

A number of members, myself included, have told the Minister of Transportation that the difficulties his department is having in providing timely driver examinations are simply causing all kinds of difficulty for people, particularly young people. I say again that a three-month delay or waiting period for anyone, but most especially a young person who might need that driver's licence to get a job, is simply not acceptable.

I say again that if the government cannot provide a more timely and sensitive service, it should get out of the business and turn the driver examination service over to someone who can run it more efficiently in the interest of at least helping young people get licences and jobs.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): Last Friday the Senior Citizens' Consumer Alliance for Long-Term Care Reform released a report regarding the lack of planning by the NDP in the management of health care of the vulnerable and frail elderly in Ontario.

The report expressed concerns about the many seniors whose lives would be jeopardized as a result of the implementation of an ill-conceived plan of deinstitutionalization of the frail elderly before the necessary community support programs were planned, funded and in place.

Jane Leitch, the chair of the alliance, pointed to the fact that less costly chronic beds are being shut down in Ontario hospitals while chronic patients occupy beds in acute care hospitals. She also opposed the NDP plan to create more bureaucracy in terms of 40 "service coordination centres in Ontario when existing health councils can do the job."

Ontario seniors are rightly suspicious of what the NDP has in store for their long-term health care needs when the recommendations of several reports, studies and extensive consultation remain unaddressed by this government, such as the chronic care hospital study, the report of the Advisory Committee on Rest Homes, countless reports by the Ontario Advisory Council on Senior Citizens, the Weistaubb and Lightman reports and this recent study entitled Rural Roots: Aging in Small and Rural Communities in Ontario.

Seniors will not be conned by any government offering simplistic solutions. Ontario seniors deserve adequate long-term care planning, not platitudes, and they deserve services sensitive to their care needs, not insensitive socialist rhetoric.

DURHAM EAST NEWSPAPERS

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): My riding of Durham East is served by a number of community newspapers which each week keep their readers informed of local events. I want to refer to those people who take the time to write a weekly column about events in the villages. This effort takes time and a good deal of effort and I want to make sure it doesn't go unnoticed.

I want to thank Betty Wright for providing "Happenings in Enniskillen," Edna Barrowclough for "News from Wesleyville," Jack and Hazel Cragco for their report from the village of Newcastle, Isabelle Chalice for the "Report from Orono," Edna Thickson for "News of Elizabethville," Peter Sun for "The Courtice Connection," Harvey Malcolm with "News from Yelverton," school reporter Coby Veenstra from Durham Christian High School, the "Blackstock News" from Joyce Kelly, "Happenings in Hampton" from Michelle Balson and Audrey Johnson for the Courtice news.

All these volunteer weekly columnists help me keep in touch with the things going on in the riding of Durham East. I appreciate their efforts in making this community news available not only to myself but to all the citizens I represent in the Legislature and I thank them for that.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

TRANSITIONAL ASSISTANCE FUNDING / FONDS D'AIDE TRANSITOIRE

Hon Richard Allen (Minister of Colleges and Universities): When the Treasurer announced transfer payments to the broader public sector last January, he set aside a sum of $160 million for transitional assistance. This money was to provide limited additional support to our transfer partners to help them to adjust their service delivery methods and cost structures to maintain the quality and accessibility of services in a time of declining government revenues.

We called on our college and university stakeholders to work together with each other in this same direction. We asked them to explore and develop restructuring proposals that would maintain access and quality with the level of funding that was available.

We received over 400 proposals representing a tremendous amount of cooperative effort between faculty, students, administrators and staff within our colleges and universities.

Nous avons reçu plus de 400 propositions de projets, ce qui témoigne d'un effort coopératif colossal de la part des enseignants, étudiants et administrateurs, ainsi que du personnel des collèges et universités.

Because of the excellence of these proposals, I was able to announce in April that our post-secondary system would receive nearly $40 million in transitional assistance. I indicated at that time that the colleges would receive $17.4 million as their part of the transitional assistance. This money is not top-up of regular base level funding. It is money for projects that will help our post-secondary institutions in their efforts to restructure.

Ce montant ne vient pas s'ajouter au financement de base accordé aux collèges. Il s'agit de fonds destinés à des projets qui aideront les établissements d'enseignement postsecondaire dans leurs efforts de restructuration.

Today I want to tell you how the largest part of the $17.4 million going to our colleges will in fact be used. Over the last few days my colleagues and I have announced that $12 million will be used to fund nearly 100 projects at 23 colleges of applied arts and technology. They look at ways to rationalize programs within and between colleges and propose measures to promote closer ties between colleges and high schools.

The projects also look at ways to make college programming more accessible to a greater number of students by using methods such as distance education, computer-based learning, and cooperative and offsite training. There are as well a number of projects concerned with lifelong learning, keeping people from dropping out, improving accessibility for underrepresented groups and helping people who have gaps in their pre-college education.

These proposals respond to very real challenges within the college system, including the retraining and redeployment of staff affected by restructuring.

1350

Ces projets veulent répondre à des défis bien réels au sein du réseau collégial, dont le perfectionnement professionnel et la réaffectation du personnel touché par la restructuration.

I truly believe that these projects represent the beginning of real change in our college system. I know the long-term restructuring steering committee for the colleges, which is now beginning its work, will consider very carefully the work of its predecessor, the short-term transition assistance task force, which worked with the government to review the excellent projects I'm announcing for funding today.

The close collaboration between students, faculty, administrators and staff in the college system in developing these projects is precisely the type of cooperation that is needed as we move to meet the longer-term challenges facing the college system. It shows to us all that shared decision-making by employers, employees and clients can lead to the development of a more effective and efficient way of delivering services to the public, as well as promoting cooperation in the workplaces themselves.

Il semble clair que la prise de décisions partagée entre employeurs, employés et clients peut mener à l'élaboration de modes de prestation de services au public qui soient plus efficaces, en plus d'encourager la collaboration en milieu de travail.

In the coming weeks, I will be making further announcements relating to the restructuring of our post-secondary system, involving partnerships between our colleges and universities, human resource initiatives within the college sector and projects dealing with the restructuring of the university system as well.

Today I want to congratulate our colleges. We expect the best from them, and, once again, they delivered it.

RESPONSES

TRANSITIONAL ASSISTANCE FUNDING / FONDS D'AIDE TRANSITOIRE

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): Let me start by saying, frankly, that I don't like always being negative and critical, so I will begin by saying that any additional money that is going --

Interjection: It's not additional.

Mr Daigeler: It's not really additional money, but any --

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Rediscovered.

Mr Daigeler: -- rediscovered money that is going to the colleges or to the universities these days is certainly good news, so I don't want to denigrate the fact that there is some money going into the colleges.

Nevertheless I think we should remember where this money is coming from. It's announced under the transition program that was put in place when the Treasurer said he was limiting the transfer increases to colleges, universities, hospitals and schools to 1% and 2% the year after. He had reserved what I can only term a slush fund of some $40 million for the colleges and for the universities. Why do I say "slush fund"? Because essentially the minister said, "If you universities come up with some programs and some initiatives that fit into our NDP priorities and in our program, then we will give you this additional or this extra money that we've put aside that really belongs to you, but we give it to you only if you follow our viewpoint and our ideology."

Frankly I've been surprised how uncritical the university and college community has been about this effort, because what we're seeing very clearly here is targeted money. The universities up to now, and certainly the colleges as well, have been very insistent on their independence, and rightfully so, because I think there has to be a certain distance between the system of higher education and the government of the day. In the pursuit of knowledge, it is very important that they can maintain their integrity and their independence somewhat from the government of the day. This step that the minister is so proud of -- targeted funding, the $40 million for the whole higher education system -- I think leads the universities and the colleges in a direction which in my opinion is very dangerous.

I should perhaps indicate at this point that while I appreciate the fact that there was some money set aside in terms of transition, making it easier for the system of higher education to adjust to the limited transfer payments, there was nothing, for example, for the Art Gallery of Ontario, for example. Where was this transitional funding for them, even though they have to struggle just as much with this adjustment to a new financial reality? Why is it the AGO has to close? Why is that? Is it because they are not good friends with the NDP government?

Il y avait 400 projets qui ont été soumis au ministre. Je me demande si c'était une utilisation vraiment efficace du temps des personnes pour préparer des projets et se soumettre à toutes sortes de réunions, de commissions et de comités afin de recevoir seulement 17 millions de dollars. Je me demande vraiment si c'était un effort efficace et valable pour les professeurs et les administrateurs dans le système des collèges.

The minister is so proud that this initiative has come forward at this point. It took him half a year to evaluate these 400 projects. Now he says he has a long-term restructuring committee that he announced well before Christmas as well. He's saying now it's just getting off the ground. If it has taken him half a year just to decide on the results of his short-term restructuring committee, which is the transition funding committee, how long is it going to take him to really approach the key issues in our colleges and universities, taking an in-depth look, as he says and I agree with him there, at the way we provide higher education in this province?

I certainly hope this long-term restructuring committee, which is a very important one, and which unfortunately is just getting off the ground at this point, will be much more effective and will be able to work much faster than the short-term restructuring committee of which the minister is announcing the results today.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I would like to respond to the announcement today by my colleague and neighbour the member for Hamilton West, the Minister of Colleges and Universities.

First of all, this is apparently the third time this announcement has been made. One would suspect that the initial response from the media was poor and therefore it required a second run up the flagpole. Then the second response from the faculty and community colleges and their students has now necessitated a third attempt at running this up the flagpole to see if someone is going to salute it as some sort of meaningful contribution to the context in which our community colleges and universities are struggling.

I know my Liberal colleagues won't appreciate hearing this but I'd like the House to cast its mind back to 1982-83 when we had our last severe recession. It was at that time, with the exception of the obvious impact on social assistance payments required of any government of the day, that the largest single increase by the then PC government of Ontario was made to colleges and universities in double digits in recognition of the fact that in recessionary times the worst thing to do is to block students' access to post-secondary education -- whether it is for their regular ongoing academic needs or because of job layoffs in the economy -- to go to a post-secondary institution and to receive the necessary training and upgrading and additional skills so that their re-entry into the job market can be meaningful and helpful not only to themselves but to a productive society.

What is disturbing is that today we have an announcement of $17 million. Yet on October 2 of last year, the Treasurer gave my friend and colleague the member for Hamilton West the bad news that he was cutting $13 million out of his operating budget. One might even cynically take the view, as I know the Ontario Federation of Students has, that these kinds of announcements that we're hearing today for the third time in this House are very much paid for on the backs of the students and the faculty in these very institutions that saw $13 million taken away last fall.

It's very clear that if this government saw the context in which our students require these necessary upgrades in this economy, it would be re-evaluating some of its most recent announcements, like $100 million from the same fund for it to continue its ideological race against the private sector in day care services in this province.

How much more productive could this province be if that money had gone to our colleges and universities to assist -- I'm told by the Council of Ontario Universities -- some 15,000 students who will make application this year and be denied access to a university or a community college in our province? Yet this government and this Treasurer and this Premier have $100 million to continue their offensive fight -- and that's what it amounts to -- against the private sector providing day care services in this province.

Those are the kinds of priorities that cause many people to ask questions. Undoubtedly, as these questions continue to be unanswered, this government will probably rise again in the next couple of weeks and announce for the fourth time that it's spending this money on its transition programs in community colleges in Ontario.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): When you talk about recycling, this minister really seems to have taken a lesson from the Minister of the Environment in recycling and recycling old announcements. At least the Honourable Ruth Grier is getting through to one of her ministers with recycling, and I have to commend the Minister of the Environment. There's nothing new, as we've just heard from the member for Burlington South; it's just over and over again. At least you're good at that and we commend you for that.

1400

MEMBERS' SAFETY

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I rise on a point of privilege, Mr Speaker. I want to present to you and to the House an issue for consideration which affects the privileges, I believe, of all members of the House. That issue is physical threats or threats of violence against members.

The particular nuance of the issue takes us beyond the physical geography of the precinct, and as a consequence, according to modern interpretation of parliamentary privilege, may be seen to be problematical in terms of a Speaker's ruling. None the less, this may be an issue on which our Legislature itself should speak and that is why I present it through you.

First I want to put to you two isolated incidents, one recent and one from four years ago. One of those affects one of our colleagues in this Parliament; the other affected me directly in a previous Parliament.

Just about a week ago, the Minister of the Environment, in her capacity as minister of the crown but also as a member of this Legislature, attended an event in Georgetown, Ontario. In that place, her automobile was rocked and, according to press reports, she was physically molested on her way to attend an event. The minister indicated to the press that to her the incident was "threatening." The justification from the crowd was that their futures were threatened by a potential siting of a landfill.

I spoke to others about that particular situation, because it seemed to me more than the usual shouting down of the minister or member from people opposing a government action or a legislator's point of view. There was a very real potential of physical injury to the minister simply because the member was doing her job.

In one of the conversations that struck me as particularly troublesome, somebody said that the minister should have known not to drive her own car. I had to conclude that what that person was saying was that members of the Legislature, in whatever capacity, in the course of their activities must have, on a routine basis, protection against physical threats by the very people they are to represent and that members should therefore plan for the potential of physical violence as a routine part of their work.

I cannot accept that and I don't believe that members of this place should be placid in their acceptance of that view. It is an expected obligation of elected members to attend events as part of their duties as legislators and to take into account the sometimes vociferous reaction of the electors to government and legislative actions, but there's no obligation on the part of a member, or a Legislature, to accept willingly physical threats against a person who happens to be a member of this House. These are not revolutionary times, and nothing justifies that.

Under the last government, as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour, I participated in and led for the government the standing committee on resources development hearings into changes to the Workers' Compensation Act. The now Treasurer was Chairman of that committee, and my view is that he provided a model of fairness and resolve during those hearings.

None the less, in a particular northern town, a group of well-organized union officials chose to select me -- because of my particular responsibility -- and my car to rock. As it happened to be a taxi with a young driver who was very frightened, I can tell you that it was a situation where violence -- which is the way we saw it from the enclosed space of the cab, which was surrounded by hundreds -- could have begotten violence, and many people could have been injured with one heavy or panicked foot on the accelerator. The clerk of that committee, who was also a passenger in that taxi, can corroborate the tension of that time.

I recall talking at that time to people who served on the committee about that incident. They included the now Minister of Labour and the now minister of northern affairs. The response was a singular and, to me, puzzling acceptance of the incident. But from then on, the Ontario Provincial Police was assigned to protect members who were involved in those legislative hearings.

Erskine May, in the British parliamentary tradition, tells us, "It is a breach of privilege to molest a member of either House while attending such House or when going to or from it." The work of legislative hearings traditionally is an extension of the work of the House, and there was a clear breach of parliamentary privilege in the instance in which I was involved, although it was not brought before the House for resolve.

Erskine May, however, in the same edition, the 20th edition, also tells us, "To attempt to influence members in their conduct by threats is also a breach of privilege." The citations surrounding that directive tend to those relating to publishing of statements impugning the conduct of members or sending letters threatening action if a member does not vote in a particular way.

To my mind, the threat of physical violence, such as what was experienced by the Minister of the Environment recently, is equally, and in the same context, a breach of her privileges as a member of this House. But that breach is equally a breach of the privileges of every member of the House, and any silence from the House on this or like instances condones that breach of privilege and the physical violence or threats of violence that brought that breach of privilege to the fore.

As a member of this House sitting in loyal opposition, I do not favour many of the actions and decisions of the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore in her capacity as minister. I do not relish, however, any thought that she should be silenced in her actions or decisions by violent threats directed against her personally.

I believe, Mr Speaker, that the House should speak on this issue and that the Speaker, yourself, should take a lead in formulating with all of the parties in this place a public response to incidents of this nature. That response should be a simple one: that we do not condone or tolerate physical violence against any one of our members or any minister of the crown. If this Speaker and this House choose not to make a statement, then it will be seen to be accepting of a method of opposition that has no place in this province, that is, physical threats of violence against members of the Legislature.

In presenting this issue to you, Mr Speaker, I do not speak for the Minister of the Environment, but rather as a member of the chamber who is convinced that violence against any member of the Legislature is violence against us all, and that to be silent is to condone and encourage. Thank you.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): May I say first to the member for Halton Centre that I deeply appreciate her bringing this matter before the House. While I am not precisely sure of what help your Speaker can be to you, I say most sincerely that I will take this matter under serious consideration, and if there is any way at all in which your Speaker can be of assistance in trying to ensure that all members of the House will never have to operate under any form of coercion or intimidation then indeed I will do whatever I am able to do within the confines of my responsibilities. Again, I appreciate both the member having brought it to my attention and the manner in which she has done it. It's a matter which obviously she's given some serious thought to and I for one appreciate the approach she's taken.

It is time for oral questions, and the Leader of the Opposition.

1410

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAXATION

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Treasurer. When the Treasurer delivered his budget in April, we did question the credibility of a Treasurer who, as we saw it, would do just about anything to bring in his budget under the astronomical deficit figure of $10 billion. The Treasurer was prepared, as we all recall, to reschedule pension payments, to include fiscal stabilization payments from the federal government when it was far from certain they'd arrive, and he created a phantom Ontario Land Corp.

Even though we had reason to question the Treasurer at that time and even though we had reason to have some concern about the Treasurer's record on his budget figures from the previous year, we did decide this year to give him the benefit of the doubt when it came to estimating his revenues. We assumed that after last year's record he'd be a little bit more careful this time and he'd give the Ontario public some figures that would be more reliable. But we were obviously far too trusting. It seems we gave the Treasurer credit on this particular measure where none was warranted.

Today we're being told that the Treasurer's budget projections are off by hundreds of millions of dollars. In fact, it would seem this Treasurer may be preparing to take at least $300 million more out of the hands of Ontario taxpayers than he told us just two months ago. Will the Treasurer confirm that his revenue projections are way off base and that he is preparing to take at least $300 million more out of the Ontario economy?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister of Economics): First of all, there's a certain amount of contradiction in what the Leader of the Opposition says. If I were attempting to come in under the $10-billion deficit and moving heaven and earth to do that, I would not have underestimated the amount of revenues coming in from income tax and other sources, I would have inflated them; whereas the report to which the Leader of the Opposition refers states that we are underestimating our revenues.

Now that I've had a chance to look at the report and at some of the assumptions built into that report, and looking at the model that was used to extrapolate numbers from a 1986 base through to 1993, I have to say to the Leader of the Opposition that no, I'm not prepared to concede that we're going to get $300 million more than was in the budget or that the numbers in the budget are wrong. I really believe that the numbers in the budget are as accurate as it is possible to be, given the fact that we are working with more recent information and a total database, whereas Mr Grady was working on a sample, some but not all of which is based in Ontario.

Mrs McLeod: The Treasurer is right when he raises the question of how the opposition can possibly know what are the right figures and who to believe. We're not sure how we can have confidence in the Treasurer's figures. We're not sure on what basis he would question the validity of a study that is based on a model that has been developed by Statistics Canada.

But I do share the Treasurer's seeming concern that the economy may not recover as one would hope and that the revenue figures will not be, therefore, as projected or hoped. We've been reminding this Treasurer since he brought in his budget that every dollar he takes out of the province in higher taxes is one more dollar that consumers don't have to help us get out of the recession. Statistics Canada is now reporting that for every new dollar individuals have earned during the recession, Ottawa and the provinces are taxing back 61.5 cents. Until consumers, who are responsible for 60% of all spending, get a few more dollars into their hands so they can start spending, Ontario's jobless rate is going to continue to grow and businesses will continue to close.

I wonder then how the Treasurer can explain how he expects the budget, which today is being referred to as "the largest package of tax increases in Ontario since Confederation," will spur consumer spending and help get the economy back on track. Will his tax increases in fact not stop that recovery dead in its tracks?

Hon Mr Laughren: I hope not. Just to set the record straight, the tax increases in this budget on a full year for 1993, which is the year Mr Grady is talking about, are a little over $1 billion. The previous government in 1989 raised taxes by $1.33 billion, so I don't think it's fair to say this is the largest tax increase since Confederation when 1989 was indeed the appropriate year about which to make that kind of statement.

I did want to set the record straight, if you would allow me, Mr Speaker, on some of the numbers that were used in Mr Grady's report and to which the Leader of the Opposition refers. If $300 million were to be taken out of the economy and the impact on the average family is as Mr Grady says, I believe it would make you think twice about what he used as an average family.

According to our analysis since this report came out, Mr Grady's average family is a married, self-employed senior with 0.3 kids, paying Ontario surtax at the same time and receiving the Ontario tax reduction program. I don't know how you get the Ontario tax reduction, which is for low-income people, and at the same time pay the surtax. As well, this person drinks 145 bottles of wine a year, 290 bottles of spirits, 29 cases of beer, and pays $15,000 in property tax, and I really do not believe that bears much resemblance to the average family in the province of Ontario.

Mrs McLeod: I appreciate the fact that the Treasurer wanted to answer the question that he had an answer to, but that was not my question. My question was about the impact of this Treasurer's tax policies, his tax grab, his tax measures on the economy, and the Treasurer says, "I hope not." Surely hope is not enough for this province to run on.

We have been consistently asking this Treasurer to tell us what impact his tax measures are going to have on our economic recovery, what studies he's done to tell us what kind of an impact his tax measures will have, and we never get an answer to that question. I wonder how the people of this province can have faith in a Treasurer who has to keep adding his figures up again and again in order to be able to defend them publicly.

If this Treasurer does find that indeed he has underestimated his revenues, if there is to be additional tax revenue from the tax measures that he has put in place, I wonder if the Treasurer would then consider rolling back some of those tax measures. If he would look at the impact on the economy and see if a certain rollback of taxes might have a benefit in the economy and in job creation, would he, for example, now look at rolling back the gas tax for the summer months?

Hon Mr Laughren: I don't think that's really a supplementary to my answer, but we won't dwell on that.

The leader of the official opposition implies that we're revising our numbers. I haven't revised our numbers. Mr Grady has stated that he thinks our numbers are wrong, and he says we're on the low side. I would remind you that within the last two years, using federal government projections largely -- which is what the Ontario government does because of the way the income tax is collected and analysed by the federal government -- the overestimation on PIT revenues has been $1 billion each year, so you'll forgive me if I'm just a little cautious and even sceptical about those forecasters who say we're underprojecting revenues from provincial income tax. If we are, we are, but no, I would not consider rolling back taxes if that's the case.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Mr Speaker, we do wish the Treasurer had reason to be more optimistic about Ontario's economic future, but we can appreciate why he's concerned, and with that I'll address my second question to the Minister of Labour.

Today a new poll was released on the government's proposed changes to the Labour Relations Act, and there was probably no surprise in the results of that poll. Most Ontarians who were surveyed opposed the proposed changes. More than two thirds of those who were surveyed, including union members and New Democratic Party supporters, say these changes will cost jobs, which has been the essence of the concern that we have been consistently raising on our side of the House.

Mr Speaker, 78% of the people surveyed believe that the government must carry out a proper study of the economic impact of this legislation. We have been calling for this kind of impact study ever since the government introduced the legislation, but the minister has ignored our questions and has ignored the concerns that this kind of economic impact be studied.

I would ask whether or not the minister will continue to ignore the overwhelming majority of Ontarians who have voiced their concerns through this survey and who want this government to do a proper economic impact study. Will this minister undertake to conduct such a study before simply plowing ahead with his legislation?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): As I've said on a good number of occasions, I don't know another issue that has been studied as much or had as much consultation as the Ontario Labour Relations Act reform, and I'm really wondering if the leader of the official opposition also accepts the recent survey she's talking about, where I think some 53% of the people said they were aware of the OLRA recommendations and 46% said they had no knowledge of them at all, yet they went on to ask the questions from that point of all of the people, including those who knew nothing about the OLRA changes.

1420

Mrs McLeod: I wonder if the minister, having just told us, as he has claimed on so many occasions, that no issue has been more widely studied, has had a broader consultation, if that is indeed the case, does not find it a little bit strange that only 53% of Ontarians were aware of the legislative changes.

This Premier of this government created an independent committee that was composed of both business and labour representatives and it supposedly has the mandate to examine labour relations in this province. The minister could easily delay this bill and give his Premier's special committee the task of examining the legislation and undertaking that proper economic analysis of the impact of the legislative changes. It seemed to us when the Premier established the group that's what it was intended to do in the first place.

The Premier's committee has enough labour and business representatives to satisfy both sides that this would be a fair process, and it seems to us to be a reasonable option for everyone concerned. I would ask the minister if he would not drop the rhetoric and commit to making this very easy and very sensible move. Will he refer his legislative proposals to his own government's select committee to carry out the economic impact studies?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I'm sure the leader of the official opposition is aware that the Premier's committee was set up and both management and labour people agreed to serve on it to be able to provide advice to the government of Ontario in terms of how we improve and better labour relations in this province. It was not intended to deal with the subject we've already had on the table for better than a year and have gone through extensive consultations on.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Final supplementary.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Speaker, I don't even know how to begin a supplementary in response to what the minister has just said. He said to us that this committee was established -- and I think I wrote it down as he said it -- to look at how we can improve and better labour relations in this province, yet that it had not been given the mandate to look at what he himself has described as the most significant piece of labour legislation intended to improve labour relations in this province. How is it possible that this same minister could make both those statements?

No wonder we are sceptical on this side of the House about his government's commitment to real and to open public consultations. We look at the consultation process which took place leading up to these changes, and what we see is an 11-day sham consultation across this province. This government has consistently ignored the concerns of both business and ordinary Ontarians about the effect the changes could have on our economic situation and therefore on jobs in this province.

According to the media, Gord Wilson knows the truth when he says, "We know we're going to get a substantial package of labour reforms," and to us it looks like a fait accompli. I would ask the minister whether this labour bill is not in fact already etched in stone, as Gord Wilson seems to suggest it is. Will his government permit substantial changes as a result of an honest and open consultation, and what assurances do we have that his government will in fact provide for open consultations with the people of Ontario? Will these hearings even be held at a time when concerned citizens can make their representations to the committee?

This is indeed major legislation affecting labour relations in this province and it deserves time and thoughtful consideration, not just a jammed-in, summertime, sham consultation.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: Mr Speaker, you'll forgive me if I just don't accept the "jammed-in, summertime consultation." It seems to me that's the same kind of comment the leader of the official opposition was making after the original leaked documents. After we have now gone through almost one and a half years on this particular topic, if we did turn it around overnight, what would they be saying? "Why have you wasted a year and a half?" That's utterly ridiculous.

The Speaker: New question, the leader of the third party.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I'd like to go back to the Minister of Labour on the absence of any job impact studies done by you, your ministry and this government and see if we can get to the reason why you continue to ignore the most important thing on the minds of people today, and that is jobs.

When the discussion paper was originally released, Mr Minister, Ernst and Young did a study that said some 450,000 jobs were at risk. You pooh-poohed that study. You said: "No, that study's no good. That's based on the consultation paper. Wait till you see the legislation. Wait till you see the changes that come in." Ernst and Young have done another study based upon the changes you brought in and now say that at risk are 295,000 jobs and nearly $9 billion in investment over the next five years.

Minister, do you have one shred of evidence to suggest that this study is incorrect and that in fact some 295,000 jobs and $9 billion of investment are not at risk? Do you have one shred of study done by your own ministry, your own government, that disputes or refutes this evidence?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I think some of the evidence is the fact that the original studies being used by some of the groups being referred to had us losing 480,000 jobs. Subsequent studies by these groups -- if you can call them studies; they really weren't studies -- had it down to 280,000 jobs. We dispute that entirely. What's happened in terms of job losses is without any changes to the Ontario Labour Relations Act. We happen to think that if we can change the atmosphere between business and labour we can show a plus, not a negative.

Mr Harris: Minister, we hear your criticism, pulled out of the air, of studies that others are doing, but they are at least doing studies on the issue that is on most Ontarians' minds: jobs, the fear of losing the job they have, the desire to create new jobs, the desire to get this economy moving again. The only people doing studies seem to be those whom, when the results are released, you criticize.

Minister, we find out today in a survey done by the Council of Ontario Construction Associations, that 78% of Ontarians believe it is your job, the government's job, to do the impact studies on jobs, yet you've given us nothing; that 70% of NDP supporters think it's your job to do the economic impact studies; that 73% of union members say it is your job to do the economic impact studies. You flip-flopped on Sunday shopping when 65% came across in the polls, and you publicly said the reason was that the public has changed. Now you've got over 70% of union members, NDP members, saying it is your job to do the job economic impact studies. Have you done that? If not, why not, and when can we see the results of those studies?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: When it comes to flip-flopping on a position, I can recall at least four different positions on Sunday shopping from the Conservative Party. But I also want to tell him very clearly that when he refers to the COCA study, the COCA figures he was using, that's one of the groups that first told us there would be 480,000 jobs lost. Then they said they made a mistake and reduced that to 295,000 jobs. This is the same group that has put up some of the most laughable billboards I've seen in the province of Ontario, and you now want me to accept this latest survey of theirs? I'm sorry, I just don't buy it.

Mr Harris: All you do is slander other studies. Here, right in this House, you slander Environics. Why won't you do a study of your own? Are you afraid of the results? Do you not realize that, again according to the Environics survey, the impression you're leaving is exactly this: 60% of those aware of the legislation -- not the others who aren't -- believe that you, the Rae government, care more about union leaders than you do about workers' jobs?

Minister, do you not realize that every day you refuse to carry out job studies for the average worker, union worker or non-union worker, every day you refuse to do that, you leave the impression more and more entrenched with more and more people -- and quite frankly, it's the impression you leave with me -- that you care more about union leaders than you do about jobs in this province? Do you not realize that? Do you not realize that your legislation is doomed to failure, no matter what it is, as long as this is the motivation?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: Very briefly, I've been around this place long enough to know that you wouldn't rely on 500 or even 1,000 union leaders. So I think the question from the leader of the third party is absolutely ridiculous.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question.

Mr Harris: I guess it's silly to want to know the impact on jobs before you proceed. If that is silly, I'm guilty, because I do want to know how many jobs will be created or lost before we proceed with legislation.

1430

TAXATION

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My second question is to the Treasurer, concerning the study that was talked about today by the Liberal Party. The Fraser Institute released a study which says you'll be getting an extra $300 million from Ontario taxpayers.

Minister, today in the House you've indicated you're not sure that study is accurate. You want to wait and see, perhaps, or you're analysing that study to see if it's correct or not. But I suggest to you, Minister, if that study is correct, and I appreciate you want some time to take a look at it, that's $300 million you hadn't counted on, $300 million you didn't budget on.

Treasurer, I suggest to you that if that study is correct, it's not your money; you didn't know you had it. What plans do you have for this $300 million, should in fact those figures be true? What plans do you have for any windfall revenues that may come your way as a result of your budget? Could you tell us that today?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): You'll forgive me, Mr Speaker, if --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Laughren: And we haven't even reached the dog days of summer yet, Mr Speaker. What I started to say was that you'll forgive me if I haven't put in place a lot of contingency plans that take into consideration windfalls in revenue, given what's happened to the province in the last couple of years.

Directly to the leader of the third party, I would remind him that Mr Grady's study deals with the taxation year 1993, so it really wouldn't have much of an impact on this fiscal year in which we now find ourselves, 1992-93, and as you know, there's a lag in collection of income tax from the federal government in its settlement with the province. So even if Mr Grady is correct -- and there really are some anomalies and some errors in Mr Grady's study, even from a superficial look at the report -- I don't think there's going to be the windfall Mr Grady seems to think there will be.

Mr Harris: To the Treasurer, I understand that the projections may not come true exactly, as is his suggestion. But the fact is that you and the Liberals have reached into the pockets of Ontario taxpayers 55 times. That doesn't include the hidden taxes and that doesn't include the levies; that's just the upfront taxes. Your budget tax hikes of $1.3 billion were bad enough without grabbing an extra $300 million, if that is the amount.

Treasurer, when the Liberals got the windfall revenues -- and I understand you haven't had them the last couple of years -- they spent them so lickety-fast they never even knew they had them. The money was gone, money that belonged to the taxpayers of Ontario. What I am asking of you is that you do something different from the Liberals. If this $300 million comes to fruition or other windfall revenues come to pass, will you agree with me that money belongs to the taxpayers and should be given back to the taxpayers through some form of tax cut or refund?

Hon Mr Laughren: I don't want to be provocative but I did want to say to the leader of the third party that we're the government now; stop kicking the Liberals when they're down.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Treasurer.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): Remember the summer of 1985, Floyd.

Hon Mr Laughren: Yes, I do.

If I could treat this serious question in a serious way, the leader of the third party asked a most legitimate question. If there is a windfall, what will we do with it? I hope you'll give me some time to reflect on that question before making a firm determination or commitment here in the Legislature, because I can tell you that the study by Mr Grady really does have some inaccuracies in it. I'm not casting aspersions on Mr Grady. I just think there are some inaccuracies and some very fundamental flaws in the model he's used and I wouldn't want to speculate on whether or not we'll achieve those revenues.

Mr Harris: I think I have the Treasurer saying he will reflect and would like to think about what to do with the windfall revenues. Might I, by way of final supplementary, give him a couple of suggestions, and first of all, that he not follow the path the Liberals followed, and that was to spend that windfall money into new programs or into new areas that weren't there at budget time. Would he look at New Directions, a document we released almost a year ago? We called at that time for cuts to the gasoline tax. Instead you increased them on January 1.

Might I suggest -- not just for the summer; I don't know what that does, quite frankly -- that if it's $300 million, as is suggested, the Treasurer look at a 3-cent-a-litre gas tax cut not just for the summer but permanently so we can create jobs, so we can get tourism back on track and so we can help the border communities compete with their US counterparts. Will he consider that direct gas tax cut as a way of giving back to the taxpayers that which belongs to them?

Hon Mr Laughren: I would reiterate that Mr Grady's numbers deal with 1993, so it would be really premature to make an assumption. I'm sure the leader of the third party wouldn't want us to make the assumption that we're going to get that $300 million, reduce the taxes and increase the deficit accordingly as a result of that action.

My final point is that if the leader of the third party does not want us to spend any potential windfall on new programs, I hope he'll reign in his cabinet colleagues who have made an enormous list of suggestions to us that would certainly wipe out any conceivable windfall as envisioned by Mr Grady.

ENVIRONMENTAL OFFENCES

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. My question concerns the minister's brave promises, but quite frankly barren performance with respect to the issue of establishing environmental rights for the citizens of this province. All we need to do is witness what's happening with Bill 143, which belies your previous promises, Minister.

Minister, on June 11 of this year you, along with your colleague in cabinet the Attorney General, made an announcement about your 30% increase in convictions with respect to environmental offences for the 1991 period. You took some credit for that. At the time you stated, "We hope that this report will act as a further deterrent to polluters and help promote an environmental consciousness in boardrooms across Ontario," yet, Minister, in the past you have spoken passionately about granting legal rights to Ontario citizens to sue these same polluters in court for the pollution they emit into Ontario's environment.

You, Minister, used to believe that the way to promote an environmental consciousness in many ways was to allow boardrooms in Ontario to look at the risk of suits being brought on by individuals to have those polluters brought to court. Obviously, in the absence of any clear leadership in terms of air and quality regulations, that kind of vehicle for the citizens of Ontario is certainly necessary.

Minister, I'm wondering if you're prepared to confirm that the announcement you will be making, probably tomorrow, in releasing your draft environmental bill of rights for Ontario will substantially, if not totally, abandon your earlier conviction in terms of the right to sue and will not include a right for the individual citizens and citizens groups in Ontario to sue polluters.

1440

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment): I'm very pleased to be able to say to the member that indeed the task force I appointed last October, comprised of environmentalists and business representatives, to establish and draft an environmental bill of rights has reached a consensus and that I will shortly be able to release its work. I'm not prepared at this point to announce to the Legislature precisely what that task force has concluded.

Mr McClelland: I can only draw from that answer that in all probability the right of the citizens of Ontario to sue, as you promised and spoke so passionately about in the past, will not be included in your announcement tomorrow.

Equally important in the past to you, Minister -- I notice, in so many of our questions as we talk about the past and the present, what a tremendous change there has been in you personally and your leadership in terms of the environment -- when you were a member of the opposition, you used to talk about and hold in some esteem the concept of the public trust doctrine. In essence, and very simplistically stated, that legal doctrine holds the government accountable in court for actions that any of its ministers, ministries, agencies, boards or commissions might take which cause damage to the environment.

The question is this, by way of supplementary: Can the minister confirm that her announcement tomorrow will not establish -- and I remind her, contrary to what she said previously in her private member's bill -- an obligation and a duty for the government to hold the natural resources of this province in trust for the benefit of present and future generations? Can you confirm that what you will introduce tomorrow will be a complete sellout to the citizens of this province who have waited so long to see the fulfilment of your promise for an environmental bill of rights that would hold up the doctrine of public trust and the right to sue?

Hon Mrs Grier: I have two disappointments for the member. First of all, I can't confirm that I will in fact be making an announcement and releasing the draft bill of rights tomorrow.

Second, I cannot indeed confirm the abrogation of principles that he describes. I'm very pleased to be able to tell him that the task force took the principles that I had outlined and that were part of earlier private member's bills of rights -- the principle that people have a right to a healthy environment, a right to improved access to the courts, a right to public participation, a right to government accountability and a right to blow the whistle if their employer is polluting the environment -- and has crafted a bill of rights in which I hope he will share the pride that I know I'm going to feel in it.

LANDFILL SITES

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. It's hard to believe the Minister of the Environment has upset so many people. Residents in York, Durham and Peel are genuinely angry, and what has especially offended them is the way you have put them down. You have accused them of crying NIMBY -- not in my backyard. This is a massive put-down of the people with the serious problem of having a 40-million-tonne landfill site in their communities.

Why do you and your public utterances continue to say that they just don't want to have sites in their own backyard?

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment and Minister Responsible for the Greater Toronto Area): I'm not sure this is what I have ever said. What I have said is that waste has to be managed as close as possible to the source of its generation. That means that the greater Toronto area, as municipalities around the province are doing, has to have a plan that deals with its waste within its own boundaries.

What I have put in place is a process that is more open and more fair and that gives those people more opportunities to both determine the criteria upon which a landfill will be chosen and to participate in the selection and in the approval process before the Environmental Assessment Board. In fact, under this government, the people of the greater Toronto area have a far greater role to play in solving the waste management problems of the area than they had in any process outlined by previous governments.

Mr Cousens: I'd just remind the honourable minister that at a recent presentation she did make the statement, and it was taken very seriously by the people when she just said in very simple terms, "They don't want the landfills in their own backyards."

That in itself is a massive put-down to the very people whose property values have gone down since one of the 57 proposed sites is located near them. Properties now cannot be sold near the proposed landfill sites unless there's a conditional clause that allows people an escape in case it is near one of the proposed sites. Properties are not selling near the proposed sites. Land values are going down. People who own century-old farmsteads are genuinely worried. You have, with your 57 sites, jeopardized environmentally sensitive green spaces. You have disrupted community life.

Major concerns have arisen, and when you said in your statement that people just don't want it in their own backyards, that really was a banal accusation that has offended people. Why have you accused people, saying they just don't want it in their own backyards? Do you not care about the other issues that are at stake with regard to these proposed landfill sites?

Hon Ruth A. Grier: If I offended people, I certainly did not not intend to do that. But I was certainly under the impression, from the people with whom I've met and from the announcements and questions in this House by the honourable member, that it was the overwhelming preference of the people with whom he has been talking and with whom I've been talking that in fact the waste go to Boston township in Kirkland Lake's backyard. If what the member is saying today is that in fact there is an acceptance that the waste must be managed within the greater Toronto area, then that's good news and I'm very pleased about that.

With respect to the uncertainty, let me say to the member that I certainly recognize that that is a very unfortunate side-effect of any choice and selection process that is under way anywhere. It is for precisely that reason that the Interim Waste Authority has the direction and the authority to move far more quickly than previous waste management planning process from the announcement of the long list of sites, to the short list, to the preferred site. The powers that this member I think has said were far-reaching were designed to do precisely that: reduce the time frame in which people's property would be under a cloud. I indeed intend to see that that is what happens.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question; the member for Kitchener.

Interjections.

Mr Will Ferguson (Kitchener): My question is to the Minister of Education.

The Speaker: Order. Would the member take his seat, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Kitchener.

ACADEMIC STREAMING

Mr Will Ferguson (Kitchener): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Education. The minister will know that a number of teachers, not only in my riding but in other ridings as well, have expressed some concern over the whole question of destreaming. The concern I get in my constituency office, as well as from the telephone calls I've received from teachers, is not the question of destreaming itself but the process and the time lines that are currently being followed. Some teachers out there, of course, are of the opinion that we don't have enough time in place at this point in order to positively effect the outcome of destreaming for September 1993. I wonder if the minister could outline, for the benefit of the teachers in my riding and the benefit of the members of the House, the time lines that are in place and give us assurance that in fact those time lines can be met.

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): I appreciate the question. As I think I've indicated on other occasions in the House, the question of destreaming is one we believe to be important and one we've therefore resolved to proceed on with respect to 1993. It's something we're quite happy to proceed with; it is an initiative that was begun even by the previous government.

First of all, I know the issue itself continues to generate a lot of discussion and interest and obviously is one that is particularly important among teachers. What we believe is that it's important to push at least one more year the decision point at which we begin to formally stream students into various levels of ability programs; at least to the end of grade 9. We recognize that there has to be a lot of work done to prepare teachers to teach adequately in that kind of program.

I have said that 1993, while it's the beginning of the implementation, is the beginning of a three-year process of implementation of the new policy. We are making available this fall curriculum documents that teachers will have. We will also be doing a lot of work on serious in-service programs for teachers so that they will in fact be prepared to teach properly in this new system.

Mr Ferguson: The teachers of course are concerned about in-service programs and training that would be provided. I'm wondering if the minister could tell the house, first, the amount of dollars that will be allocated to training and in-service training for teachers and, second, the amount of time school boards will be expected to devote to in-service training for educators in the field.

Hon Mr Silipo: We have allocated an initial amount of some $2.7 million that will be available to school boards to apply for in-service programs. In addition to that we are just now discussing with the Ontario Teachers' Federation a proposal it has submitted to us, which we have in fact approved in principle and are now having discussions with them for some additional programs. We believe it's important for the teachers, through their federations and locally in their own schools, to be very much involved in designing the kind of in-service programs they will need, because they obviously are in the best position to tell us the kind of in-service work and support they will need. I think that will also result in some additional dollars we will be spending, and we will be happy to do that because it will go towards assisting teachers to teach properly in this new grade 9 system.

1450

WAGE PROTECTION

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a question for the Minister of Labour. The subject matter is the wage protection fund, which as you know compensates workers for wages, vacation pay, severance pay and termination pay when the company they have been working for goes bankrupt. The issue is that 50 people have been hired to administer the plan, yet continuing delay and indecision has the impact that decisions that should have been made in one month are taking at least six months. What are you doing about it?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I think the member for the official opposition is well aware that there's been a tremendous demand on the plan. I think he should also be aware that we've paid out more than $20 million, and I think we're responding to the demand as quickly as we can.

Mr Offer: There has not been a tremendous demand, because of the indecision and delay. The issue, as an example, is Pascal Furniture in my riding, bankrupt in February or March of this year; 100 employees, and there's been no compensation, there's been no decision. What do I tell those employees about your mismanagement of the plan?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: In the individual case he's raised, I will get back to the member and tell him what I can about that. But I repeat what I've been saying: We've had a tremendous demand on it. We have been sending out the cheques to people. It's one of the most successful programs we've undertaken, with a very good response to it, and I can also say that our approach is not to hire more bureaucrats.

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): My question is for the Minister of Citizenship. In your public statements regarding employment equity, you have maintained that you do not intend to establish a system in which the government will impose quotas on employers. If I understand you correctly, you have maintained that your bill will require employers to establish their own plans in conjunction with the Employment Equity Commission. However, after carefully reviewing your bill, I find there is a clause which reads as follows: "A regulation governing the content of employment equity plans may require plans to contain numerical goals determined in a manner prescribed by the regulation. It may provide that the goals shall be determined with reference to percentages approved by the commission...." This clause gives the Employment Equity Commission the power to externally impose numerical goals into employment equity plans. Would you please tell us what the difference is between a numerical goal and a quota?

Hon Elaine Ziemba (Minister of Citizenship): I think you've asked three questions in one, but I will try in a short space of time to answer that question. If we talk about quotas that have happened in other jurisdictions similar to the United States, they mean that an external body tells an employer it must hire X number of people in a set time frame. What we're asking employers to do is to look at the region they're located in and then to apply employment equity practices within the time frame in which they are going to be hiring, whether it's through people being laid off or quitting and whether they're going to be expanding.

You talked about the employment equity commissioner going to be able to put in force a certain compliance. This is if an employer, after several times, has not come up with his own employment equity plan and if there has been a complaint against an employer; such that the employer, having had a complaint laid against him, the employment equity commissioner might then ask the employer to, in a certain time frame, come up with his employment equity plan. This is what they have to comply with.

Mrs Witmer: Well, Minister, I have to tell you there is concern out there. As I indicated last week, we have to make sure that we do allay the fears of people, and people are interpreting this as numerical goals that are going to be determined by the commission.

You know that the briefs you received during your consultation process stated that a numbers-driven quota system wouldn't work. It would reduce business flexibility and could lead to an ugly backlash and resentment among employees. Quotas obviously are going to make employees feel they're not being treated fairly. It's going to make it more difficult for people to work together in the workplace.

The clause in your bill which I'm speaking about is subsection 50(2). It clearly gives the government the power to create regulations which would impose quotas. You can call them numerical goals, you can call them whatever you want, but they are in reality quotas. I guess I ask you, Minister, do you support the imposition of quotas to achieve employment equity, and if not, can you explain to all of us why your bill gives you the power to do so?

Hon Ms Ziemba: I want first of all to thank the member opposite for saying that yes, there have been some fears raised and that we have to make sure that people feel comfortable with this bill. I'm glad you raised this particular question, because that is one of the reasons we set up a technical advisory group: to make sure that people from business, labour and the equity-seeking groups sat down with us as we went through the legislation.

However, as the very last resort -- as I would like to say -- when the Employment Equity Commission or the tribunal, after several methods of getting employers to come to the table to make sure they have their goals and timetables in place, have to have something the employer would have to comply with if it's broken the law several times. This is why that's put in: as a very last resort, not as a first objective.

What we hope is that with our technical advisory group staying in place as we develop our regulations and as we move into second reading, with our regulations in one hand and our bill in the other hand, we will have a package that does make sure employers are given the assistance they need. They don't have to go to outside consultants. The employment equity commissioner will be there --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the minister conclude her response, please.

Hon Ms Ziemba: -- to assist employers as we're moving through the whole process. I think this is extremely important, that we build that relationship between employer and employees and equity-seeking groups.

I'm sorry, Mr Speaker, but this is a very important issue and I think the member has raised a very important question.

The Speaker: I appreciate that. The member for Durham East.

TRAFFIC SIGNALS

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

Interjections.

Mr Mills: I'm on the floor.

My question, a very important question in my constituency, is to the Minister of Transportation. It concerns traffic lights at the intersection of Courtice and Prestonvale roads in Courtice. There have been a number of accidents there, Mr Minister. I sent you some clippings from the newspaper. Can you tell me when we can expect the traffic lights to be installed at the intersection of Prestonvale and Courtice roads?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): What we are doing as we speak at present is we are checking which properties need to be identified. Then we will proceed to expropriation and then we will widen Highway 2. It's a fairly massive project, but more important perhaps, the intent, the spirit, the decision has been made on what is a safety hazard. We recognize this. We are most cognizant and very anxious to get it addressed in short order.

1500

DECORUM IN CHAMBER

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs in his capacity as the government House leader. Members may know that on the last Thursday extended evening sitting of the House I rose on a point of order. My point of order concerned the fact that the member for Guelph was showing total disrespect for this House by walking around the chamber without his shoes and socks.

The Speaker responded to my point of order in part by saying: "If the member's description is at all accurate, it certainly would be something that I think is not acceptable, but I caution that the Speaker has no particular authority in this matter as there is no dress code."

Mr Minister, as the government House leader, could you tell the House your opinion as to the appropriateness of the member for Guelph appearing in this Legislature in his bare feet?

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): I think the member might be more appropriately asking questions about lights in his riding than this type of question. I don't enforce any dress code in this place and I don't think the member would expect me to, so I'm not going to express a judgement. Any of those kinds of discussions that take place take place within our caucus, just as they would within yours.

Mr Kwinter: The minister will know that politicians, now more than ever, are viewed by some members of the community with cynicism and disfavour. If anything, members of this House should be acting in a manner that will enhance our reputations rather than diminish the perception of the role and dedication of elected members.

Can the minister tell us what actions he will take to ensure that his caucus members will not assume that, if it is permissible for the member for Guelph to walk around this Legislature in his bare feet, there is no limit to what other articles of clothing they may shed without drawing the wrath of the Speaker or you as the leader of the official government?

Hon Mr Cooke: I think there are many factors that contribute to why people are feeling cynical about the process and politicians in this province and elsewhere. I don't think it has much to do with the fact that the member for Guelph was walking around without his shoes on late at night because he had an infected foot. He might want to check with the member before he makes those kinds of criticisms.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Would the member take his seat for a moment.

Mr Kwinter: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think the leader of the government in the House has an obligation to tell the members what that infection was, because we were in here and he was walking around in his bare feet.

The Speaker: The member does not have a point of order.

INDUSTRIAL STRATEGY

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): My question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. I have here his newsletter, News and Information from Ed Philip, MPP, Etobicoke-Rexdale. In it he says, "The economy in Ontario has taken a hammering." He says, "I'm trying to encourage new investment," and he goes on to say that he will be announcing a strategy later in the year. There is nothing else in here that talks about what you've been doing as Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology or what you will be doing in the future.

I have in my hand some recommendations from the Ontario Chamber of Commerce and from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and what they believe should be done to get investment back in the province of Ontario. Could you tell me specifically today what initiatives from those two groups will be implemented in your industrial strategy?

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology): I think the budget outlined some of the initiatives we are taking. In fact we have provided some new initiatives, as the Treasurer has done, to small business. We've provided initiatives for a sector partnership fund that for the first time will encourage groups of companies that have like interests to join together for research and development. The Treasurer has also announced a number of new initiatives that will encourage more investment. I'm happy to take the ideas of the various groups. I'm meeting with them on a regular basis and I think you'll find those ideas found their way into the sectoral policy we are announcing.

Mr Carr: Unfortunately, during the pre-budget hearings, one of the things that all the economists said would hurt the economy more than anything else is tax increases. And what did your Treasurer do? He introduced the most massive tax increases in this province's history. So unfortunately at the table you're losing the debate, I'm afraid.

I want to read what the Canadian Federation of Independent Business said about your Bill 150 initiative. They said, "This program is not an appropriate vehicle for encouraging modernization, growth and restructuring in small and medium businesses." They said: "Thank you very much, but if you're going to spend $250 million" -- which your minister and the treasury officials said is going to be spent -- "we would rather have you reduce the employee health payroll tax. That would do more to help us, if you're going to spend the $250 million."

My question is this. Will you listen to some of the business groups that are saying if you're going to spend the money, do it by reducing some of the taxes and specifically, will you ask the Treasurer to reduce the employee health payroll tax for small and medium businesses in the province of Ontario?

Hon Mr Philip: What the hearings on the budget -- and I was with the Treasurer, along with other cabinet ministers. They were concerned about government spending and this Treasurer introduced the smallest increase in government spending of any government in 39 years and I say to you that no Tory government was able to do that.

You want to talk about what businesses are saying? I can tell you what businesses are saying. Bill Etherington, the president --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Breathe, Ed. Your head is inflating.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order, the member for Etobicoke West.

Hon Mr Philip: I'm sorry the member for Etobicoke West doesn't want to allow an answer to go through to his colleague, who has asked what seems to be a reasonable question.

Bill Etherington, the president and chief executive officer of IBM Canada, in announcing the largest new construction project in the greater Toronto area since the SkyDome said, and I quote, "I hope that the people will see the opening of this facility as a ringing vote of confidence in Ontario." That's what private enterprise is saying to this government, and we have been listening. It's reflected in the budget, it's reflected in the new initiatives and, as I go around the province talking to the various businesses, we're seeing it over and over and over again.

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): My question is to the Minister of Housing, if I could ask her to stay for a moment. Mr Speaker, I don't know if I'll get an opportunity for a supplementary following the answer; I would hope you would grant that.

I've received some information from the Peel Non-Profit Housing Corp, Minister, which, as you well know, is one of the finest housing corporations in the country, which is used as an example by the former government and I think by your ministry for other people around the province as to how they should administer and run non-profit housing.

They're quite upset in Peel, because with over 8,000 -- I think 8,300 -- individuals on their waiting list, they were simply bypassed when you announced allocations of some 6,500 allocations for non-profit housing corporations. Minister, how is it that you could totally ignore a housing corporation with over 8,000 people on a waiting list and how is it that you can simply tell it that it's not going to be able to build any houses this year?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): We have not told Peel non-profit or any other municipal non-profit that they're not going to be able to get allocations for further construction this year, far from it. But what we did do was take a look over the 40,000-plus units which have been allocated over the past four years and try to make sure that there was some balance among the allocations that went to municipal non-profit organizations, such as Peel non-profit, to private non-profit organizations with a community base and also to co-ops with a community base in the regions of Ontario.

In this last allocation we did indeed ask the regional offices to look at the list of projects that were being applied for and see which among them that were co-ops could get an allocation and move forward as good projects. That has meant that in the wrapup of 40,000-plus units over the last four to five years, organizations such as Peel non-profit, which have indeed been producing a lot of housing over the last several years, have received fewer allocations than they might have expected; that's true.

1510

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The time for oral questions has expired. Motions?

Mr Callahan: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: When I asked unanimous consent of the House to do a supplementary, I was upstaged by the foot. I'd like to ask a supplementary on a very important issue. I'd like to ask for unanimous consent of the House.

The Speaker: Does the member have unanimous consent to ask a question?

Interjections.

The Speaker: No? I'm afraid there is not unanimous consent.

PETITIONS

GAMBLING

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I'm pleased to table a petition signed by members of the congregation of Grace Lutheran Church in my riding of Oakville South which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the NDP government intends to legalize casinos and is considering other forms of gambling in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas studies have been done which indicate that where casinos are found, they are inseparable from organized criminal activities; and

"Whereas most forms of gambling end up being a tax on those least able to pay; and

"Whereas gambling produces in many people a terrible addiction; and

"Whereas it would be more appropriate for the government to cut expenditures than attempt to increase revenues through expanded lotteries,

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to stop looking to casinos as a 'quick-fix' solution to pay down the deficit."

PESTICIDES

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I have a petition signed by several residents of Kitchener and Waterloo:

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

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

"We feel that the urban cosmetic use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers is unnecessary since viable alternatives exist. Pesticides are being registered, marketed and used with inadequate, incomplete, obsolete and invalid testing. No pesticide has been proven absolutely safe. Pesticides have been linked to a number of serious health problems in terms of both acute and chronic toxicity. Many people are vulnerable to these effects, including children, the elderly and the environmentally sensitive. Pesticides and fertilizers contaminate surface water and groundwater and have been linked to a number of serious adverse effects on the environment. The manufacturing of some pesticides and fertilizers contributes to global warming. Pesticides adversely affect a wide variety of non-target beneficial organisms. Insects, fungi and weeds are becoming increasingly resistant to pesticides.

"Therefore, we request that the House eliminate the use of synthetic pesticides for cosmetic reasons in urban areas of Ontario immediately or by 1993 at the very latest."

COURT RULING

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, in support of the mother of Debra Pauline Williams Ellul, draw to the attention of the House the following:

"That the right to appeal the decision made in Debra Williams Ellul murder acquitting Guy Ellul of all charges be granted based on the fact that the decision not to allow the appeal does not accurately reflect the public's abhorrence and unacceptability of the outcome of this trial."

I've affixed my name to this petition.

LAW AND ORDER

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I have a petition from Henry Freitag in Penetanguishene, Mr Speaker, and I'll leave it up to you to determine whether it's in order or not. It says:

"To the Parliament of Ontario:

"'Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law'....

"'The rule of law, a fundamental principle of our Constitution, must mean at least two things. First, that the law is supreme over the officials of the government as well as private individuals, and thereby preclusive of the influence of arbitrary power.... Second, the rule of law requires the creation and maintenance of an actual order of positive laws which preserves and embodies the more general principle of normative order. Law and order are indispensable elements of civilized life.'

"I, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"To forthwith remove the Premier from office and enforce the law as it is written, then permit a vote in the Legislature on the removal of the Sunday closing law and this outcome should be enforced as instructed by our Constitution.

"Signed, Henry Freitag, Penetanguishene."

TRAILER PARK RESIDENTS

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly and signed by 211 Middlesex constituents who live in Twin Elms mobile park. These residents of Twin Elms are concerned because their landlord has at times interfered with tenants who wish to utilize an outside agent to sell their mobile homes, may refuse park residence to prospective buyers, has established a non-profit co-op without consulting the tenants, is currently in violation of a park management agreement between the landlord and tenants and has closed the tenants' clubhouse, seized chattels belonging to the tenants' association and has removed park amenities like benches and lighting.

These tenants ask the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to introduce legislation that will meet the specific needs of people who live in mobile home communities.

I have signed my name to this petition.

ABORTION CLINIC

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I have a petition signed by 35 residents of my community addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has expressed its intention to use $400,000 of taxpayers' money to increase the security at the private abortion clinic of Dr Henry Morgentaler and an additional $200,000 of taxpayers' money to help rebuild this for-profit clinic;

"Whereas the Ontario deficit has risen to astronomical proportions, creating serious hardship for Ontario taxpayers at the same time that programs and services are being withdrawn, including crucial health care and social service programs;

"Whereas all other private Ontario businesses are expected to provide their own security and obtain business insurance to cover fire, vandalism and other such calamities;

"We, the undersigned, while abhorring the violent act which destroyed Dr Morgentaler's clinic, do petition the Legislature of Ontario to immediately recant its intention to inappropriately utilize Ontario tax dollars on this private clinic."

I've affixed my signature to it as well.

GAMBLING

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition signed by approximately 50 people from Kent county. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the NDP government is considering legalizing casinos and video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas there is great public concern about the negative impact that will result from the abovementioned implementations;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the government stop looking to casinos and video lottery terminals as a quick-fix solution to its fiscal problems and concentrate instead on eliminating wasteful government spending."

I've affixed my signature to this petition as well.

METROPOLITAN TORONTO LICENSING COMMISSION

Ms Anne Swarbrick (Scarborough West): I have a petition signed by 84 people who are residents of a number of ridings, including my own. The people are concerned about certain legal irregularities that are alleged to have occurred within the Metropolitan Toronto Licensing Commission resulting in unwarranted financial losses and deep personal embarrassment to many people. The irregularities and the losses are documented in a brief authored by Mr John Beck of my riding and by others.

They collectively request in the petition:

"That the Lieutenant Governor in Council invoke his authority under...the Public Inquiries Act and cause a commission of inquiry to inquire into the conduct of the affairs of the Metropolitan Toronto Licensing Commission, in particular the handling of licence applications and related actions."

1520

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I have petitions which are signed by residents of north Toronto in my riding of Eglinton.

It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas it is arbitrary and demonstrably unfair to use market value as a basis for property tax assessment in a volatile market such as Metro Toronto; and

"Whereas market value assessment bears no relation to the level of services provided by the municipality; and

"Whereas the implementation of such a measure would work undue hardship on the residents of north Toronto, on our long-term home owners, our senior citizens and our tenants; and

"Whereas Toronto businesses are already paying the highest property taxes in North America and will be devastated by increases of up to 50% more;

"We the undersigned petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario not to impose market value assessment on the city of Toronto against the wishes of the people of Toronto and to consider another method of property tax reform for Metro Toronto."

I concur with this and have affixed my signature.

STUDENT SAFETY

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I have a petition signed by approximately 650 people. It's addressed to the Lieutenant Governor. It's petitioning the Lieutenant Governor on behalf of Matthew, age 19, who died at York University because of a shard of glass that cut the brachial artery under his arm. The glass in the residents' door was not safety glass. The coroner of Metropolitan Toronto, despite letters and pleas, has refused an inquest. He stated that it was economically unsound to make universities replace the glass, despite the letter to the Ministry of Colleges and Universities recommending it consider replacing the glass.

The appeal is being made to this Legislature:

"We, the undersigned, believe an inquest into the death of Matthew Morten is necessary to save the lives of others."

I've signed it as well.

RELIGIOUS EDUCATION

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario signed by 9,867 people from across Ontario, who petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"The Ministry of Education has made evolutionism a compulsory core unit in senior OAC (previously grade 13) history and science. Since evolutionism and creationism are completed acts in the past, neither can be proven nor disproven. In fairness to all parents and students, equal time should be given in presenting the underlying assumptions of each. Through the two-model approach, the skills of critical thinking such as recognition of bias, awareness of society's influence on one's bias and the awareness of assumptions can allow students to examine their own belief system and better appreciate an opposing view. These skills should be incorporated into all textbooks, approved in circular 14, dealing with the question of origins."

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I have a petition signed by 50 residents of Middlesex county petitioning:

"That the Legislature reject the arbitrator's report for the greater London area in its entirety, condemn the arbitration process to resolve municipal boundary issues as being patently an undemocratic process and reject the recommendations of a massive annexation of land by the city of London."

I have affixed my signature.

LAND-LEASED COMMUNITIES

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I've got a petition here that's been signed by a number of people in the Sutton-By-The-Lake community up in my riding. I'll read it.

"We, the residents of land-leased communities, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the residents of Sutton-By-The-Lake felt the previous government set up a committee to report on land-leased communities but took no specific action to protect these communities; and

"Whereas the residents of Sutton-By-The-Lake feel it should be a priority of this government to release the report and take action to bring forward legislation on the following issues that surround land-leased communities; and

"Whereas the residents feel the government of Ontario should examine the problem of no protection against conversion to other uses which would result in the loss of home owners' equity; and

"Whereas the residents of these communities do not receive concise and clear information about their property tax bills; and

"Whereas there are often arbitrary rules set out by landlords and owners of land-leased communities which place unfair restrictions or collect commissions on resale of residents' homes; and

"Whereas there has been confusion resulting in the status of residents in long-term leases where they fall under the rent review legislation,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to follow through and to release the committee report on land-leased communities and propose legislation to give adequate protection to individuals living in land-leased communities."

I affix my name to this.

REAL ESTATE GAINS

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I have a petition signed by 31 residents of my community. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has promised to introduce a new tax on real estate gains; and

"Whereas there is simply no evidence to suggest that real estate gains taxes either contribute to lower land and housing prices or raise significant revenue for the government; and

"Whereas in some cases a new tax on real estate gains may even raise prices by reducing supply; and

"Whereas the tax as proposed in the NDP's Agenda for People will adversely affect the entire real estate market in our community; and

"Whereas real estate gains are already subject to heavy taxation from federal and provincial governments;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to urge the Honourable Floyd Laughren, Treasurer of Ontario, not to proceed with an additional tax on real estate gains."

I have affixed my signature to the petition.

LAND-LEASED COMMUNITIES

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I have a petition here signed by a dozen residents in Sutton-By-The-Lake community in the north part of my riding.

"We, the residents of land-leased communities petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the residents of Sutton-By-The-Lake felt the previous government set up a committee to report on land-leased communities but took no specific action to protect these communities; and

"Whereas the residents of Sutton-By-The-Lake feel it should be a priority of this government to release the report and to take action to bring forward the legislation on the following issues surrounding land-leased communities; and

"Whereas the residents feel the government of Ontario should examine the problem of no protection against conversion to other uses which will result in loss of home owners' equity; and

"Whereas the residents of these communities do not receive concise and clear information about the property tax bills; and

"Whereas there are often arbitrary rules set out by landlords and owners of land-leased communities which place unfair restrictions or collect commissions on resale of residents' homes; and

"Whereas there has been confusion resulting in the status of residents in long-term leases where they fall under the rent review legislation;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislation Assembly of Ontario to follow through with a report and release the committee's report on land-leased communities and propose legislation to give adequate protection to individuals living in these land-leased communities."

It has been signed by the Dodds, the Leadbeaters, the Berrys, the Walkers. I have signed my name to it.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LABOUR RELATIONS AND EMPLOYMENT STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI A TRAIT AUX RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL ET À L'EMPLOI

Mr Mackenzie moved second reading of Bill 40, An Act to amend certain Acts concerning Collective Bargaining and Employment / Loi modifiant certaines lois en ce qui a trait à la négociation collective et à l'emploi.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Mr Speaker, on a point of privilege: I wish to draw to the attention of members of the House a point of privilege. This debate will begin the utilization of the new rules in the Legislative Assembly which will severely restrict the members of this Legislature and the opposition to carry out their role and responsibility appropriately.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): This is not a point of privilege. Minister.

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): On June 4 I introduced legislation to bring positive reform and renewal to the Ontario Labour Relations Act. The driving force behind this legislation, now known as Bill 40, is our government's commitment to promoting better workplaces through more involved workforces. Nothing less will do as we all work together to meet the economic challenges of the 1990s.

I think it's important to remember that Bill 40 is proceeding in tandem with several other significant economic and social initiatives the government has recently unveiled. These initiatives, such as the Jobs Ontario Training fund and Jobs Ontario Capital fund, extending pay equity, establishing the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board and allowing for greater worker ownership, reaffirm our desire to give thousands of workers and their families a greater chance at prosperity and a more fulfilling working life and working environment. It's not an either/or situation. Reform of the Labour Relations Act will help ensure that economic renewal takes place within a framework of social justice and I'd like to turn to that now.

The act sets out the rules under which employees can form unions, prohibits unfair practices by both unions and employers, establishes the rules for bargaining contracts and creates procedures for handling disagreements between unions and employers. This tremendously important piece of legislation has not been significantly updated in more than 15 years. In that time, the composition of Ontario's workforce and the workplace itself have changed dramatically. The need for labour and management to work together in a spirit of cooperation, involvement and trust is greater now than at any time in Ontario's history.

1530

We are not alone in saying that. The Premier's council has concluded that meaningful worker involvement in their companies is the key to Ontario's economic renewal, productivity and competitiveness. Ontario has an educated, skilled and motivated workforce standing ready to take on this new role. These amendments are designed to promote real exchange between labour and management on any and all workplace issues.

Our reform package will also update the act to take account of the growing number of women, workers of ethnic diversity and part-time workers in our economy, whose numbers alone have doubled in the last 15 years in largely low-skill service sector jobs. Right now these workers face many obstacles to organizing and effective bargaining, because the act is designed for an earlier and now largely fading era of large smokestack industries employing predominantly male workforces.

Finally, with Bill 40, we hope to usher in a new era of peace and non-confrontation in labour disputes. We intend to introduce a number of measures to promote the smooth operation of the collective bargaining process and to offer protection for the jobs of workers involved in labour disputes.

Our proposals have been the subject of an unprecedented amount of consultation in the form of public and private meetings with representatives of business, labour and community groups. As a result of these consultations, a significant number of our original proposals, almost half, have been changed or withdrawn altogether.

Emerging from this process is, our government believes, a package of progressive and fair amendments that will create better workplaces by recognizing the new workforces and workplaces that define Ontario in the 1990s, encouraging more participation and cooperation between labour and management, reducing the level of industrial conflict and streamlining the process of collective bargaining.

The first of these categories deals with opening up the act by recognizing the new workforces and workplaces that define Ontario in the 1990s. For example, the type and amount of part-time work is increasing dramatically in our economy, and this is an area where the act has clearly failed to keep pace. As a result, built-in obstructions that served to discourage part-time workers from becoming unionized will be removed.

In addition, the board will be granted the discretion to combine bargaining units. This is particularly important for existing and future full or part-time units and for smaller bargaining units in the retail, service and financial sectors. However, in response to concerns raised by large manufacturers, the board's power in this area will be subject to specific criteria.

Security guards will also be allowed to join the union of their choice rather than be restricted to guards-only unions, as is the case now. In response to concerns raised during the consultation process, however, guards who monitor other employees will be placed in a separate unit in order to avoid conflicts of interest.

The second major category of amendments supports our desire for more participation and cooperation by management and labour on a range of workplace issues. Amendments have been drafted to increase labour-management cooperation and harmony in workplaces facing major changes in work organization, technology and skill requirements.

We are also proposing the creation of a new work organization and partnership development service to assist labour and management in workplaces facing major restructuring. New amendments would also extend the duty to bargain in good faith to the negotiation of a labour adjustment plan in cases of closures or mass layoffs of more than 50 employees.

Finally, all collective agreements in the province will be required to contain a provision obliging the parties to engage in regular and ongoing consultation on workplace issues. Our goal here is to promote more dialogue, discussion and problem-solving between labour and management above and beyond the traditional cycle of collective bargaining. Ontario will be very much in the vanguard of this sort of cooperation once these proposals become law.

The third major objective of these amendments is to reduce the level of industrial conflict in the province. We want to remove the flashpoints and obstacles that serve only to frustrate effective labour-management relations.

We intend to change an all-too-familiar pattern of confrontation during the certification period and replace it with procedures that quickly get to the real heart of the issue -- whether a union has the necessary support to be certified. As such, anti-union petitions submitted after application for certification and the $1 membership fee will be eliminated. The support required for a vote on unionization will be lowered to 40%, but the level of membership support required for certification will remain at 55%.

First-contract arbitration will become automatic 30 days after a legal strike or lockout date is past. This will eliminate a major roadblock for weak and vulnerable unions at that critical stage of the development of a stable collective bargaining relationship.

Similar objectives underlie the government's decision to introduce protection against the use of replacement workers during a strike or lockout. The replacement worker provision is intended to make the right to strike meaningful and to encourage both parties to work harder for a negotiated settlement.

No one takes lightly the decision to go on strike, but this government believes that, once such a decision is made, workers deserve to know that their jobs will be protected. That sense of protection is imperilled by the use of some types of replacement workers during some labour disputes.

The Labour ministry's research also reveals that the most confrontational strikes last year in Ontario all involved situations where replacement workers were used. Earlier this month, the use of replacement workers at a gold mine in the Northwest Territories sparked violent confrontations. We have seen similar clashes on a lesser scale during the current labour dispute at the Toronto Star. These incidents are vivid illustrations of the kind of conflict and bitterness our labour relations system can no longer afford.

It is clear that the use of some replacement workers prolongs labour disputes, uses up costly police resources, creates an air of conflict and all too often leaves a legacy of bitterness. We are therefore proposing to prohibit the performance of work of striking and locked-out employees by everyone except managers and other non-bargaining unit employees working at the same location. A similar provision has had a significant role in the new era of industrial peace that Quebec is now enjoying.

Measures to protect our network of health, social services and correctional facilities and the essential services they provide and to meet concerns over serious property or environmental damage or deterioration in the event of strikes and lockouts have also been incorporated into the bill.

The fourth and final goal of this legislation is to streamline and simplify certain procedures before the Ontario Labour Relations Board and before arbitrators. New measures for both the board and arbitrators will allow for fairer, quicker and more effective settlement and resolution of disputes, which is something everyone has been asking for.

Bill 40 is the end result of a process stretching back almost to our earliest days in office. It will translate into better working conditions for hundreds of thousands of Ontario workers and more involved, committed workplaces, from which we will all benefit.

The people of Ontario have always placed a premium on preserving and extending basic human rights and freedoms. Surely the right to organize, bargain collectively and be involved in workplace decisions is central to that belief and basic to the spirit of the Labour Relations Act since its establishment in the 1940s.

The people of Ontario have also indicated their deep desire for business, labour and government to work towards a new era of prosperity, and that, Mr Speaker, is exactly the spirit in which these amendments are offered today for second reading. I urge all members to give them serious consideration and to join with us in recognizing that the strength of the workforce in the province of Ontario, its education, its commitment, is one of the most valuable resources that we have and one that we have most underutilized in the province of Ontario.

1540

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any questions or comments? The member for York Centre.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is tentatively to the opening comments of the Minister of Labour introducing the trade union bill, a very important piece of legislation, I assume, given that the rule changes and the muzzle order that were brought into Parliament on the same day that the minister introduced this bill bore some sort of relation to the government's desire to have this bill passed expeditiously.

I'm going to have an opportunity later on to say a word or two about Bill 40. I don't think the bill is all bad. The Legislature is going to have an opportunity, I would hope, particularly during committee hearings and clause-by-clause, to analyse both the strengths and the weaknesses of the bill.

I regretfully have to say to the minister, Mr Speaker, that I was rather disappointed that, with his long history of working for the trade union movement and being the critic on labour issues in this Legislature, he chose to read a speech prepared for him by an official in the Ministry of Labour rather than speaking openly and frankly from his own experience as to the contents of the bill.

What we've heard from him today is the regular fare, the production material, the PR work that has come out of the government in connection with the trade union bill, and he has not addressed some of the real issues that have arisen since the time this bill was introduced and indeed since the document was released, was leaked almost six or seven months ago.

What concerns me, sir, is the very close relationship between the trade union movement and the New Democratic Party; it leaves me with very serious cause for concern as to what has motivated this bill and I hope that will be addressed during the course of this debate.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Any further questions or comments? The member for Cochrane South.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I just want to comment very briefly, because I know members want to have the opportunity to comment on this very important piece of legislation.

I just want to commend the minister because I think what most people would recognize is that this legislation has been a long, long time coming here in the province of Ontario, and I dare say also probably a long time coming in other areas as well. I truly believe that this legislation in the long term, as people begin to understand and come to grips with what the legislation does, will allow the employer and the employee to build those partnerships that are necessary within the workplace which allow us to make the transition that we're finding today in the economy much smoother, not only for the employee but I think also for the employer. I think --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Bisson: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I think the central point is that it's extremely --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Bisson: He's pretty good anyway. In closing, Mr Speaker, I just wanted to take a couple of minutes to say that --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Cochrane South has the floor.

Mr Bisson: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It's very interesting in this Legislature as we allow the opposition to make their comments for two minutes and we listen attentively, we would only hope that they would offer the government members the same respect in giving us an opportunity to have our say as well.

I just want to say in closing, it is very important that this legislation be understood in the long term by the people of the province so that we can move on with the rest of the business of Ontario to make sure that we're better able to position ourselves with the recovery that's going to happen here in the province of Ontario.

I dare say that this piece of legislation probably offers more towards the economic renewal of the province in the long term than a lot of other things, because it's very important that we find ways of melding both the employees and the employers together in some fashion that they're better able to work together to take advantage of that recovery.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. The member for York Mills.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I'm disappointed once again to note that the minister absolutely ignores, both in question period today and in his opening comments, the fact that there has been no impact study whatsoever done by the government as to how many jobs this legislation is going to cost the province -- none whatsoever. They absolutely pooh-pooh the findings of Ernst and Young and Environics, two companies considered to be the leading people in this province in doing such studies.

The government has changed its mind many, many times, but it won't change its mind on this. They won't do an impact study because they know the simple facts bear out what we have said, that is, that there will be job losses.

It's interesting that at the same time they're prepared to spend $160,000 of taxpayers' money on a study by Wally Majesky, an ex-union leader, and his son, on an untendered contract to do a study which the Ministry of Transportation said was not needed. They'll spend $160,000 on an unneeded study, yet they won't spend a single penny on a study of the impact of job losses with respect to this bill.

This is a government which will stick its head in the sands until it's no longer in office, and then the Conservative Party will get rid of this legislation and put in sensible legislation. The government is on notice. They know where we stand, but we're saying that you won't do it with any facts. When we act, we will do it with studies; not wastes of taxpayers' money, but money spent well. Only 1% of Ontarians think this is necessary; 5% of Ontarians think Elvis still lives.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments? The member for Durham-York.

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): It's a pleasure to stand here to comment on what --

Mr Sorbara: On a point of order, Mr Speaker, on the matter of rotations and questions and comments from speakers: My understanding in this House is that you move from party to party. I began the questions and comments. Thereafter the Conservatives did not take a turn. Thereafter my friend the member for Cochrane South spoke. Thereafter, sir, two members of our caucus stood and you chose to recognize the Conservative Party and then move to the government party as well. It seems to me that you should continue in the normal course and provide for the normal rotation, and after the last speaker you ought to have recognized a member from our party.

The Deputy Speaker: The Chair has made a decision. The member for Durham-York has the floor.

Mr O'Connor: Thank you, Mr Speaker. On June 4 of this year, the Minister of Labour stood in this House and introduced a bill, Bill 40, the labour legislation changes, and then we saw a lot of filibustering, carrying on, bills being read and delay taking place.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Minister, order, please.

Mr O'Connor: We saw a lot of delays take place, and subsequently there were changes to the rules. Frankly I'm looking forward to those changes taking place, because now perhaps we'll have a little fairer rotation in this discussion around it, and 30 minutes I think is an adequate time to respond.

I want to compliment the minister on the way he introduced this legislation. After going around the province several times, the first draft of the legislation was leaked out and many people commented on it and said it was draconian. The minister listened and he changed it. Then he took it around the province in the winter of this past year and consulted some more, and over 200 business groups had a chance to have some input into that. The government listened and the minister listened and made some changes, substantial changes.

I think this shows that there is a change. We need to get out of this confrontational mode the province has been in for so many years, and maybe get on to the real job we have before us in trying to build this province into a better province than what we came into it as. I think the minister came into this House being realistic, after consulting with so many people, and brought forward a bill that's going to be really positive. I compliment him on bringing it in here today.

1550

The Deputy Speaker: Minister, you have two minutes to reply.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: My comments will be brief. I want to respond to the original comment by the member for York Centre, who said that the bill wasn't all bad, that he had some disagreement with it, but he somehow or other thought the minister had created some kind of injustice by reading off a statement that was put together by people in the ministry. I want him and everybody in this chamber to know that there was a lot of work together on the statement that was made, by both my own personal political staff as well as the ministry people. I want him to know also that there was absolutely nothing in the statement that I didn't agree with and could very well have been in the statement I would have made if I'd made it myself in this Legislature.

I want also to respond briefly my concern to the comments made by the member for York Mills, because he didn't indicate in his comments that they would take a clear look at what was put in place in legislation and whether over the next couple of years it works, as I think it will be shown to work. He simply said that if the Tories took office again, they would immediately get rid of the legislation. I think that's a clear message to workers across the province of Ontario that they'd better be very careful that that's not what happens in the future in the province.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any other members who wish to participate in this debate? I just want to remind the member that with the new proceedings you have up to 90 minutes.

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'm mindful of the clock, which has started at 30 minutes and is rapidly ticking down. I'm wondering if the new --

The Deputy Speaker: It will be fixed.

Mr Offer: It will be fixed? Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, and thank you for reminding me and all members of the Legislature that this is the first bill that finds itself operating under the new set of rules the government House leader unilaterally imposed in this Legislature. Some might think, how appropriate is it to speak to the new rules? How appropriate is it for us to discuss the new rules when we are talking about Bill 40 and our very severe and substantial concerns with many of the aspects under that bill? I think that in the time allotted it is quite appropriate to make a comment or two not only on Bill 40, but also on why we have these new rules which were unilaterally imposed by the NDP government House leader.

I'd like to remind all the members of the Legislature -- and I'm pleased that some members of the government side have chosen to stay -- that this bill was introduced by the Minister of Labour on the June 4 at approximately 3:30 in the afternoon. I think Hansard will bear that out. What is curious is that the government House leader on that same day, within 90 minutes of the tabling of this legislation, without any notice, tabled new rules of procedure in this Legislature that have no other impact but to limit and stifle debate on issues and bills that come before this Legislature.

For those people who are watching the proceedings of this Legislature, it will be interesting for them to question their members, if they happen to be government members, as to how curious it is that whether one is for or against Bill 40 -- and no one will deny it is of a controversial nature -- how curious it is that on June 4, 1992, at 3:30 in the afternoon, the Minister of Labour tabled a controversial piece of legislation that has taken the attention and the focus of business and labour and a whole variety of other people across this province for a number of months, and within an hour and a half the government House leader tables new rules of procedure the impact of which is without doubt to stifle debate. So I have some serious concerns about the process the government has utilized.

The member for Cochrane South, who so often stands in his place lecturing other members as to what is and is not appropriate, does not feel in his esteemed opinion that the comments I make dealing with the new rules and the limitation and the stifling of the debate and how close the tabling of those new rules has been to the introduction of this legislation are in fact relevant. To the member for Cochrane South, who I know has been here for all of under two years, make no mistake about it, sir: This is very important because it does impact on what we have been elected to do. We have been elected to bring concerns, to bring opinions and to bring suggestions on pieces of legislation, and when debate is stifled, so is our role.

You sit there, sir, eating peanuts, I note, debating and commenting on what is or is not appropriate -- I'm glad you've put them away -- in your opinion on how these things are to be debated. I can tell you, as many other members have done, that we in my party and I have travelled the province listening to the opinions, suggestions and, yes, concerns of a variety of people who feel very strongly that the way in which they are going to be impacted by this bill is something which the government does not yet know, has not yet listened to, continues to refuse to listen and fails to conduct any case dealing with an economic impact about what this bill means to this province, to jobs, to their creation and in fact to their continuation.

There are people across this province who have voiced these concerns to me and to my colleagues and, I would dare say, even to members of the government side if they would choose to admit to it, and who have said day in and day out that this bill will affect the way we do business in this province, that this bill will have an impact on investment, that this bill will have an impact on whether people will choose to set up a business here, choose to expand an existing business here or look to other jurisdictions; and that the government has a responsibility at the very least to say, without even agreeing, "We will conduct an analysis, an examination, as to whether your concerns are in fact ones we should be concerned with." The government has not conducted any such economic impact analysis.

I'm going to be dealing with some of those areas in the next while, but I thought it is important at the outset to comment that we stand here today where members of the Legislature's right and ability and freedom to debate have been serious curtailed by the new rules unilaterally imposed by the government 90 minutes after a controversial piece of legislation, this legislation, was introduced.

The members of the government I hope will take advantage of commenting as to whether they see any difficulty in being able to represent their constituents' interests and the interests, I'm sure, of others broader than their own constituency, in this Legislature under these new rules, because we do have those concerns. We were very concerned in our debate on the legislation and what it means for us as members in terms of the things that are important to us, to bring those points before this Legislature. So at the outset, we have concerns dealing with the legislation and the rules that were introduced, which are without question as a result of this legislation.

1600

In the next while I will deal on a more substantive basis with our concerns with respect to this legislation, but in essence I think we all recognize that one of the underlying, fundamental, principle concerns of this legislation is that it does destroy the balance that has historically been found in the Labour Relations Act. In the past, a balance has been achieved under the Labour Relations Act, a balance by which people, whether labour or management, have a certain assurance that this striving for a balance, striving to maintain both types of interest, can be and has been achieved under the Labour Relations Act. These changes clearly alter the balance which has historically been found in the Labour Relations Act.

It is not that the Labour Relations Act has been a perfect piece of legislation. It is not that the Labour Relations Act should not and cannot be altered in some form or another. These changes do not do that. These changes fundamentally restructure the Labour Relations Act from one where there has always been, in the past, an attempt to balance countervailing interest to one, under this legislation, clearly tilted towards organized labour. We will and I will be looking at and dealing with some of the substantive aspects as to where that happens to be found in Bill 40.

But I think we have to recognize that when you do alter the balance in this legislation, when you do shift one interest in favour of another, when you do put words in a piece of legislation which direct that shifting of balance to take place, then you do not enhance cooperation. You do not increase the potential for discussion. What you do is exactly the opposite. I can tell the minister that during the public debates and hearings, we will be continuously bringing forward the need to bring back the balance in the Labour Relations Act which you and these amendments have taken away.

I have heard the minister, as well as some of his members, speak about the drastic need for this overhaul of legislation. I have heard the minister speak at length of the historical inequity that has existed that requires these changes to take place. So I took a look at this document called An Agenda for People. Now some might forget what this was, but it was the election platform of the New Democratic Party when it was knocking on doors, going to the people of the province saying: "Vote for us. This is what we stand for."

I read this agenda -- I have read it a number of times -- and I think about what the minister has said today. I think about what other members have said about this incredible inequity under the Labour Relations Act that has to be changed. I am sure I will find this in the Agenda for People, because if there was such an inequity during an election, I am sure the New Democratic Party would have taken this issue to the people, if it is as they say it was.

The Agenda for People is about 11 pages in length. It has a number of subheadings: "Minimum Corporate Tax" -- should we not forget that; "Succession Duties on Estates" -- they've promised something of this nature; "Interest Rate Relief" -- there was a promise for that; "Driver-Owned Insurance" -- I don't think we'll forget that promise they made to the people. I'm looking and looking and where is "Changes to the Ontario Labour Relations Act"? Where is it in the Agenda for People that this incredible inequity, this injustice which has existed for years is to be found?

Isn't it strange, because nowhere in the NDP Agenda for People of August 18, 1990, is there any mention of changes to the Ontario Labour Relations Act so that the injustice, the inequity, the imbalance which the Minister of Labour, which members of the government side say exists, is found?

Many people in this province, not just business people, have I think rightly said: "Why the change? Why is the government intent on changing, reworking, rebalancing the Labour Relations Act in favour of organized labour when it does not even appear in its Agenda for People?" I think the people of this province have asked that question and there has yet to be a response by the government side.

There has yet to be a response as to why the need for the overhaul of the Ontario Labour Relations Act, why the need for changes which re-bias the Labour Relations Act in favour of organized labour when the NDP Agenda for People, speaking about many issues which you haven't done, is silent on this which you are intent on doing, and intent on doing through new rule changes designed to ram this legislation through this House, designed to be rammed through the public hearing process and designed to be the law of the province.

I can tell the minister that the people of this province have been asking that question for a year and a half as to why this need. For a year and a half they have been coming to you, either personally or by letter. For a year and a half they have been contacting your members and asking that question. They have not yet received a response.

Mr Minister, we will have the opportunity in this debate, I hope, for you to come forward and state categorically why the need for this change, why the need when your own Agenda for People did not speak to this; why when your agenda does not speak to this, you, less than six months after taking office, state that there is a tremendous injustice in the Labour Relations Act. We have to ask that question and we will continue to ask the question. Mr Minister, there is tremendous suspicion that surrounds you and your government on this very issue. We want to give you the opportunity to dispel that suspicion.

I was listening to the member for York Centre speak in response to your opening comments. One of the things I heard the Minister of Transportation say was that he and we are merchants of fear. How wrong and how incredibly ridiculous and insensitive that this type of a comment would be made, because this bill is not just labour on one side and management or business on the other.

The government, I'm sure, would want to characterize the bill as being just that: If you are against this bill you are against organized labour; if you are against this bill you are against working men and women in this province, and if you are in favour of this bill you are in favour of organized labour and working men and women in this province. That is exactly how the government and the minister would want to characterize this debate.

1610

I brought forward the comment by the Minister of Transportation because the comment manifested the type of action the government has taken, because it is wrong. To be against this bill and to be concerned with the provisions of this bill is certainly not to be against organized labour or labour in general.

The minister sort of shrugs and smirks at this point in time, but the fact of the matter is that this just does not happen to be the case. The world is not made up of two camps of individuals, those from labour and the other from management. There's a whole group of people who care very genuinely about the direction your government is taking and the direction these rules and the Labour Relations Act dictate.

They are concerned about what this means for them and for their ability to compete in this province, for their ability to create jobs in this province and for their ability to look at this province as a place to expand and to live and enjoy. They have concerns about that, and it's just not big business; that's just not the case. It's a whole group of people who care very deeply that this province will continue to be a province for them, for their children and for their children's children to prosper in. They have concerns that this bill flies in the face of the dreams and hopes of a great many people in this province.

We will want to deal with those issues as this bill proceeds through the Legislature. Why do they have these concerns? They have these concerns because the provisions in this legislation, Bill 40, are found nowhere in any jurisdiction in all of North America. The minister has, on a timely basis, indicated that these provisions are found in other jurisdictions, and though I take some issue with that, because I believe there are provisions in this bill that are not found anywhere in any jurisdiction, in North America or elsewhere, clearly there is not a jurisdiction in all of North America that contains all of these provisions.

I invite the Minister of Labour, because he will have the opportunity after I wind up, to use his two minutes to indicate to this Legislature and to the people who are watching as to what jurisdiction in North America contains all the provisions found within Bill 40. You have indicated before that there are. Now you have the opportunity to say to us in this Legislature and to those who are watching what jurisdiction in Canada or in the United States, provincially, federally or state-wide, contains all of these provisions. I suggest there is not such a jurisdiction, and I ask the minister to correct me and to name the jurisdiction so that we can get on with the debate, and you will have that opportunity.

We have a series of concerns dealing with different aspects of the bill, but before I get to those, in the limited time available to me, I want to deal with three general areas: first, the process the minister and the government have undertaken that finds us here today; second, impact, what this bill means, and third, some of the more substantive provisions.

Dealing with the process, the minister and his colleagues continually stand and say that this bill has gone through some in-depth consultation and that they have spoken to some 300 groups in the last year and a half about the bill. It is interesting. I have just recently finished travelling the province with my colleagues. We've spoken in many different cities. We've listened to people who have some interest in the bill. The world the minister paints is one that is much different from that of those writing to me.

I have hundreds and thousands of letters of concern from people. What are their concerns? First, their question, almost universally posed, as to the reason for these changes, has never been answered. Second, they have not been part of this so-called process of consultation. They have indicated to me that this consultation process the minister embarked upon, visiting some cities, was stage-managed. It was not consultation. It was, for some, an invitation to appear for five or 10 minutes, to say their piece and to leave. It excluded a great many individuals, associations and groups that wanted to be heard before this legislation came to this stage, before it became part of the legislative process.

They wanted to share with you what these changes would and could mean to them. They wanted, without being dramatically opposed, to share with you what, for instance, the prohibition on replacement workers means to them, to the tourism industry, to the automotive supply industry, to the local hydro utilities, to a variety of services that exist in this province. They wanted to share that with you and they weren't able to.

I have, for instance, a letter from the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies. They weren't able to be part of that process of consultation. They didn't know that process of consultation was even going on. They shared a letter with me. They state:

"Recently, it has come to our attention that the Ministry of Labour is concerned about the lack of response from the non-profit sector. The fact is, Mr Mackenzie, that hundreds of organizations" -- I'm not reading from big business; I'm not reading from the manufacturing sector; I'm reading a letter from the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies -- "did not know about the proposed changes. It is particularly unfortunate that your ministry did not distribute the discussion paper to the provincial associations and advocacy groups that represent these organizations."

They have concerns. They have indicated their concern as to the process of consultation. They were not part. The minister might say, "The concerns of the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies have been met in the legislation." That we will debate. But the fact of the matter is that this is not a letter by individuals from a big business, a big manufacturing company; this is a letter from the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies. They're saying to you that they did not know of your consultation process. They did not know where to comment and what the changes mean to their clientele. Their clientele are children. That's who they are there to serve. They had concerns about these changes and what they mean to those children, and your so-called consultation excluded them.

I have letters from a variety of other groups and associations, all on the same area: exclusion, no consultation. Those who were given an invitation to appear were given but an invitation to appear, not true consultation.

1620

This speaks to how this process has been flawed right from the very beginning. If there was this tremendous need for change, if there was this inequity and injustice that permeated labour relations in this province that, no matter how great a need, did not find its way into the Agenda for People, then if the minister was to make changes, as is the right of the Minister of Labour -- and I would not state that it is not for a moment -- then surely if one is going to do it in a truly consultative, meaningful way, one invites labour representatives, government officials and representatives of business to sit around the table without anything on the table and say: "We want to take a look at the Labour Relations Act. We want to ask the question, 'Is there a need for change?' and if there is, 'Where?' and after that, 'How?' and after that, 'What's the impact?'"

That, Mr Minister, is true consultation, and that is why many people across this province have been excluded, because you have refused to conduct this examination, this analysis, in this way. You have shut them out, you have shut the door, and there is no amount of speechwriting, speechmaking, householder mailing, column writing in newspapers, that will save what has been a flawed process of consultation, what has been from the beginning stage-managed and what has brought on this incredible opposition to these changes.

When I have spoken about this issue, people have said, "Well, why are you surprised about this process of consultation?" They remind me of a few letters that were written by Jill Marzetti, the provincial secretary of the New Democratic Party, one of which, I must say, went to my wife, a letter which stated on page 3 last fall -- and this is from the provincial secretary of the New Democratic Party -- "But let's not fool ourselves; politics is about power."

A second letter just recently, again by Jill Marzetti, the provincial secretary. What is in the letter? It says, "Some big-business lobbies are trying to take our province away from us." I guess she is including the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies.

She talks about "using money," "high-priced consultants," "time that we send these big-business lobbyists a message." And who is she referring to? She is referring to three business groups: the All Business Coalition, the More Jobs Coalition and Project Economic Growth.

Let me talk about those three groups. I have had occasion to meet with them a number of times and they've brought forward some of their concerns. We've had occasion to meet, and I must say they are saying they're not opposed to the legislation. They never say, "No change at all to the Labour Relations Act." That's not been their position at all. In fact, their position has been: "Let us look at the areas where change should occur. Let us look at it together. Let us devise ways in which we can collectively reach our goal and deal with the purpose at hand."

They have not been, as has been characterized by the New Democratic Party, intent on bringing down the walls and halls of this government and province on the current government. They are people who want to work with the government. They have day in and day out indicated that they want to talk, that they want to consult, that they want you to listen to them as you have asked them to listen to you, but they haven't been able to get their message through to you.

We have to ask the question again: Why are they put in this light? These are people who hire, people who invest, people who create jobs, people who create wealth, people who give this province the strength it has. These are people who are saying that if there is to be change to the Labour Relations Act, let's sit down and talk about it, but you have not listened to them.

Is it fair for me just to comment on something that deals with party policy as the New Democratic Party? I think, though it's relevant, we also have to recognize that there is not only the party wing, but there's a government wing. So I refer to the cabinet submission. Maybe we will get a clearer picture. Maybe the words of the Jill Marzettis and the New Democrats in their party are not really the words from the Minister of Labour and those who have been elected to serve. So I look at a cabinet submission. There is no higher or more confidential document than a cabinet submission. Someone felt it was necessary for the people of Ontario to see this type of submission and to see the words contained within it.

I read from that cabinet submission, and what does the Minister of Labour say about business, talking about concerns on changes to the Labour Relations Act? "The concerns expressed have been confined to the narrow focus of business and the media have been a willing audience," in a cabinet submission from a minister of the province of Ontario. "The concerns expressed have been confined to the narrow focus of business and the media have been a willing audience." It's a sad day when a government, a minister of the crown or his or her colleagues feel that business has a certain narrow focus to which the media are a willing audience.

Does it stop there? No. Again, from the same cabinet submission, "There will be special effort to neutralize opposition from the business community," a special effort made to neutralize opposition. The minister and his colleagues wonder why people have concerns about their so-called process of consultation when we hear the words from their party, when we hear the words from their own cabinet submission: "neutralizing opposition," "narrow focus of business," "media being a willing audience."

In some ways, though I disapprove of the legislation and I certainly disapprove of the rules that are designed to ram this legislation through without sufficient debate, it's interesting that we were given an opportunity here to read these statements on Hansard because I think many people in this province, whether they are for or against this legislation, would certainly not agree with words such as "neutralizing opposition," "narrow focus of business," "media being a willing audience," the words of the provincial secretary of the NDP. I think a lot of people don't like that. I think they feel uncomfortable with that. I think they start to understand why many people are so concerned not only about the rule changes but also about the way in which this process of consultation has been stage-managed.

1630

I speak as the Labour critic for the opposition party. I speak opposed to this legislation, certainly on the issue of process. I also speak as a member of a party which doesn't have to apologize for its record in the area of labour. I certainly --

Interjections.

Mr Offer: I see members on the government side tittering at this point. I see and hear members saying, "My goodness gracious, could this be true?" and laughing when a member of a party stands in this Legislature proud of what his party stands for in the area of labour legislation: changes to the Employment Standards Act; the introduction of occupational health and safety; changes with respect to workers' compensation and the establishment of the worker adviser; changes dealing with compensation benefits; changes dealing with workplace hazardous information systems; changes dealing with termination and severance pay; changes dealing with enhancing assistance to displaced workers; changes dealing with the area of pay equity, and changes dealing with a variety of enhancements, appeal process, under workers' compensation.

Now the members of the government side have quieted. All of a sudden there just doesn't seem to be that tittering, there don't seem to be those mindless comments that come across the floor, because there is a great deal that has been accomplished in labour legislation.

Members of the government -- I always like this argument -- say there has not been any change in the labour relations legislation for the last 15 years. The only thing is that when you take a look at the statutes, if you look under the Labour Relations Act, you see amendments, you see changes, you see --

Interjections: Minor.

Mr Offer: Oh, members of the government now call first contract legislation "minor." It is interesting that labour relations changes that took place in the previous government are now minor: first contract legislation and a variety of other changes. Members of the government seem to look only to the Ontario Labour Relations Act. The interesting thing is that the Ontario Labour Relations Act, though an important piece of legislation, applies basically to the issue of unionization, collective bargaining. It is an important piece of legislation for certain, but it's also important to recognize that approximately 70% of the workforce in this province is not unionized.

When one talks to labour legislation, let me remind members of the government -- and I recognize from whence you came. I recognize that your Agenda for People did not speak to the Labour Relations Act and changes. I recognize the words of Jill Marzetti and I recognize the words of your own cabinet submission. Please recognize that 70% of the men and women who work in this province are not unionized; that to them labour legislation is not just Ontario's Labour Relations Act.

It is equally important that there be changes to the Employment Standards Act, for which the previous government instituted changes. It is important to them that there be changes to health in the workplace, to which the previous government introduced changes: occupational health and safety and further, enhanced information systems dealing with the workplace. It is important to them that there be changes in minimum wage, in termination, in severance. The workplace is not just the unionized workplace. It is a whole range of men and women, 70% of whom are not.

So when we talk about changes to labour legislation, let us not forget that labour legislation is not just the Ontario Labour Relations Act.

And if there are to be changes to that act, as well as any other act, then let it be done in a process of consultation where business, labour and government sit down, discuss and implement. This has not been the case in this area. There is not a person in this Legislature, government members included, who would not agree that there is great concern throughout the province -- in their own ridings -- as to the process that has been undertaken by the government. We are going to have to deal with that, because you have fundamentally flawed this process, and there is nothing you will be able to do or say that will bring back that lost confidence.

I'm going to leave the process for a moment, because I want to deal with the impact.

Mr Bisson: The what?

Mr Offer: The member for Cochrane South, as usual, says, "The what?"

What we are talking about, member for Cochrane South -- let me put it in this way: Will this legislation cause job loss? That's what we sort of mean when we talk about impact. Now, what do we mean --

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): What impact?

Mr Offer: Another member, for Cochrane North, says, "What impact?"

I notice, Mr Speaker, that you are asking me to direct my comments to you. I shall, Mr Speaker, because of the fact that it is an important area of our concern. Our party, but not just our party, the third party, but not just the third party -- people across this province have for a year been asking the government to conduct an impact analysis on these changes.

They are not saying, "We are opposed." They are not even stating their position one way or the other. What they are saying is that before you introduce this type of legislation, before you deal with a piece of legislation with almost half a million people are now out of work, some for the very first time in their lives, where we have suffered a recession, as has been said by many people, like not since the 1930s, it is the responsibility of government to understand what this legislation means in the area of job creation, in the area of investment.

That does not mean to say that you necessarily have to be opposed to the legislation or in fact that you have to be for the legislation, but it does mean to say that it is the responsible -- and the only -- approach, not by the Minister of Labour but by the Premier of this province, to make certain that those types of studies are done on a sector-by-sector basis.

What does this mean to the agricultural sector? What does this mean to small business? What does this mean to the service area? What does this mean to tourism and recreation? What does this mean to municipalities? What does this legislation mean to job creation in this province? What does a piece of legislation mean when it contains provisions found nowhere else in North America? Will this have an impact on investment?

1640

It seems to be a fairly responsible request: Before you jump in the water, let's know how deep it is. It seems to be a fairly responsible requirement. You don't have to take a position for or against. Let's just know what this actually means.

On June 4 the Minister of Labour introduced this bill, as I said earlier, about 3:30 in the afternoon. Again, as I remind everybody, within 90 minutes the government House leader had to introduce unilaterally new rule changes which would limit debate.

I now move to June 5. I have here, "For Immediate Release from the Office of the Premier":

"Premier Bob Rae today announced the appointment of the Premier's labour-management advisory committee. The committee, which has been asked to report to the Premier in one year's time, will examine ways in which management and labour can work together to enhance the social and economic wellbeing of the province. It has a number of business and community leaders as well as labour leaders."

You know what our response was to this? Our response was: "Good, it's something that we've been calling for for a year. It's something that business associations and organizations have been calling for. Good, you've finally shown some listening to what people have been calling for."

That was done on the 5th, which was a Friday. We thought, "This seems to be the approach that they're going to be taking," meaning the government. "They are going to obviously give to this committee, which the Premier of this province, Bob Rae, has set up, this legislation to do that type of analysis and examination as to the impact that everyone has been calling for."

On the following Monday my leader, Lyn McLeod, asked a question to the Premier on this point. The answer was no, this committee would not be given this bill which has become the focus of attention for so many in this province. So we question, why the committee, why this committee if you are not giving to the committee the single biggest focus between labour and management for the last year?

We're not saying not to proceed with second reading. You could stop second reading and have it recommence in the fall, knowing what the bill means. You could even have a parallel process: Have second reading, as we are doing now, while also giving to this committee the legislation to report on to the Legislature and the people of the province in the fall. The response? No.

Any reason why people feel that this is a stage-managed approach, why the government is intent on ramrodding this bill through the Legislature with a minimum amount of debate, making certain that the bill -- and it will probably go out for public hearing debates of a minimal nature, getting back here without our ever knowing what this bill actually means and has as its impact.

Why in this province at this time, with so many people out of work, with so many businesses closing up, with so many bankruptcies happening on a day-by-day basis, with investment and capital at its fluid best running out of this province, why won't you conduct this type of examination and analysis before we pass this bill into law? Because the concern by many around here is that they just sort of count up the members in the Legislature and they see what is happening on the government side.

The orders have been given: vote in favour of rule changes; put aside your personal preference, your personal beliefs on the importance of debate in this Legislature; put aside the concerns you've heard from the Association of Large School Boards in Ontario, from the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies, from a myriad of other businesses in your riding; put that all aside. Let's get this bill in, out and into law, and let us not know what this bill actually means. That, Mr Speaker, is concerning.

On June 5, the same day as the Premier's press release, I happened to have another press release. It's a press release from Project Economic Growth, the More Jobs Coalition and the All Business Coalition. They're responding to the Premier's setting up of this committee. They say for the past eight months the business community has been advocating that the government bring the workplace partners to the table for a meaningful consultation.

"We acknowledge the establishment of this group" -- and that's the Premier's group -- "while recognizing that it would be impossible to fulfil the mandate the Premier has set unless the committee is given the opportunity to deal with the labour relations revisions." That is what they want. They want and wanted this bill to go to the Premier's committee.

Now let's remember who these groups are. They are: Project Economic Growth, the More Jobs Coalition and the All Business Coalition. Who are these groups? These are the groups that were referred to in the Jill Marzetti New Democratic Party letter. These are the groups that, in the words of Jill Marzetti, "want to stop all positive changes dead." Reading from her letter: "All Business Coalition, notorious for hostility to working people. More Jobs Coalition, lobbyists for 85 corporate giants. Project Economic Growth, the biggest lobby of them all." These are the groups as characterized by Jill Marzetti.

The characterization is false. These are the groups who want to work with government. This is the group that says, "We want to deal with the Premier's committee and council and we want this bill to go to that committee." These are the groups that the minister has shut the door on. He has said to them: "Your concerns are no concern of mine. The issue of impact is no concern of mine. You will have to live with this law." That's what the Minister of Labour has said.

I could read the names of these companies: Coca-Cola, the city of Kanata, American Express, Brewers Retail, Goodyear, Ford, IBM, McDonald's, Shoppers Drug Mart, Sears Canada, hundreds of groups and businesses who want to sit down with government. They're darned concerned. They're concerned about the impact of the bill and they're concerned that the government steadfastly refuses to listen to what this impact may be and is adamant on ramming this legislation through. They're going to have to use new rules to do so, but they will try to do so. They will stifle debate. You have already passed that.

The member for Cochrane South, the wise member for Cochrane South, the professor of parliamentary affairs, has said to his constituents, "I don't have to speak about your interests as much as you think is necessary. Now the member seems moved to rise --

Mr Bisson: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: It is very clear that you cannot impute motives on the part of any other member when they debate, and I would ask the member to withdraw that.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Thank you. It is not a point of order; it's a point of view.

1650

Mr Offer: It took a while but the member for Cochrane South has just made my point. The fact of the matter is that we are elected to represent, to debate, to bring forward our concerns in opposition, if that be the case, on legislation and to use this time to indicate what those concerns are and why. I have done so in the area of process. I have done so in the area of impact. Now we move to the area of substantive aspects.

I spoke earlier of the change in balance. When I said that earlier, there was a little tittering from the government side. The fact of the matter is that the Labour Relations Act has always tried to achieve a balance between labour and management. It has attempted to do so within the provisions. These changes tip that balance.

I think it's important for me to indicate, certainly to those who are watching, where that happens. For the first time in legislation, it is stated; it is mandated. This is the mandate of the Labour Relations Act and of the board, which I will deal with. I read section 2.1, "To encourage the process of collective bargaining," to make certain -- I'm paraphrasing at this point -- to "join and be represented by a trade union of their choice and to participate in the lawful activities of the trade union."

To be against this is not to be against unionization. What this does is direct the arbiter, the referee, the Ontario Labour Relations Board, which is the referee for the provisions under the Labour Relations Act, that in any question that comes before the board, it must decide with this direction. It must make its decisions with the direction of the Legislature, which is to encourage the process of collective bargaining, to make certain that employees "choose, join and be represented by a trade union."

That tips the balance. That changes the Ontario Labour Relations Board from what it was and had always been striving to be, an impartial arbiter, a referee of the provisions under the act, to one which must be tilted in favour of collective bargaining. That is a fundamental flaw of these changes, because when you change the referee, when you change the decision-maker in any conflict under the Labour Relations Act from one which is impartial to something else, you have fundamentally changed the act. You have not enhanced cooperation. What you've done is bring suspicion to the legislation that any decision must and will be tilted in favour of the union.

I think that is a difficulty. It has nothing to do with whether one should or could or can or won't be unionized. That's not the issue. The issue on this point is what is to be accomplished when the decision-maker has been moved from a decision-maker to an enforcer for unionization. That doesn't enhance cooperation under the legislation. That breeds suspicion. That detracts and erodes cooperation. We will be discussing this "purposes" clause as we deal with the bill in the upcoming weeks and months ahead.

I'm mindful of the time, and for those who are watching, the time allotted to myself as the leadoff speaker for our party is 90 minutes. There will also be 90 minutes for the leadoff speaker for the third party, and thereafter there will only be 30 minutes allotted per member.

Mr Bisson: Sixty minutes too long.

Mr Offer: As I indicated the rules that were brought forward unilaterally by the government, members of the government side said, "That 90 minutes is 60 minutes too long." It is interesting indeed when debate is stifled in this Legislature. I would rather my constituents decided if I have or have not spoken too long. I don't want any member of the government to make that decision. I am accountable to my constituents.

We have travelled the province and listened to a great number of people who view this as an opportunity for their concerns to be heard. It's a strange definition of democracy when it comes with a time limit, and that's something that's going to have to rest on the government side. They will be reminded of this as we proceed not only with this debate but with future debates.

I speak to this "purposes" clause and how it changes the Ontario Labour Relations Board from an impartial arbiter to one which must, directed by the law, favour collective bargaining. One must question, whether one is in favour of or opposed to collective bargaining, whether one doesn't have an opinion on it, whether one feels comfortable in mandating a referee -- a decision-maker -- that he or she must favour one side or the other.

Could one only imagine the response by government members, by NDP members, if any government in this land brought forward a "purposes" clause which stated "not to encourage the process of collective bargaining"? Could one imagine the hue and cry from the labour parties across this province and across this country as to what they would be saying if the tilt went the other way?

The fact of the matter is that they would be right in the criticism. The object of the Labour Relations Act and the object in enhancing cooperation is that there isn't a tilt, but this bill in fact attempts, through this legislation, to create that type of tilt.

I would like to deal -- I think it's important -- with the issue of replacement workers. The Minister of Labour spoke to that earlier on. I refer to the actual legislation, and I am paraphrasing, which says the employer shall not use any of the following persons to perform the work at a place of operations in respect of which the strike or lockout is taking place.

What this clearly says is that there's no replacement worker. In fairness, there are some exemptions. I think the exemptions are curiously worded and provide for some major difficulties but we'll deal with them later on. We don't have the time to deal with that very important aspect of the legislation at this time. But what does this provision mean? The minister, in his opening comments, alluded to this.

We have to go back to the impact. What does it mean to the auto suppliers in this province? There are what are called just-in-time suppliers. In the economy of today, there is no longer the opportunity for large inventories. Automobile suppliers cannot afford to keep a large inventory of door handles, for instance. The economics do not permit it. They supply those parts on a just-in-time basis.

1700

One asks the question, what happens if there is a strike? We're not talking about whether one is in favour of or against a strike, because there are rules and laws and when there's a labour disruption there is the right to strike. What we are talking about is what happens to that company. That company can no longer use individuals to continue to provide that supply, hence we now look at impact. If the door handle to a car cannot be supplied, the question validly posed is, can one build a car? Can one build a car where any one part is missing? The answer is clear: no.

The automobile suppliers across this province have been trying to impress upon the government what this provision means to them: If a supplier is shut down and there is not the opportunity to bring in replacement workers, the car manufacturer will be shut down.

Members of the government side might say, well, that's really taking it to an extreme. Just read the newspapers of last week where there was a strike in the United States over some railway mechanics that stopped the trains. The trains carried supplies to the automobile assembly plants in Ontario. Within a day there was a thought that if the strike were not settled in one day, those plants and those workers were going to be laid off. We're not talking hypothetically, we're talking about real life here. Now we're seeing that this will all be found in Ontario. No other jurisdiction in North America contains these provisions.

So what happens? Maybe, as the Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association has made plain in its brief, those suppliers don't locate in this province. Maybe those jobs aren't found in Ontario any more because the car companies need the assurance of parts delivery on a just-in-time basis. This bill, this provision, will affect that directly.

What do we say to that? Does the government say that we should look to an impact statement? That's what business and a lot of other people are saying: "We want to take a look and see what that means in terms of jobs. We want to take a look to see if that has an impact on job creation in this province."

The government turns away. The Premier's esteemed council will not look at that issue, will not look at that while the competition in this province is at a new era. No longer is your competitor located around the corner; now your competitor is over the horizon. If our laws do not allow our companies to compete, then our companies just may not be here. I don't want you to think about it only in terms of companies. Think about it in terms of jobs: men, women, people who want to work.

The member for Cochrane South was again interjecting, asking what this means with -- what were you talking about?

Mr Bisson: I said what a weak argument.

Mr Offer: He talked about a weak argument. Is it any wonder, members of the Legislature, that there are communities of individuals convinced that the government does not want to listen to their concerns?

A weak argument? Is there any question that the concerns are now well founded? This government, this labour government which did not see fit to talk about the need for change in its agenda for power -- I'm sorry; Agenda for People -- did not see fit to do that, now does not believe the automobile suppliers across this province when they talk about the impact these changes will have on them because of their just-in-time supply basis. I only hope that members of the government side will see fit to take a little time off and listen to some of the concerns about this legislation, see fit to look at some of the impacts of this legislation.

We've heard that the just-in-time suppliers, a fairly substantial employment force in this province, are deemed by the government side to be a weak argument. Many hundreds of thousands of people would take issue with that. But what about municipal hydro supplies, which are not exempt? What about telling the city of Mississauga and the city of Peterborough that the concerns they have on replacement workers and the destruction of hydro service are also a weak argument? Why don't you tell the school boards of Ontario, which look to the school bus drivers in so many of our jurisdictions, that if the school bus operators are on strike there can't be any replacement workers? That system is effectively, for many jurisdictions, closed down because the children can't get to school. That too, I am sure, is deemed by the government members to be a weak argument.

Why not the Ontario Hotel and Motel Association's concerns, the tourism industry? Their product is service. If they can't sell service, they're not in business. Why not ask them what this means, when a resort would have to be closed down? Why not ask them what it means when some people, who have scheduled a vacation for one or two weeks a year -- those who still have a job and are still given a vacation period -- go to a resort that is closed down because of labour disruption and the inability of that resort to have some sort of service? The impact is not only that people don't go to that resort; people don't come to the province. They want a guarantee of service.

Why not ask the Ontario Restaurant Association, working at a 1% or 2% profit margin, what it means? Why not ask the convention operators, the providers of jobs, the providers of revenue to a variety of municipalities, what this provision means to them? I am sure the answer to all of those people will be very much what I have heard today: "Another weak argument against labour relations, another weak argument posed by opposition members who really don't care."

The fact of the matter is that there is some real care when one speaks to the impact of this provision. This does have the potential of gutting the tourism sector, it has the potential of eroding a convention base, it has the potential of closing down automobile suppliers in this province, it has the potential of closing down school boards. The question we continually ask is, why does the government not look into these questions?

Why doesn't the government want to conduct any impact analysis, any examination of what these changes mean? What is it that when first announced last March 1991 -- so important were these changes that they were not found in their own Agenda for People. There are a lot of people who might read some suspicion into that.

I will leave that to others, and I will leave that to others who will also take a look at the question, why would this legislation be introduced Thursday, June 4, at approximately 3:30, and new rules designed to stifle debate in this Legislature be tabled without notice, unilaterally by the government, within 90 minutes after? Others will read a suspicion into that. I will leave that for others.

1710

I wanted to deal with the issue of third-party property and what is contained on page 9. Basically what this section speaks to is the availability of organizing and picketing on third-party property, private property. The minister has said, "Well, this really applies to malls -- industrial malls, shopping malls -- where access in any other way is not there." I sort of listened to that, and then I read the legislation.

The legislation says, "This section applies with respect to premises to which the public normally has access and from which a person occupying the premises would have a right to remove individuals." I will explain shortly that this means it is not limited to malls; it is limited to any firm to which the public normally has access. It could be a standalone firm for which there is visitor parking availability.

One has to ask, what is the impact of that? One has to ask, does this legislation, for instance, in this one provision, apply to -- I think if we've gone through department stores, we've seen licensees within those department stores. They may be photomat operations or cafeteria operations, operations contained within a larger department store.

This legislation would allow organizing and picketing within that kiosk located within a larger department store. One has to ask, what does that do? Do people want to shop in a store that's got picketing around, or organizing around, kiosks, licensee operations? The government again refuses to conduct any impact study about that, refuses to even acknowledge that it is an issue.

That sort of brings up another point, and that is that a lot of people who are making these points are saying that the government isn't listening to these issues, that these are matters that are real, these are matters you're going to see in department stores, these are matters you're going to see in standalone firms, and the government just refuses to acknowledge that these issues exist.

The legislation says that these are going to be allowed, and I want the members of the government side to not only acknowledge it but to deal with it, and if that's what your position is, to come out and say it, because there are a lot of people who are saying that's going to cut into the retail sector, that's going to cut into the service sector and the trade like you have never seen before.

The last point I want to deal with on these substantive issues is something I feel very strongly about. Right now, if there is an organizing drive, in essence there is the right of the individual, the worker, to change his or her mind one way or the other. They may have thought at the outset they did not want to join a union in an organizing drive and now wish to change their minds and be a part, or the opposite, that they do not want to be part. This legislation takes away the right of an individual to change his or her mind.

Members of the government side have said, "You just don't understand the legislation." The problem is, to members of the government side, and I'm reading from the legislation, that "The board" -- meaning the Ontario Labour Relations Board. Let's remember what the object of the board is. They've now been tilted firmly in favour of unionization -- "shall not consider evidence filed or presented after the certification application date that an employee who had become or had applied to become a member of a trade union,

"(a) has cancelled, revoked or resigned his or her membership..." or

"(b) has otherwise expressed a desire not to be represented by a trade union...."

I've not read clause 8(5)(c) of that section, but clearly this section takes away the right of an individual in an organizing drive to change his or her mind.

Why? What is it that government members are so concerned about in allowing individuals to change their minds? This is coming from a government which has changed its mind. Why is the Minister of Labour in his legislation taking away from a worker the right to change his or her mind about whether or not to join a union? Their own government allowed the Premier to change his mind on government-run insurance. They allowed the Premier and this government to change their minds on a common pause day. They allowed the government to change its party policy on gambling in this province. Why would they not allow the workers of this province to have the same right, a right that is shared by people every day on a variety of issues -- not just legislation but a variety of everyday issues -- to change their minds? This legislation strips that right away from those workers.

I think that is something which is in a strange way most foreboding in this legislation because when you take away the rights of people, you take away something, certainly as we've just finished celebrating our Canada Day, which we heard loud and clear about.

We heard about how in this country we take for granted in many ways the right of expression, the right to voice our opinion, the right to a myriad of freedoms, and here when we speak about this legislation, it clearly takes away that right. I know we're going to have to deal with that so that we can make certain that the wishes of workers in any one establishment can be ascertained, are ascertainable and are in fact the final wishes of those workers. If it has to be by a vote, a secret ballot, something which we are all aware of, which we all got here on, then so be it, but don't take away the right of a person to change his or her mind.

I know time is short. There are so many other aspects of this legislation one has to speak to and should be able to speak to. I have not brought to this Legislature the letters and the petitions and the comments by people across this province. I have not been able, because of the government's stifling rules changes, to bring forward the concerns of many people across this province that they have not been heard, that this legislation and aspects of it will affect them, that they want to share that with government, that business groups across this province want to work with government.

1720

They are not, as Jill Marzetti and your own cabinet submission would have everyone believe, shortsighted. It is not just the business groups that have concerns with this legislation. We're going to have to take a look at what this legislation means in terms of hydro services in municipalities. We're going to have to take a look at what this legislation means in the area of social services, because we haven't even dealt with whether cheques can be written if there's a labour disruption.

This legislation is not about organizing. This legislation is not about workers' rights. The concern that people have in this province is that they don't know what this legislation is about. It wasn't important enough for you to put in your Agenda for People; it wasn't important enough for you to discuss until March 1991; it hasn't been important enough for you to listen to people about what the impact of this legislation will be, and people are darn concerned. They're suspicious. They're suspicious about rule changes which have been introduced, designed with this one bill in mind: designed to have me sit down in one minute and three seconds, designed for a limited form of debate, designed for this bill to be rammed through by the government.

Labour in this province, Mr Minister, as you chuckle, is not just unionized labour. There are many men and women across this province -- 70% of our workforce -- who are not unionized, and they are looking to you and this government to deal with their concerns. Have there been changes to the Employment Standards Act dealing with severance, termination? Have you made any statements on the issue of minimum wage, when you should have? Have you dealt with a myriad of issues? You have not.

Now the members of government look -- they don't know. The fact of the matter is that you haven't. You've turned your back on a great many people in this province and you have refused to listen to many of the concerns that people have very much felt and wanted to share with you. We will be dealing with this and a variety of other matters as we deal with the bill in public hearings.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments? The honourable member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): The point that will be driven home, I'm certain, on a number of occasions with speakers speaking to this particular piece of legislation, is the concern expressed to me by quite a broad cross-section of society that this government and this minister have refused to participate in any public study at all with respect to the job losses from the impact of this government's labour legislation.

I think what is most important to understand is why this government will not deal with that. This piece of legislation will obviously not create any jobs. I don't even think anyone on the other side of the House would suggest it would. It's not going to create a single job. Having taken that as your high-water mark, then all this legislation can do is in fact cost jobs. So it seems pretty clear to me why this government doesn't want to do any impact studies. We know as a fact that it won't create work, so the only thing the study can tell you is how many jobs it will cost.

It's not really surprising to me or to too many other people who are reasonably well-versed on this subject as to why this government and this minister refuse to do any studies. As my leader said today, "He pooh-poohs every study that comes along, but he's not prepared to do one of his own." In my opinion, it's the act of a minister who is gutless, who isn't prepared to address the issues, who has stood in opposition and made some grandiose statements, who now has the lever of power and refuses to take advantage of it and produce studies that will outline the real economic impacts of this legislation.

So I say to the people listening today, "Whether you agree or disagree, be very wary when a member of the government won't do studies to support his position."

The Acting Speaker: Further questions or comments? The honourable member for Cochrane South.

Mr Bisson: Comments to the 90-minute opening statement on the part of the Liberal caucus: It really demonstrates a lack of understanding of the whole intent of the bill.

There are some interesting things he made in his comments. One of the things I really thought was amusing was when he talked about how the bill takes away the right of employees to choose not to join a union or to change their minds. If he would go back and really take a look at it seriously, he would find out that petitions are still allowed, within the proposed legislation, up to the point of certification. That option is still there. But the point is that in the cases where the membership has clearly made the decision that they want to choose a union, that is their democratic right.

What I find really funny, on the part of all members in the opposition who are opposing this thing, is that you, sir, in the Liberal Party and other people in the Conservative Party have purported for years to be the people who protect democracy. The minute we want to give workers a little bit of democracy, a little bit of say in the workplace, you go hairy. That is really an insult to the workers of this province, because you really underestimate their ability and what they have to contribute to the workplace.

He talked about just-in-time delivery, about how this labour legislation is going to stop being able to operate with just-in-time delivery, about how there is no other place in this country where this kind of legislation is in place, that it would put the just-in-time delivery situation out.

The province of Quebec has had anti-scab legislation for the past 10 or 15 years. They too live in the same place called North America.

I see the member shaking his head. He clearly doesn't understand. This legislation is about giving people a little bit of equity within the workplace. It's clearly a real lack of understanding for the member of the opposition to get up for 90 minutes -- 60 minutes too long, I would say -- in this place and speak on this bill the way he did.

Mr Bradley: I would like to deal, in my two minutes, strictly with the rule changes and how they affect legislation of this kind and question the member on that, because I think that basically is the issue.

I'm tired of the member for Cochrane South. You've been in this place for about 20 months, and you'd think you've been here for 20 years, the way you lecture the opposition. I'm here to speak to something I'm entitled to speak to. Your leader, the Premier, is trying to take it away from me. I'll tell you I'm going to speak as long as I want in this House.

To get back to the member who was previously speaking, my question to him is this: how this new rule that has been brought in by the Premier of this province, through the House leader, is going to affect legislation of this kind; how the member for Cochrane South says 30 minutes is enough time to debate under the time limits which have been placed, when over the years he has had members of his party debating legislation in this House for hours on end. The hypocrisy of that is so obvious. I ask him that particular question.

I ask him how the fact that this Legislature will sit fewer days of the year -- not more days; fewer days -- will affect the legislative agenda of the government and the opportunity of the opposition and all members of the House to deal with legislation of this kind.

I ask the member to deal with the issue, if he will, in his short response, of the fact that closure can be invoked at the behest of the government at any particular time to close off debate even though the province may not feel there has been enough debate.

I ask the member to deal with time allocation, where the minister promoting a bill now has the chance to come into the Legislative Assembly and dictate the amount of time there will be to deal with that legislation. I ask the member to view that in view of the Premier's former record of defending the rights of the opposition and of defending democracy in the province of Ontario.

The Acting Speaker: We can accommodate one final participant. The member for York Mills.

Mr Turnbull: It is indeed strange to hear members of the governing party suggesting that we should have even less time to debate this very important bill.

If we were going to have some time spent on anything, it would be useful to have time to debate the private member's bill of my colleague the member for Waterloo North, where she suggested that there should be secret ballots for unionization, where there would be no intimidation. We know how much public ballots work. Just ask Jimmy Hoffa how public ballots work. Where is he now? We need to have secrecy, and not the intimidation and the force that is put on people to join a union. By the elimination of the $1 signing fee and also of the availability of petitions after certification, we strike once again to the heart of this bill: The fact that this is a bill which is made especially for union bosses; not for the hard workers who happen to be members of unions in this province, but for the union bosses who are losing more and more favour because they are doing the economy of Ontario such a bad job. We know they have the availability of very fancy offices and large expense accounts, which they don't waive in times of strike.

This is payoff time for the NDP. What we should be talking about today is the availability of secret ballots so that people who don't want to join a union are not forced to expose themselves, and all of the intimidation that goes along with it.

1730

The Acting Speaker: This completes questions and/or comments. The honourable member for Mississauga North has two minutes in response.

Mr Offer: In the short time allocated to me, I just want to indicate that certainly the point made by the members dealing with the lack of an impact study and not knowing what this will mean to the just-in-time suppliers, the auto suppliers, is one which we have brought forward many times. It's not just that area. It's the refusal of the government to take a look at the impact this bill will have in a variety of areas and what this bill will mean to a variety of jobs in this province, the creation of jobs.

I don't know that I can leave this two minutes without commenting on some of the aspects raised by the member for St Catharines, and certainly in response to the member for Cochrane South.

I think that anybody who watched this and heard the comments of the member for Cochrane South would realize that what this government has done is take away my right, as well as his right, as well as everyone's right, to comment on a bill in the manner which they feel is appropriate, to speak to the issue of a bill, to talk about what it means to them, to their constituents and to those people who have spoken to them in their offices, at Queen's Park and in their constituency.

This is a bill that was introduced on June 4 at 3:30 in the afternoon, and 90 minutes later, without any notice, the government tabled new rules, rules designed to stop debate, to ram this legislation through, to erode the democratic process of participation which has been the hallmark of this House since its inception. That's how important this bill has been to the government: not to listen, not to conduct any impact studies, to turn their heads and their faces and their minds away from anybody who has a concern. That's what this legislation, this bill, is about, and we're going to continue to bring those concerns as we proceed.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate? The honourable member for Waterloo North, and I want to remind the honourable member that with the new rules, in her opening statement she has 90 minutes.

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): As the Ontario Progressive Conservative critic for Labour, it's with pleasure that I speak today, at long last, to Bill 40.

Ontario has the most comprehensive labour legislation in North America. It also has a labour relations climate that is the envy of most North American jurisdictions, and it has a legislative record that reflects a real effort to balance the interests of employees and employers alike.

I believe that we need to continue to have fairness, equity and security in the workplace. I believe that a balance has to be maintained between the often opposing perspectives of labour and management, and that any legislation has to be weighed and assessed as to whether it will jeopardize the growth of the economy, on which ultimately the wellbeing and the job of the worker depend.

Unfortunately, in Bill 40, the government has not weighed the legislation and taken a look at the balance to determine the economic impact on the worker or the job. This government has never answered three simple questions. First, what will be the cost to the Ontario economy of these changes? Second, how much investment, and therefore future job creation, has been and will be lost because of Bill 40? Third, why are these radical and sweeping changes needed at all?

The government has continually refused to deal with these questions in a meaningful and measurable way, and this province now is left to gamble on the assurances that are being given by the Labour minister that there will not be a negative impact on investment and jobs.

Why has this government not conducted an economic impact study, which has been asked for by thousands and thousands of employees and workers in this province? At a time when people are looking for economic leadership, at a time when people are looking for jobs in this province, this government has made labour law reform its number one priority, and it has refused to conduct that economic impact study to determine how many jobs and how much investment to create new jobs may be lost if it proceeds with these proposals.

Unfortunately other studies, because the government refuses to do any of its own, show us that these changes are going to have a detrimental impact on Ontario's economy. Investment and job creation decision-makers are uniformly opposed to the proposals. The investment task force to the Premier's Council on Economic Renewal found that the proposed changes are a disincentive to business investment in Ontario and thus to the creation of any new jobs, which are so desperately needed for people in this province.

The 1992 Ernst and Young study showed that the government's reforms may cost Ontario about 300,000 jobs and $8 billion in lost investment. These reforms, which presuppose that job security can only come through trade union representation, fail to recognize that you can only have job security from customer satisfaction.

I ask again, why does this government continue to put down and ridicule all other economic impact studies and not conduct one of its own to disprove what's being said? This government, at a time when workers and management need more than ever to set aside their differences and work together to compete in the global economy, has polarized labour and management in its attempt to introduce labour law reform. They have created a crisis on the labour front where there was not one. Instead of throwing business and workers a lifeline in this very uncertain economy, this government has thrown business and workers in this province an anchor. Instead of working constructively with labour and management to earn jobs, to earn investment for the province, they have introduced reforms which will lead to greater turmoil and conflict in the workplace.

The government has attempted to make us believe that picket-line violence is a daily occurrence and that the collective bargaining process needs a major overhaul, when in fact -- and I think this is extremely important to note -- the days lost to major strikes in Ontario fell to a 16-year low in 1991; only 153 work stoppages from lockouts and strikes in 1991, versus 218 in 1990.

This government claims that every proposed change in the labour reform package is already in place in some other jurisdiction. That is not so. These proposals have been cherry-picked from different jurisdictions, whether it's in North America or in Europe. Some less extreme elements of this package have been enacted in one Canadian province or another. However, this massively pro-union-leader package is not in place anywhere and I'm going to address that issue at a later date.

1740

This government has told us that these provisions will create labour harmony and prosperity. They tell us that they have in other jurisdictions. They're very fond of quoting Quebec, whereas in Quebec laws stopping employers from using replacement workers were enacted in 1978. Why? Because of horrible picket line violence, bloody picket line violence and threats by union leaders that they would only stop the violence when the government gave into their demands for the anti-scab law.

Did you know that since 1978 Quebec has lost nearly one million more days to strikes than Ontario despite a substantially lower population base? They have about two thirds of the Ontario population. They also have a smaller workforce. Since 1978 Quebec has suffered 20% more strikes than Ontario. In the past five years unemployment rates in Quebec have been higher than Ontario's by over 50%. Investment in Quebec has also suffered compared to Ontario. In 1991 Ontario received approximately 75% more investment dollars than Quebec.

Moreover, what the NDP government in Ontario never mentions in regard to the Quebec labour law are the counterbalancing provisions. Unlike the Ontario proposal, Quebec's laws let supervisory workers from other plants replace strikers. Also, Quebec's laws require a vote from the workers before a strike can be called, unlike Ontario, where work can be stopped on a union leader's say-so. Yes, this government likes to quote Quebec and talk about harmony and great labour relations. However, it's obvious that they have lost more days than we have.

This government has claimed that changes are overdue, since the Ontario Labour Relations Act has not been amended in 15 years, when in fact several major amendments and many minor amendments have been made to the act since 1980. In 1983 professional strikebreakers were banned. In 1984 the provision on unlawful strikes was changed. In 1986 first-contract arbitration was introduced and the act was amended to bring it into line with the charter.

As well, such laws affecting labour relations as employment standards legislation, occupational health and safety legislation, workers' compensation, pay equity, wage protection fund, parental leave and human rights legislation have dramatically altered the climate in Ontario's workplaces over the past 15 years. Yes, many changes have been made to help workers since 1980.

Although the government claims there is a need for overhaul of the act, it has not been able to demonstrate that there is a need to reform the laws. As I said before, we already have the most progressive labour relations in North America. Two thirds of all applications for unionization are granted, unionizing an additional 23,000 employees a year, and 95% of collective agreements are reached without recourse to strikes.

No proper needs analysis uncovering problems with the existing act has ever been performed by this government. Why not? Why do they keep talking about the need for an overhaul but have not been able to demonstrate the reason why?

Public opinion polls show us that the overwhelming majority of people in this province do not want labour law reform. The push for reform is coming from the union leadership. Unfortunately, at no time has the government been able to identify verifiable labour problems that the bill is responding to. If you're going to draft good legislation, one of the principles you need to take into consideration is at the very least to be able to identify a verifiable problem and how you are responding to it. The government has not been able to do that at any time.

However, the polarization I talked about before and the adversarial atmosphere has been created because of the process the government used to introduce labour law reform. The minister spoke today about one of the objectives of the bill being to create peace and non-confrontation. Unfortunately, because of the process, we have only an adversarial atmosphere. It is that process that has created an uncertain economic climate in this province. It's the process that has contributed to lost investment in jobs. We've lost over 500,000 in the last 18 months and these losses are going to continue.

Ontario, long considered the business capital and the industrial engine of Canada, is for the first time in its history gaining a reputation as an area that is increasingly hostile to private enterprise. We are hearing from the Swiss, the Germans, the Japanese and the Americans that they have no interest in investing in Canada. If you have no new investment in Ontario, you have no new jobs at a time when people in this province are desperate for a job, yet the process that has been used by this government is contributing to lost investment and more lost jobs.

Instead of consensus-building in the highly sensitive area of labour relations and establishing a tripartite task force composed of equal numbers of business, labour and government representatives, bringing them together, asking them to review Ontario's labour relations system, asking them to identify problems with the system and making recommendations for constructive changes, this whole agenda has been shaped by proposals that were drafted by the Labour minister on behalf of trade unions.

Throughout the entire process, since March 1991, only one agenda has been used and all the participants have been forced to respond to that union leaders' agenda -- all the participants who participated in the so-called consultation process. The cooperative approach to establishing an agenda, to determining what needed to change within labour relations, all of this was sacrificed. There was no attempt for a cooperative approach to establishing an agenda. It was never used.

The creation of a task force would have allowed for a thorough economic impact analysis and, as I mentioned before, it's never been done. It would have improved the business climate in the province and it would have ensured that any reform stimulates investment and economic growth and therefore results in jobs; again jobs the taxpayers in this province are desperately seeking. Although the business community and individuals offered to work with the government in a trilateral consultation process with labour and develop changes to the OLRA, this government has been unwilling to bring the workplace partners together for any reasoned dialogue on this issue at all.

1750

Let's review the process that has contributed to the polarization between business and labour, the process that has contributed to the very adversarial atmosphere in this province and created such an uncertain economic climate. Let's take a look at the calendar of events.

We first heard in 1990, on November 20, in the throne speech that the government was committed to facilitating the right to organize. In 1991, on March 8, the labour law reform process began, in haste and in earnest, without any real consultation. It was at that time that the Minister of Labour appointed the labour law reform committee, unbeknownst to the opposition, chaired by Kevin Burkett, and it had three representatives of labour and three so-called representatives of business.

The committee was given the mandate to consider 30 changes that had been drafted by the Minister of Labour, 30 changes which were being considered to the Labour Relations Act. They were given only one month to report their findings. In April it was learned that the two sides could not come to an agreement on amending the act and they issued two separate reports. The business representatives argued that there was no need for change at this time. Labour of course endorsed the minister's 30-point wish list. In fact, they went beyond that. They proposed more than 60 other reforms. At this point the NDP government distanced itself from the document and suggested that more moderate proposals would follow.

What followed was the leaked cabinet submission. The leaked cabinet submission recommended 61 amendments to the act and outlined a communications strategy that had as its objective the "neutralizing of business opposition" to the proposed reforms. Again, what did the government do? They tried to distance themselves from the leaked cabinet document. They backpedalled and stated: "Well, the submission's not government policy. Consultation is going to take place on the discussion paper that has yet to be released. It's not going to be similar to this leaked document."

On November 7, the Minister of Labour released a discussion paper that included 41 preferred options for reform of the Labour Relations Act. Again they were basically the same 30 initiatives that had been drafted by the minister, plus the additional wish list he had received from the labour representatives.

On that same date, November 7, out of concern for individual workers, or if you want to call them employees, in this province I introduced a private member's bill, Bill 152, to amend the Labour Relations Act. It was going to require unions to hold secret ballot votes for certification of trade unions, ratification of collective agreements and the mandate to strike. This government was talking about fairness and preservation of basic human rights and freedoms, yet nowhere was it considering the right to a secret ballot vote.

In that same month, November, Project Economic Growth wrote the Premier and requested the establishment of a tripartite committee to examine the labour law proposals in the context of competitiveness. Do you know, to this day the Premier has never responded to the request of Project Economic Growth to establish a tripartite committee made up of government, labour and business.

Now let's look at 1992. We have the so-called consultation process. From January 8 to February 14, the Minister of Labour did go out. He went out on an 11-city tour of the province to consider and supposedly listen to public opinion on the preferred options paper. However, I have to tell you that many, many groups and individuals were excluded from the process

I also want to tell you that the document we now have before us, Bill 40, does not include one proposal from the business community. We still have the union-driven agenda that we saw on March 8. I guess that's why I have concerns about the supposed five weeks of consultation that are going to take place this summer. If we go through this exercise again, which appears to me as a public relations exercise, I hope that we will have true consultation, that we will incorporate and listen to the views of all people in this province, that the bill will be substantially amended and changed and that we will be responsive to people in this province.

I'm very concerned about the so-called consultation that has already taken place. On February 18, the NDP priority list was leaked. Labour law reform was listed as priority item 1. The commentary indicated "an urgency not to have debate on this item carry over into 1993." I guess they wanted to make sure that nobody would remember labour law reform come the next election.

On June 4 we had the introduction of Bill 40. We now know that we're going to have public hearings before a committee of the Legislature this summer. As I mentioned, we're probably going to have five weeks of hearings. I have to tell you again that I'm very concerned. If it's anything like the hearings on the wage protection fund -- we had many excellent presentations, many balanced presentations from both labour and business, yet in the case of the wage protection fund there was not one substantive change made to the legislation. There were a few cosmetic or housekeeping changes.

I really question the cost of travelling throughout this province, paying people to serve on committees, if you're not going to make any substantive changes to legislation. I hope the government will make some very substantive changes on Bill 40. I hope the government, before this process is ended, will conduct an economic impact study of this bill to determine whether or not there will be job loss and investment loss in this province.

We know there's going to be third reading debate in the fall. As I indicated, the government wants the law to be in place before the end of this year. This, then, is the chronology of events of labour law reform.

The Acting Speaker: I want to remind the honourable member for Waterloo North that when Bill 40 is next debated, she will have the floor and will be able to complete the time allotment. It now being 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 1:30 of the clock.

The House adjourned at 1800.