[Report continued from volume A]

1805

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

Continuing the debate on the motion for 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 Phillips: I'm pleased to have the chance to join in the debate on Bill 40. I want to start to talk about the process we're following here because, while the members of the government may say they want legitimate debate on this bill, I say to them and to the public that your attempt to gag the opposition last week is a classic example of a government that doesn't want to hear.

As a matter of fact, Mr Speaker, you will know that this bill has to be one of the most sweeping changes to the Ontario Labour Relations Act ever made, perhaps the most sweeping. There are, at last count, 32 substantive amendments, major amendments to the Ontario Labour Relations Act in this bill. We in the opposition want, need and will demand an opportunity to let our views be known about this bill, to get our thoughts on the record.

I hope the people who are watching this realize that last week we had here in the Legislature a total for all three parties of, I think, six hours of debate on this bill. We in the official opposition had a total of three speakers. That's all who were allowed to speak on it. Then a motion was brought in to cut off debate on it. When one sees that on something that is going to fundamentally change the workplace in this province and fundamentally going to change the economy -- and we have substantially different views on whether that will be a positive change or a negative change, but all agree it is going to substantially change it -- for the government to say to the opposition, "You're finished. You can't talk about this any more. We are demanding what we all know is called approval at second reading, which is agreement in principle from the Legislature," it is demanding that after only three of our members have had an opportunity to speak. I believe on the Conservative side two members had an opportunity to speak.

I hope those who are watching this can appreciate that we in the opposition say the government doesn't want to hear a different view on this. They want to ram this bill through because they know that as opposition members have a chance to express their views on it and say, "Listen, there are shortcomings in this bill," opposition will mount. They want to cut off the opposition. That's why last week -- and I hope the people of Ontario understand why -- there was a blowup here in the Legislature. We simply would not stand for termination of debate on a bill that's important.

We got some additional time to debate it -- that's what's happening now -- but it was only as a result of an enormous amount of anger that we were able to force that additional debate. That's a signal to the people of Ontario that the government doesn't want to hear debate on it. The government has said, "Listen, there is substantial involvement already by the public in this bill." Well, the Legislature's now had seven hours to debate on it. We haven't had a say on this bill. Finally we're beginning to have our voice heard.

The previous speaker talked about a campaign of terror. I say to the government that just because someone disagrees with you, and just because he may disagree with you strongly, doesn't mean he's conducting a campaign of terror. But somehow or other we see a government that doesn't want to hear dissent.

I really was upset when we all saw the document called "Dear Friend" of the New Democrats on New Democratic letterhead, written by Jill Marzetti, the chief executive officer of the Ontario New Democratic Party, attacking virtually every business in the province and essentially saying that, "Working arm in arm with the NCC are several big business lobbies who also want to stop all our positive changes dead." Again on process, to tar every business with the same brush is indicative of a government, I think, that's in a siege mentality and that sees this society as friends and enemies and has to go after the enemies.

It says here things like this: "The All-Business Coalition -- representing 42 major business associations. Its members include firms like Eaton's, notorious for its hostility to working people." In the list of the members of the All Business Coalition we find tremendously well-meaning, tremendously successful organizations who are contributing to the life of the province: the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto, the Council of Ontario Construction Associations, the Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association, the Canadian Association of Man-made Mineral Fibre Manufacturers. There's a full page here of associations and to tar all of them as wanting to stop all positive changes dead.

The More Jobs Coalition was also attacked by the NDP. It says the "lobbyists for 85 corporate giants doing over $40 billion in business a year." In the More Jobs Coalition membership is Consumers' Gas -- and for those of you who know Consumers' Gas, it's one of the really good corporate citizens of this province. Time and again I see it involved in corporate charitable activities -- the Keeprite organization, George Weston Ltd. For your information, Mr Speaker, last week when the employment equity legislation was announced here in the Legislature, one of the George Weston companies sat in the gallery and was supportive of the government, participated in it. I think it was the president of National Grocers, part of George Weston Ltd. But no, they're the enemies of the state and want to stop all positive changes dead.

Then the letter goes on to "Project Economic Growth -- the biggest lobby of them all. It works closely with master manipulator Hill and Knowlton Inc, the world's largest public relation firms." I believe the Premier's senior communications person, Mr John Piper, came directly from Hill and Knowlton to the Premier's office and is sitting, I think, at deputy minister status and a very senior adviser to the Premier. Hill and Knowlton is a highly respected organization. If you go through the list of the companies and Project Economic Growth -- the Premier today got up and talked about the announcement made by General Motors in Oshawa, and a welcome announcement for all of us. Who's a member of Project Economic Growth but General Motors? IBM -- the Premier talks often about the IBM training centre. They're a member of Project Economic Growth. The Premier talks about the Ford Motor Co's investment in Ontario. They're a member of Project Economic Growth.

The reason I raise this is that there's a very dangerous style creeping into this government: you're either with us or you're against us; we're not going to sit still for opposition; the campaign of terror for companies that choose to express their concern about it. To try to stop the opposition after a total of six hours' debate on this major bill is indicative of a government that's frightened of dissent. I would say to the back bench, to the members -- the cabinet I understand, but the back bench -- you've really got to start standing up in caucus and saying: "I didn't come here to run this kind of government. I came here to hear legitimate dissent. I may not agree with it, but at least I'm prepared to listen to it."

We're concerned about process. We're also concerned about content. If you read the summary -- as I know you have and I think all members have -- of changes to the Labour Relations Act reform, I've added it up and there are 32 major amendments being proposed here. I say to you, Mr Speaker, that normally when you have had a climate of relatively good labour relations in a jurisdiction -- and the labour movement, I think, would be the first to acknowledge it. Certainly when I was Minister of Labour the OFL would say, "Listen, Ontario has had and enjoys a relatively good climate of labour relations."

When you have that kind of climate of labour relations and you are looking at amendments to an act -- and there are 32 major amendments -- you would think, "Well, there'll be a balanced set of amendments; there'll be some that will be seen to be and will in fact be more for the employees' side of the bargain and there'll be some that the employers' side of the bargain would want to see improved." None of these 32 amendments reflect the concerns of the employers' side of the bargain. They all reflect the concerns of the employees' side, of the union side.

So you're left to ask yourself a question: Why is it all one-sided? When you question why the business community is upset, it's for that reason. It's because those 32 amendments represent a substantial shift in the relationship between the two parties, a substantial strengthening of one partner and therefore a substantial weakening of the other.

Mr Speaker, you saw on Friday the unemployment numbers in the province of Ontario. They were shocking. The Premier today in question period tried to put a sugar coating on them, but for any objective viewer they were shocking. Youth unemployment now is well over 20%, just as we feared it would be. We on this side of the House have been saying for the last 18 months that we've got to get on with something for our young people, not just our students but our young people -- well over 20%. I might add that if you look at the real numbers, it's much closer to 25%, because there's a lot who have dropped right out of the labour force. The unemployment number for the total province was 11%.

In his budget the Treasurer said, Mr Speaker, as I know you're aware: "Listen, spring is when the recession will end. We are going to see, year over year, an increase in numbers of jobs. Housing will begin to pick up. Spring is when we're going to see the end of the recession." It's in the budget here. I know I've quoted them in the past and you're familiar with them, but there we saw them, the June numbers, and rather than unemployment dropping and the improvement that we'd all been expecting, the unemployment rate went up.

I will guarantee you that by proceeding with this bill in this form you are almost challenging a battle. There is going to be a battle. The business community says, and I understand its feelings: "This is the most lopsided set of amendments imaginable. For us and in terms of our being able to successfully run our businesses in order to create the kind of climate we want in the province, this is a serious move by the government. We have to fight that."

I don't know how they'll do that. They may in fact have said, "Listen, we don't know how to get through to this government." I don't know that. They may just say, "We quit; we just can't get them to change their mind." They've been trying for a year to get them to change their mind and they won't. But I will say that at the very point in time when we need business, we need labour, we need the government, we need the opposition and we need the community pulling together, this is going to be divisive, for the business community says, "Listen, you talk about partnerships, Premier, and you say you want us to work with you, but on the most tangible evidence of your commitment to partnership you haven't listened and you are introducing a bill that we believe will dramatically change the relationship between ourselves and our employees." How can you expect that kind of partnership to develop?

I will say to the government members that as we go through the next months and years I will hold the government accountable for an awful lot of the employment problems that I'm afraid we're going to see ahead. Believe me, and I said this in the Legislature about a year ago, what I had fully expected we would see by now would have been a program jointly announced by the government, the labour community and the business community, a job creation program.

1820

You are cutting the business community out of that program, because how can it be a partner with you when, on something this fundamental that it has begged you to look at and redress, you say it's full steam ahead? I hope I'm wrong, but my bet is that most people in the business community would say partnership is only a one-sided partnership when you're dealing with the NDP government.

I suppose we shouldn't be surprised when we see this bill. When you cut right through to it, I think the government perhaps would save itself a lot of grief by just acknowledging that for the labour movement and for the union organization in this province this is an important, almost essential bill. It will do more to build union membership in the province than anything imaginable. There's no question of that. It makes it far easier to organize and certify unions. There's zero question of that. Once you have a union, it makes it far easier to win a strike or to get substantial concessions in the contract with the threat of a strike. There's no doubt about that. There's no doubt that the role of the Ontario Labour Relations Board tilts far more in favour of the unions than it does currently.

There's no question all those elements are in the bill, and there's no question in my mind that Bob Rae, as we all know, has been fundamentally supported by the union movement in the province. They have been perhaps the most consistent supporters financially. I dare say I suspect a third of the NDP caucus probably comes directly out of the union movement, so we shouldn't be surprised that Bob Rae --

Mr Mark Morrow (Wentworth East): What's wrong with it?

Mr Phillips: There's absolutely nothing wrong with it. A member said, "What's wrong with it?" Absolutely nothing. My father was a lithographer. He worked for Wright Lithographing in London. He was in the lithographers' union from, I suspect, when he was 14 and started work until -- he was with the same firm, worked in the same building and was in the same union his whole life. The union served him well. So there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. I, during my working days, was also a member of the union. Nothing wrong with it at all. But I just think we should be honest with ourselves. This is a payoff. It's a commitment that Rae made to the unions. I understand that.

It was for many of us a bit surprising because we never really actually saw this proposal in the Agenda for People. The thing I ran into during the campaign everywhere I went was -- this was waved in my face: "Why don't the Liberals do these things? The NDP can do all of these things. Why can't you?" I'd say to them: "Listen, that costs a lot of money. Nothing I'd like more than to promise those sorts of things, but I can't deliver those things. So you should recognize that you're not going to, with us, get that, and if you want to vote for the NDP because they'll deliver all those things to you, fine." But there's nothing in this Agenda for People; there isn't a word in here about the major reforms, the major changes to the Ontario Labour Relations Act.

In fact, I went through the speech from the throne to see when we were first tipped off about this agenda to completely revamp the Ontario Labour Relations Act. The only record I can find is in the speech from the throne -- you will recall this, Mr Speaker -- on November 20, 1990. This is what got them elected, and this is what said to the people of Ontario what they're going to do. They said one line here, that I could find, on page 6: "For this reason, we will ensure that workers can freely exercise their right to organize."

There is nothing in here about 32 major amendments, nothing in here about the most sweeping change to the Labour Relations Act ever, nothing in the Agenda for People, not a word. That was their platform they got elected on, and virtually nothing to tip us off on what they had planned from the speech from the throne.

Then I guess the first tipoff we got was when the Minister of Labour got the two groups together, people on the management side and people on the employee side, and said, "Take a look at the Labour Relations Act." What we saw from that, as you know, Mr Speaker, was that the union movement brought forward an enormous package of changes and the employer community outlined some changes. Then we saw the proposals that were laid out and it was the labour agenda. There wasn't this balance of "Let's get the two groups together and see how we can improve them." It was one agenda laid out there. The backoff, the changes to the bill from that discussion paper, were relatively minor and relatively tinkering with the act.

So now we've got this bill with 32 amendments, as I said, all of them leaning towards the union side, and we have a very dramatic change coming in the whole labour relations in the province.

Tragically, I see I only have seven minutes left, and I've got so much more I'd like to say. But the new rules say that even if you're desperately interested in this thing you can't talk for more than 30 minutes.

I think it's important to recognize this fits in part --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The honourable member for Scarborough-Agincourt has the floor, and there is time allocation, so please allow him the opportunity.

Mr Phillips: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I appreciate your assistance there.

The next point I want to make is that I think we have to recognize how this fits into the rest of Bob Rae's NDP agenda. In my opinion the OFL has done a fabulous job. Frankly, they have as a good a research group as you will find anywhere; they really do. But it is they who have written the government's economic agenda.

Unfortunately, for some reason or other the economic agenda seems to be stalled. But I look at the Labour Relations Act amendments as part of a bigger package. The health and safety agency was originally set up with a non-voting, neutral chair, with labour on one side and business on the other side. Now I gather the non-voting, neutral chair is gone and is no more and it is now just a battle pitched between the employer section and the labour section.

The second area is called the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board. I've been waiting for the legislation on this to come in, because the Premier promised we would see the legislation on that now. The reason I raised it is because the proposal is that this independent, arm's-length body with a budget of over $2 billion will be set up like the Workers' Compensation Board -- independent, arm's length to make all its own decisions -- and it will be a bipartite board: business and labour. I've been waiting for that to come forward and I don't see it as yet.

The worker ownership bill, where the only organizations to get around the venture capital are the unions: I wonder if they are going to try to move the Workers' Compensation Board to a bipartite agency. I see they now have a vice-chair of labour and a vice-chair of business and now these OLRA amendments.

The reason I raise all that is that as we look ahead at our economy -- the Premier said his number one priority was to create jobs in the province -- as we look at an agenda that I don't think is balanced, an agenda that I don't think represents all the people of this province, one has to be concerned.

1830

I might now move on to some of the areas of the bill that in my opinion require a lot more debate and I would have hoped improvement, although now my honest opinion is that this is it. There will be four or five cosmetic amendments. We listened to the concerns out there and when we're back here dealing with this bill on third reading there will be four or five more cosmetic changes. In fact, I would think the Ontario Federation of Labour has already been pre-sold. They said: "Listen, we've got to show some flexibility here. What can you live with?" They're already ready to make those amendments, so I think what we're looking at here is a fait accompli; tragic, but that's simply the way it appears.

Having said that, what are some of the concerns? I've already expressed our concern about changing the purpose of the Ontario Labour Relations Board, directing it in a way that is far less neutral than it currently is. We've expressed and the Labour critics expressed our concern about the whole replacement worker issue. I know this is a big, big victory for Minister Mackenzie. He spent his whole life here trying to get rid of replacement workers.

But as you look at businesses whose very lives depend on their ability to continue to provide at least some product during a strike -- I'm thinking now, what's the engine that drives Ontario? It's the automotive sector. What's the engine that drives our economy? It's the automotive sector. What's the byword in the automotive sector now? As we all know, it's just-in-time delivery. What we're going to do with this bill is to guarantee that a company that has a contract to supply the auto sector, and has to have some assurance of being able to supply that during a labour dispute, won't be able to. I think we're signing away much of our future auto industry. It won't happen overnight; they've got too much money invested in it. But if you want to supply the Saturn plant, you'd better have some way of ensuring a continuous supply.

You talk about eliminating violence on the picket line. I guarantee you that there will continue to be violence on the picket line, because now, rather than replacement workers, you're going to say to somebody, "You don't have to cross that picket line." The company is going to say, the management is going to say: "Listen, you're not in the bargaining unit. We need you inside. We need some help keeping the company going." Now that I have the legal right to not cross that picket line, I am going to be in a horrible dilemma. So rather than minimize or eliminate violence on the picket line, our concern is you may see the opposite.

We're now unfortunately down to only 30 seconds. I had much more I wanted to say. I wanted to talk about some more of the content of the bill. I wanted to talk about the process and how we feel we've been manipulated in this process, how we've had so little time to debate and, frankly, why we are so cynical about the government's intention through the next process. I believe the witnesses have already been lined up. The charade will continue. We will be back here in the fall with the government having exactly what it wanted.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): Questions and/or comments?

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I'm pleased to add a few thoughts on the member's comments as a former Minister of Labour. I probably disagree on a whole host of issues, but when he kicked it off and said the big thing he was concerned about is the process, for me also the big problem is the process. What the government did, quite frankly, was handle it just like a negotiation. They threw 58 proposals on the table, took 22 off and said, "There you go." There wasn't one proposal that came in from the other side. Not one proposal from the general public had come in. Their idea of negotiation is taking things off the table and listening to the other side. That's why we offered some constructive alternatives.

The secret ballot for certification: Who could be against that? Businesses said, "We'd like to see it." The general public said, "We'd like to see it." I don't always like what happens in elections. I didn't like what happened in September 1990, with the government elected, although I was pretty pleased with what happened in Oakville South. Through the democratic process, through the secret ballot, the true wishes of the people are heard. That's what we are asking for in the secret ballot provisions.

What the people on the other side forget about is that when a union is organizing, it will say and do anything to people. When they're lining up people, they will make promises. The member from Scarborough talked about how women are intimated. They're intimidated because when unions are organized they don't even tell them what they're doing, "Sign this; we're going to get you more money." Through a secret ballot process there would be no intimidation from either side. That's why we on this side can't see why -- through secret ballot, through the certification process, the person could go in and the true wishes of the people will be heard. What could be fairer than that?

One stinking, lousy proposal we asked from the other side: They wouldn't do it. That's why people are cynical about this Minister of Labour and this government.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments?

Mr David Winninger (London South): I'm a little concerned with some of the narrow-minded, blinkered, alarmist statements made by the member for Scarborough-Agincourt and I'd like to indicate to the House just why.

London is very fortunate. The recent statistics published by Statistics Canada show that in the month of June, London had the lowest unemployment rate in all of Ontario and the third lowest unemployment rate of any municipality across Canada: 8.2%. I'm a little concerned that the alarmist statements by the member for Scarborough-Agincourt are going to drive away the kind of necessary investment that creates those jobs in London, in my riding of London South and also in Ontario.

For example, we in London were pleased to hear just late last week that a German company, Dimona, which manufactures small passenger aircraft, is investing in the London area, taking over a plant, training a workforce and will produce small passenger aircraft in London, which will create hundreds of jobs directly and hundreds more jobs indirectly through the spinoff in the London market. When the member for Scarborough-Agincourt stands in his place and suggests that our modest and much-needed reforms to the Labour Relations Act are going to drive away investment, I say that the member himself, through his alarmist, hysterical statements, is driving away the necessary investment.

A German company can well understand the harmonious labour relations this kind of legislation can create. Certainly we're not deterring investment here. We're attracting investment because a German company has found that the OLRA poses no challenge for it.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments?

Mr Cordiano: I want to comment on the comments that have been laid before us by the member for London South with regard to what my colleague said earlier. Let me just say this to the member: He gives the opposition parties much too much credit with respect to the influence we may have regarding investment decisions made around the world with respect to Ontario. I don't believe for a moment that opposition parties can effect this.

It's not the opposition parties that are saying this. We're hearing this from people all across the province and around the world. They are concerned about this legislation. We are not saying this ourselves. We happen to agree with some of the comments that are being made, but we're simply reporting to the government what we've been hearing repeatedly from a vast array of people out there. It's not just from entrepreneurs, management and business people; it's from the very people you claim to be helping, who are concerned about their jobs, who are concerned that there may not be a positive climate for further growth in this province, for job creation. Those are very real concerns.

What we're trying to make this government understand, as my colleague the member for Scarborough-Agincourt so eloquently put it, is that there are a variety of areas which could be improved in this legislation. He was also pointing out that the process leaves much to be desired and that the opposition has been shut off from voicing our legitimate concerns over the areas of the bill that we feel need to be changed.

That's what I say to the member. It's not alarmist, but we are raising concerns that are legitimate.

1840

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments?

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I'm very pleased to rise in response to the member for Scarborough-Agincourt and to make a few very brief comments.

I hope to speak later on in the evening, so I won't get into too many issues, but I felt it was a very interesting speech, a very enlightening speech. For a member of his stature to be giving a speech in this House for only 30 minutes, I wish and regret -- it would have been much better had he been able to speak much longer on this bill and to get into the 32 different amendments in this bill.

For the member for London South to suggest that the impact of one dissenting voice against this government's radical proposal for the labour legislation is even marginally equivalent to the damaging effect on investment in this province as a result of this government's action and the general thrust of this legislation, compounded on top of all the other anti-business pieces of legislation, taxes and regulation that have been coming forward from this government, the high deficit that guarantees higher taxes in the future, that statement was absolutely preposterous.

It shows once again that the government is very concerned. They feel cornered, I think. They know there is no support beyond their own traditional trade union constituency for this sort of legislation. They feel very frustrated and you see authoritarian instincts coming forward. They say that there should be no debate, that there should be no discussion. We are concerned. They're opposed to anybody who has any dissenting voice on this issue, and it's cause for great concern.

Anyway, I look forward to speaking on this later tonight. I wish I had more than half an hour.

The Acting Speaker: Two more minutes for response, the honourable member for Scarborough-Agincourt.

Mr Phillips: The member for London South reinforced the point I made earlier, and that is, you're trying to stifle debate. If we in the opposition raise legitimate concerns, you say we're alarmist. What in the world is going on with the government? Can we not raise legitimate concerns without being alarmist?

I would say to the members opposite, the members of the government, "Go out and talk to the business community in your area and find me some business people who support what you're doing." They must be out there, if it's so good, if this is going to develop a partnership. "Then come and tell us about that." I have yet to see one business person or one business organization. They must be out there.

As for the investment, this is what worries me. I look at the plants that are closing in this province, one every two days. I would say to the members opposite, the members of the government, that 70% of the jobs that are lost through plant closures are union jobs. What does that mean? It means that union or non-union is no protection against the problems of the economy. That's why we've been urging the government to get on to what the Premier said was his number one agenda: creating jobs.

This legislation coming at this time couldn't be worse, so when the member -- I'm glad there's a factory opening in London, because I have page after page of factories closing. The Premier has said the economy is turning around, yet we don't see it.

So I'm not alarmist. I'm trying as best I can to raise the concerns with the government. The real issue is jobs, and this is going to cost jobs; no question about it.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Carr: I spent the weekend looking through some of my notes and deciding what to say and I think I'll take most of the time speaking on behalf of my constituents. We are limited to a half-hour. I had to cut it down somewhat, so I picked out some of the ones I felt were most appropriate.

I think it would be interesting to tell the members what my background is as a member of a union. I was a member of the Teamsters union. I was also in management dealing with the Teamsters. I've been in non-union companies and unionized companies. I've been with well-managed companies and poorly managed companies. Of course I also spent some time playing hockey with the players' association, where we had what we also consider a union with the players' association.

I want to get into some of the discussions on what I think we should be doing, but time will limit that today. I want to talk a little bit about the major concerns.

Number one is the process. As I said earlier in some of the comments, what the government did is handle it similar to a labour negotiation. They threw 58 proposals on the table, took 22 off and said, "There you go; that's our position." There wasn't one, not one lousy proposal from the general public or from any of the business groups. That's why, as I said earlier, we introduced some of the processes, some of the certification votes through secret ballot, as a process to give the government some alternatives to add, but out of all the proposals they put together, not one, not one stinking lousy proposal, came from any of the business groups or any of the discussions during that hearing, and that's why people are cynical.

I'm going to give the government a little bit of an idea of what it should have done. With the environmental bill of rights, when they put the business groups and the labour groups and environmentalists together, they came out with a compromise where they worked it out without the bitter fighting that goes on. The process they used then -- we could argue what happens after that and we could get into the dumps issue and how Bill 143 isn't really what was in the environmental bill of rights, but let's just talk about process.

If they had done that, and that's really all the business groups were asking the public, the average person out there, to get together with the groups and discuss it like they did with the environmental bill of rights, where they got together before it became a bill and agreed on it, you wouldn't have had all these problems. You wouldn't have the billboards up there, because there would have been agreement. There would've been give and take. Both sides would've said, "Yes, this is our big priority," "This is ours," and there would have been give and take.

The reason this whole -- I want to use the word "shemozzle" -- was created was because of the way the government operated. In BC the socialist government isn't handling it that way. They didn't handle it that way.

The Minister of Labour is leaving. I really believe one of the big problems with this is that because the Labour minister was experienced, they said: "Well, we'll leave it to him. We've got all these other problems in the other areas, but he's been around here 20-odd years. We'll let him run with it." I think that's what destroyed the process. If we'd done like we did with the environmental bill of rights, to try and get both sides together for give and take, there wouldn't have been these problems. So I'm a little bit concerned about the process.

I'm also concerned about what happened during the debates going back, and we all remember the Burkett report, when that came out, and the leaked document saying, "How are we going to blunt the opposition?" We started off on the wrong foot with that, because the Premier and the advisers and all the people went around and said: "Don't worry. When the discussion paper comes out, it's going to be radically changed. Tone it down. Don't be so excited."

What happened of course is that when the discussion paper came out it was every bit as bad as they'd feared and they felt let down because they'd been told: "Don't worry. We're going to work with you. We're going to try and change things."

Of course the real discouraging part is that they got the commitments from the Premier himself. The groups you're so hostile to said, "Okay, fine, the discussion paper is out." Again they went to the government and to the Premier's office, and they said to the groups: "Don't worry. That's a discussion paper. Our unions are furious with us. We're really going to back down and you're going to love it." Then of course when it came out and there were no substantial changes, they felt let down.

Most of the groups I talked to, through Project Economic Growth, More Jobs Coalition and the All Business Coalition, said, "If they'd been upfront and honest in the beginning and told us, we wouldn't have had as many problems." They feel let down, even to the process now. They are saying to the groups: "Well, don't worry. We're going to have hearings in the summer, so there may be some more changes." That's why we're so cynical about the process.

1850

I say if you'd handled it like you did the environmental bill of rights, that's all the government should have been able to do. Business groups say all we want is a tripartite commission, "We will put it together," and many of the groups on the other side -- the government said, "Well, all you're trying to do is slow down the process." With the environmental bill of rights you still ended up getting one. You still ended up getting agreement with all the acrimony that's gone out there.

This agreement now has soured relations for everything else. For the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, for any Workers' Compensation Board changes, for tax changes, they've soured the process. I'm a little bit discouraged about the whole process and I think if the government learns anything from this, hopefully it will learn next time not to handle it this way.

As I was going through last night, I think that's why we offered some concrete proposals, the secret ballot on the certification process. I've been in unions and I know the techniques that were used. Originally what happened is the business groups had all the power. You couldn't organize because the threats were there. The business that was going to be organized would put all the intimidation on the employees.

The bill was changed and the rules were changed so that if a business interferes, the penalty is automatic certification. What any $250-an-hour labour lawyer will tell any business during a certification process is to stay out of it. It's better to take a chance with the workers than to get involved and have automatic certification.

On the one hand, the businesses haven't been able to intimidate, but when it comes to unions, they can say and do anything during the certification process. Quite often what they will do is say to somebody -- and the member from Scarborough talked about some of the minority groups that maybe don't speak English -- "Here, sign this, we're just going to get you more money." They don't know what they're signing.

There will be no petitions to get out of it; there'll be no way to back out of it. As we said earlier, even when you have a door-to-door vacuum cleaner salesman come to you, there are provisions that allow you to get out of it if you have a sober second thought. Not with this bill. Once they've signed the certification process, that's it.

Those are a couple of the things we attempted to do and to make proposals, because the government said it was listening. Of all the changes that were introduced and contemplated, I picked out one quote that I want to read. It's from Lory Fairfield, who works at Placer Dome. I want to read this comment because of all the ones I went through, and I tried to scale them down, I think this one said it better than anything else.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Which Placer Dome?

Mr Carr: Placer Dome Inc. "Everywhere else in the world good management means achieving things like employee empowerment, not union empowerment; direct employee-employer communications, not restrictions on what managers can say; self-managed work teams, not adversarial negotiating committees; pursuit of excellence, not pattern bargaining, and more competitiveness and quality, not more strikes and picketing."

He closes by saying: "Not apparently in Ontario. In Ontario it seems there will be gross restrictions not just on management's right to manage well, but on its right to manage at all. Hasn't the Ontario government learned anything from the worldwide analysis of what successful businesses are doing?"

I think that sums it up better than a lot of the people that sent in some of the replies, because that's what some of the groups are saying, average citizens out there. I look at the poll that came in, and of course there's been a lot of debate about what the job losses will be. We've heard anywhere from 250,000 to 500,000 jobs will be lost, anywhere from $8 billion to $12 billion. To put that in perspective for people out there, a quarter of million jobs, 250,000, is what we've lost in this recession right now. So it would be like taking the recession and adding to it if those job loss figures are correct.

Of course, as has been pointed out, the government says, "We don't believe those statistics and we very conveniently don't provide our own," which would lead one to say, very simply, "Why not?" There are two alternatives: one, they don't want to do them because they're afraid of the results; two, they have done them -- and with a piece of legislation that's been debated and talked about as much as this I would think they would have done some job studies -- and they don't want to release them because they know what they are.

What the job losses will be -- 300,000, 200,000, 100,000 -- no one will know. All we know is that it will have a major impact. This group across the other side continues to say to the business groups that they're only out to get them. Well, I want to tell you, from my critic's position talking to industry and businesses, they say, "Gary, we don't want to come out against the government."

I spoke to a Japanese company of 1,000 employees. They said, "We don't like to slam the government and we'll tell you privately that when Japanese companies call us -- and it's not only Japanese. West German companies call us, companies from France -- we tell them, 'Don't come to Ontario with this legislation.'" They don't come out and say it, but they say: "Gary, behind closed doors we'll tell you that, but we're afraid of the repercussions from the government. We're afraid of what they will be saying."

The same with the West German bankers I met with. They stand up and they tell us, "Gary, with all the amount of investment that could be done in the world" --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Carr: We've got West German banks that are saying, "Obviously we're going to pump a lot of money into East Germany for obvious reasons" --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: I'd like to remind the House that the honourable member for Oakville South has the floor and no interjections are needed at this point in time. Order, please.

Mr Carr: When you speak to the German banks they say, "Obviously we're putting money into East Germany for obvious reasons, but we're telling people and our clients, 'Don't invest in the province of Ontario. You've got a 20% to 50% tax advantage. You've got'" -- and they go through the list. They talk about all the things that are here, right from the workers' compensation and the unfunded liability.

They're saying, "Gary, we don't like to come out and slam the government, but we want you to know, and we know that you're fighting this piece of legislation, that we're telling people, 'Don't come to the province of Ontario.'" Of course the other side would say you're not supposed to say that. Let it come through and the job losses.

The sad part is the businesses that will close down as a result of this. The employees are going to be the last ones to know. They should know up front clearly what these provisions will be. That would be fair, so that the employees out there, union and non-union, will be able to make a fair decision on what they would like to see and have their input.

Of course the government accuses us of scaring them. Every time one of the ministers gets up and speaks, I would submit to you, Mr Speaker, that does more to scare investments in the province of Ontario than anything the opposition parties can do.

I'm going to start by reading some of the replies that are there and I would like to get into some of the debate, but I want the minister to hear from some of the people of the province. Before that I'll very quickly tell you what our position is. We made it very clear. We believe these provisions will cause job losses. We said to a lot of the workers out there who will lose their jobs and to the businesses out there and to the general public, when we form the government in 1995, we will take out a lot of the provisions in there that are creating so many problems.

I contrast that with the Liberal Party. On Saturday night I watched the Liberal leader on there and she said that now is not the time. But we want very clearly the people who are thinking about leaving to know that if they can just hang on -- we all know this government was elected as an anti-government. Most people who voted for them never thought they were going to be elected and thought they were registering a protest vote. If you could just hang on, provisions like this and all the other things that are driving businesses away will be addressed by government in 1995. We want to say very clearly to those workers, "If you can survive" -- and hopefully there'll be some left.

It's ironic that a government that says if you bring in this provision, all the problems in the world will go away and we'll have job security. The fact of the matter is that under this socialist government we've had more job losses than any other government in the history of this province or any other government right across Canada. Some 260,000 jobs have been lost. This has been an Ontario-led recession. In Ontario we have 40% of the jobs. During this recession we've lost 80% of the jobs.

Then they say: "Talk to us. We've got this great plan. This is going to be our plan, Bill 40. This is going to solve all the problems, because what we're talking about is cooperation." I will say to the Labour minister, who's here, and some of the other people, the Bob Whites who are advocating this, they can say a lot of things about those people, but one of the things they have not said about this Labour minister is that he cooperates. He has built a history on adversarial, confrontational approaches, yet now he says we need cooperation.

What happens is that when the polls are read, most people, whether union or non-union, business, labour, all realize there needs to be better cooperation. If we had some time I would like to have gone into some of the experiences I had with the Teamsters union, both dealing with it on the side of management and being on the other side, and talk about some of them. We won't have time to do that.

But the problem is that the cooperation is because the polls tell them that that's what the public wants out there. Then they say the way to do it is to listen to Bob Mackenzie and Bob White because they're the ones who cooperate. The public had better be very leery, because there has been no cooperation, even in the process that has been set up to deal with this. That's why the people have been a little bit cynical and sceptical.

1900

I'm going to read some of the comments. One of the ones I'm going to read is by a lady, Jackie Cudmore. She was a local councillor in the town of Oakville, and she says, and I'll just pull out some of the quotes, "Ontario businesses are continually being bombarded by government legislation that is good for everyone except for the business person." She goes on to talk about "the 150,000 employees who have lost their jobs in the greater Toronto area during this period. Bankruptcies have reached an all-time high. Welfare rolls have topped their budgets."

She goes on to say, "Employee and employer relations have finally developed to the point where employees are given responsibility within the company to encourage ownership of the services and product they produce." The fact of the matter is the companies that are folding up, the poorly managed companies, whether they be union or non-union, the ones that are going out of business, are the ones that don't realize employees are the best asset. The ones that do, and the good companies that realize that, are the ones that are surviving. That's what's happening in the modern management practices out there. But to say that in order to have good relations you need to be unionized, which is what this bill says, quite frankly is wrong.

She goes on to say: "The autonomy of business should not be challenged. This will encourage investors to move out of Ontario, choosing alternatives such as the western provinces and the United States. It's time for the Ontario government to heed the concerns of business. Unemployment figures are already above expectations. Do not assist their growth by threatening the jobs that will be lost when businesses can no longer exist because of this government's intervention." She goes on to close and say, "Do not further threaten the economic stability of the province of Ontario."

On the weekend as I went through and read some of these comments, it was some of the most depressing reading that one would want to do, with the anger that comes out in people over this legislation. When you go through the bills and the provisions here, what this bill has done is confirm the worst fears, that the NDP, which gets the source of its funding from the big unions and from the union bosses, has said very clearly: "We can't turn them down. They're the ones that pay the bills for us, so we're going to implement their strategy and their ideas."

If they were truly consulting with the people, they would have taken at least one proposal from the general public, from the discussions or from some of the business groups that were out there; they didn't take one. That's what leads us to believe that all they care about are the big union bosses that support the NDP in an election campaign.

They go on to say that this piece of legislation is in this jurisdiction and this one is in that. The fact of the matter is that what they've done is taken the best, they've cherry-picked the best from this jurisdiction and the best from that jurisdiction, and it's the cumulative effect that is killing Ontario. I submit to you it isn't only the cumulative effect of this bill, but it's the cumulative effect of all the other things: the high taxation, the Workers' Compensation Board, the employer health payroll tax, taxes 20% to 50% higher in Ontario.

This government comes out and is proud to say that we have the toughest employment equity, that we've got the toughest labour legislation, that we've got the toughest environmental legislation, the toughest health and worker safety. So they layer all these things on and then they wonder why nobody invests in Ontario and we're losing jobs at an alarming rate. That's why in the polls the general public say they are opposed to them, because the provisions will kill jobs. This is what this legislation is all about.

It's interesting to think that the provisions for easier certification are going to allow for more unions to be involved in Ontario. The fact of the matter is the polls say that of the people not in a union right now, when asked the open-ended question, "Would you like to be part of a union?" 73% of them say no. So easier provisions are not going to allow for this great union drive; we're virtually now at about 38%.

The fact of the matter is, in an open-ended question, we're right exactly where the average poll is in terms of people who want to be union and non-union, and it is about 38%. So of the people who are non-union, 73% said, "We don't want it," and the vast majority of Ontarians, 68%, believe this isn't the time to introduce it, and some of the other provisions that are in there. The people are certainly aware of this. The big concern of 66%, including NDP supporters and the average person on the shop floor, whether union or non-union, is that they're going to lose their jobs.

What we're saying to you is that this whole process could have been avoided if you'd sat down and had some give and take, instead of listening to the Minister of Labour who tried to drive it through and implement his strategy without consulting with the other side. I say to the members on the government side, this better be a lesson to the government to cooperate with people -- I use the example of the environmental bill of rights -- because you would have avoided all this.

This government says it cooperated. The Premier of the province was making promises to business groups: "Don't worry. We'll tone it down. Don't worry. You're going to like what you hear." All the advisers and officials who met with them said, "Don't worry. Blunt your opposition. We don't want you to run off. You're only hurting yourselves if you talk unkindly to the government." They said that during the discussion paper: "Don't worry. You're going to love the bill." They felt let down and hurt, because what they were told and what happened were two different things.

What this government has lost is trust from the people of Ontario. I will say about the Premier that while we differ on a lot of things -- he's a socialist and quite frankly I don't know of too many things we do agree on -- he did have the trust of the people of the province. They said, "He's not a bad guy." But he lost that trust after this, because he was telling people one thing and then turning around and doing another, which leads to either of two conclusions: first, he didn't know what his Labour minister was doing with a bill this comprehensive -- I see the Labour minister is smiling; you might have got it by him, I don't know -- or second, he knew and he was telling business groups what they wanted to hear.

More than anything else, and the reason business groups got upset -- this government thinks they're really upset -- is that the vast majority of them, a great percentage of the population, basically wanted to say: "That's it. We're not going to cooperate with government on anything else. We've been let down. We can't trust them, so we're going to go on strike, because that's all they understand." They weren't going to sit on the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board or the economic council that was set up by the Premier, because they said: "How can we trust these people? How can we trust a Premier who says one thing to us and then turns around, not once, not twice, but three times?"

During the Burkett discussions, he said one thing to the people he was speaking to and then the leaked cabinet documents came out and said the very opposite, which leads us to believe he either didn't know what was going on or he knew what was going on and said it anyway. That's what's scary about this, because they can no longer trust the Premier of Ontario.

It happened once with Burkett. It happened twice with the discussion paper, where again he said: "Don't worry. That's out there. The unions are furious with it. Wait till you see what happens when the bill comes out." Of course the business groups said: "Okay, we'll blunt our opposition. We'll wait and hear." Then when it came out, there were no changes. Not one stinking, lousy proposal that came from any of the people during those discussions that the minister is so proud to talk about. They took some off and called them proposals from the other side.

That's why the people are so cynical and sceptical about this government, because the process was rotten from the beginning. People don't trust this government. It's going to sour relationships. That's why in Ontario today we're scared. We're scared for the future of our children. We have grown up in the greatest province and the greatest country in the world.

I guess it would have been okay if people had said: "Yep, this labour legislation's great. They announced it during the election campaign. Bill 40 is going to do it." If they had been elected on this, I could have said, "Well, the people spoke." They didn't say anything about it, because they knew, as the polls show -- and we can argue about how much the percentage is -- that the vast majority of the people of Ontario don't support this labour legislation. They know it is nothing but a cynical payback. What this will do is put bureaucrats in charge of the workplace.

I have in my hand a proposal that went before the existing Ontario Labour Relations Board. A company in my riding, the Naylor Group -- I guess the Premier is coming out during the announcement of the hospital funding -- even though its proposal was $400,000 cheaper to do the electrical work on the expansion of the Oakville-Trafalgar Memorial Hospital, didn't get it because the labour board -- it gets very complicated with Ellis-Don and its bargaining units -- decided it had to use the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. There's the ruling from the labour board.

1910

That group is saying: "Here they are already penalizing non-union companies like us that had a proposal $400,000 cheaper. We can't build a hospital in our own community because we don't have the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers." What we're saying is that we want to strengthen it now for the Naylor Group which feels let down already with the proposals that exist there.

The business groups, the general public, the workers of these companies were saying, "Let's be fair." That's why we've said the certification process should be through secret ballot. I submit the other side doesn't want that. They don't want that because they know the intimidation that goes on in the certification process. The people who are organizing will say and do anything. As I mentioned, I know at first hand. I've been involved and I've worked with the unions and I've been involved on both sides. That's why they don't want the provision in there: They don't want the provisions to be in there that will restrict the organizing drive of unions.

As I said earlier, I sometimes disagree with what happens in elections. I disagreed with what happened in September 1990, with the exception of what happened in Oakville South.

Mr Stockwell: And Etobicoke West.

Mr Carr: Etobicoke West as well, the bright people who are there. The fact of the matter is, through secret ballot there's no intimidation from the business side, there's no intimidation from the union side, so the true wishes of the people prevail. Then, I say to the people of this province, if you do that, I will be satisfied and you should be satisfied with what the results are. If that leads to increased unionization through secret ballot on both sides, then so be it. When they go in through a secret ballot, the people will have their true wishes known.

That is not what this legislation will do, which is basically to get conned into signing a certificate. That's it. No back-out provisions, no more petitions to get out of it. If somebody says to you, "Here, sign this. We're just going to get you more more money. You sign on the dotted line," that's it for ever, the union's in there. Why do the unions not want to have the true wishes of the people through a secret ballot?

I submit to you that any person balanced on either side would say that would be fair. There can be no intimidation on the business side, there can be no intimidation on the union side. Let the chips fall where they may. But I suspect the reason the members of this government is afraid of it is that they saw the polls. They saw that 73% of the people who are non-union want to remain that way, and they said, "We somehow have to get in there. We'll have to use all the techniques available," so they've slanted Bill 40 to do that.

I said I was going to talk about some of the comments from the people of my riding. I didn't realize how quickly a half-hour goes. I probably could have got close to 17 hours just reading these things out.

But I want to say to this minister and to this government of the day, you have destroyed the process. You no longer have the trust of the people. If you'd said up front: "This is what we're going to do. This is how we're going to do it," you would have had respect. At least people would have said, "We know where they're coming from," and they would have been able to say, "The government has at least been up front with us." But they haven't. They've attempted to say one thing and do another thing, and the process that should be used is what was done through the environmental bill of rights, where they did this and had bargaining on both sides.

Of course this side says the big reason it needs changes is that there never have been any changes over the 15-odd years. So that's fine. If that had been, there would have been give and take. After 15 years there are probably some provisions in there that should be taken out, not just ones that are added. That's why people are cynical, because this government said, "We listened, we consulted," yet not one stinking, lousy proposal came from any of those discussions. They handled it like a labour negotiation, threw everything on the table and said: "Here, we take 22 off. You should be happy with what came in." The fact of the matter is the principle didn't change. The fact of the matter is there wasn't one proposal from the other side. That's why people are cynical about this process.

As a result of these discussions this government is going to push ahead, I believe, and the public will have five weeks to voice its opposition. The government of the day can do what it wants, but I say to the people of this province, "You'd better come out." The people who are telling me it's going to kill investment and kill jobs, who are saying it to me privately, don't want to come out and jump all over this government. They don't want to have bad relations with any government. No company does, because somewhere down the road they're going to deal with them in whatever way. But they're saying to me, "Gary, we are not kidding with this."

We sat with the member for Waterloo North, Elizabeth Witmer, as well, and they said, "We want to tell you that these provisions will be the single biggest factor to driving jobs out of the province of Ontario," at a time when we have unemployment rates that are skyrocketing, when we've had more job losses than any other province in Canada.

I say to the people of this province, they'd better be very leery. You've got five weeks to make your views known. If this Labour minister is truly consulting during those five weeks, he will have some of the proposals from the other side. I say start with the secret ballot provisions for certification. That would be a good start. At the end of the day, when we come back here for third reading, if this government takes any of the proposals from the other side, I'll be the first one up to stand and say it has done a good job.

But I will not accept, and I don't think the public will accept, their throwing 58 proposals on the table, taking 22 off and saying, "There, we listened." There has to be give and take on both sides. I feel sorry for the people of Ontario, because they don't deserve it and they didn't elect it. When we form the government in 1995, these provisions will come out.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments?

Mr Bisson: Everybody wanted to get up and I got up first.

Interjection: You got up 68 times on this bill.

Mr Bisson: It's my time here. In regard to the speech of the honourable member of the Conservative Party, I just thought it was really interesting, as he was going through his debate, that the Tory parties here in Ontario and in Ottawa must be delighted that there's a New Democratic government that was elected in Ontario.

When you stop to think about it, we're a great foil for their bad policies. We're a great foil for some of the things that are directly affecting what's happening in the economy of Ontario and the economy across the country when it comes to that. They're really good in order to try to take the attention off what the problem really is in regard to what's happened in the economy.

To be fair, I think anybody who is out there has to stand back and say: "When did the problems with the economy start? Did they start at the introduction of the Ontario labour relations Bill 40?" The answer is no. Those problems started way before, back in 1984, 1986, 1988, further on, in regard to a number of policies that were put in place by the Conservative government.

We'll mention a few: The free trade agreement was one, the deregulation of many of the industries we have here in Canada, the whole question of the dismantling of the Foreign Investment Review Agency, the GST and on and on. I just make that point because they must be really happy they're able to deflect it.

What I thought was really interesting was that the member stood in his place and said, "When people call me to ask me, 'Should I invest in the province of Ontario?' I say no." For a member of this Legislature and a member of this province to stand in this place and say that in my mind is something that's totally unacceptable and just totally unbelievable. I'm sure the member will correct the record once again, as he did the last time in regard to his comments about fighting every worker on the question of the OLRA.

I just want to put him on guard: You are here as a member of this Legislature and part of your responsibility, sir, is to help along in trying to create an atmosphere of investment in this province and not scare them away the way you indicated in the debate by saying, "When people call us" -- I take it you mean your party -- "we scare them away from Ontario."

Mr Carr: I said German bankers and Japanese companies said that. I didn't say that.

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): I had planned to just spend a minute on something, but I think it's important that a third party member respond to the comments that were just made. I listened in the House, as all the other members did, but obviously they weren't hearing. When the member gave his remarks about the comments that were being made about not investing in Ontario, they were not his remarks. He was very clear to say they were not his remarks. He said that when German bankers are questioned --

Mr Bisson: That was after.

Mr Kwinter: No, no. Check Hansard. I listened very carefully. They said when German bankers are asked by their clients, they say, "Don't invest in Ontario." The member did not say that. I just want to make sure, in all fairness, that this is known because I think enough things go on in this House without people attributing statements that weren't made. I suggest to you, sir, and to you, Mr Speaker, that if any objective members would check Hansard, they would find that is the case.

Having said that, I just want to speak briefly about one of the member's final remarks to the effect that when they form the government, they will withdraw this legislation. To my mind, I think the legislation is flawed. I think it's not legislation that is bad for this time; I think it's bad legislation for any time. But having said that, I think there are some very good parts to it and that those good parts should in fact be embodied in what is the labour law of this province. Notwithstanding that, there are some serious concerns. When I get an opportunity in about an hour or so, I hope to address those concerns to you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Stockwell: I also want to follow up on what the Liberal member for Wilson Heights, Mr Kwinter, said. It is very difficult, in the middle of these kinds of debates, when members opposite stand up and absolutely misrepresent the facts. This member here --

Interjection.

1920

Mr Stockwell: I will say categorically that I heard the member for Oakville South say that German bankers and Japanese business people were coming to him with these kind of comments. He himself was not telling people not to invest in Ontario. I think before you get up to make those kind of wide-ranging comments -- which your party is rather famous for, I might add -- you could check the record to ensure just how wrong you actually are.

Second, the next comment he made was that we were going to fight the workers. You know full well, Mr Speaker, if you were here that day, that it was a mistake when he was speaking. He made a mistake and he immediately withdrew. This is the second member opposite who has attributed these remarks as if he had said it in its full, meaningful context. Shameful. Absolutely shameful. You know what he said that day, you know what he said this day, and in typical socialist fashion they take part of the truth, twist it into some warped, corrupt logic. That is an exact example of the science that this party has gotten down to.

Finally, the very important point that the member for Oakville South made was that the people who support the labour legislation now, according to the polls, appear to be in the political hinterland, because a few hangers-on, a few union bosses, et al, are the only ones who support this kind of labour legislation. It will be one of the biggest mistakes you've made, and thankfully it will undo you come 1995.

The Acting Speaker: Before I continue with the questions and comments, I just want to direct the honourable members to one particular procedure. I have been extremely lenient, in the two minutes that are given to the members to ask questions and comments, about them not directing their remarks immediately to the subject at hand and through the Speaker. So I want to say to the honourable members that there has been far too much debate going on between the various members in their two minutes and not enough on the substance of what the honourable member for Oakville South has presented. I want to ask the members to please remember that the two-minute responses are there for questions and comments about the substance of what they've just heard from the honourable member.

Now, questions and/or comments?

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): I was listening intently to what the member for Oakville South was saying. If we look back on the history of labour reforms, I think we can get a clear picture of exactly where the third party is coming from. In the 1800s when child labour was being reformed, it was the Conservative Party that was saying: "No, this isn't right." Also the business community was saying, "You're going to drive investment out of Ontario, and you're going to make us uncompetitive with the rest of the country and also the other countries." Also, on the eve of the passage of that law it was the business community who got together with the Premier of the day and persuaded them to postpone legislation for two more years.

Then as we go along until 1989 when the government of the day, the Liberal Party, was going to pass occupational health and safety legislation, it was the manufacturers' association that was saying: "No. This is going to drive business out of Ontario. It's going to make us uncompetitive." It was Mr Pope, who was a Conservative at the time, who was also talking and saying: "No. If we start passing this legislation, we're going to drive business out of Ontario. We're going to make Ontario so uncompetitive that we're going to be in dire straits."

I'm hearing the same rhetoric again with this legislation. What really gets me is the word "progressive" in their party name. It's a dichotomy as far as being progressive, because they're wallowing, just as they have in the past, about what has been going on as far as bringing in progressive legislation -- legislation that is trying to bring business and labour together. To hear the member for Oakville South saying that we're going to be driving businesses out of the province is just again something that has been going on with his party for so many years. Why don't you get into the real life and get up into the present time? It isn't the labour legislation that is going to drive business out; it's fearmongering.

The Acting Speaker: I thank the honourable member. The honourable member for Oakville South has two minutes to respond.

Mr Carr: It's interesting that he says we're going back. It wasn't I who brought up the 1800s and the child labour laws. I must be winning the argument when they go back to the 1800s and start talking about the child labour laws.

To the member for Cochrane South, I just want to make it clear that the comments I was making were on behalf of the German bankers and the Japanese companies, and if he got the wrong impression, I want to be very clear. I said the German bankers who are talking to me and the Japanese companies are saying that. That's what the depressing part is. The depressing part is they're saying to me privately, "Gary, we know you're fighting this but the fact of the matter is the people in these other international communities are not investing."

That's why the Premier didn't come back with any deals from Japan. That's why all the ministers who are out there globe-trotting around don't come back with any deals. Why do you think they don't stand up in the Legislature and announce any of the deals? Because there's no investment coming. We've got the Treasurer who goes over to Japan, over to Europe; the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology goes over to Europe; not one deal comes back.

In the past a minister would come back, there would be some deal, he'd stand up and say, "This company is going to invest in the province of Ontario." We've had ministers criss-crossing, getting Aeroplan points built up, and not one of them comes back to this Legislature and says there are any investments and jobs. The people of the province know very clearly there is no investment because this government is scaring it away.

They don't believe in the polls, they don't believe in all the surveys: 250,000 jobs, $8 billion. To put that in perspective, if they're right, that's another recession on top of this. I say, even if they're wrong, even if it is isn't 250,000, if it's only 50,000 or it's 100,000, it's too many for the province of Ontario and it's too much to be nothing but a payback to the big labour unions that support them, and that's why the people of this province are going to fight this legislation.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate? The member for Yorkview.

[Applause]

Mr Mammoliti: Thank you very much. It's a rare occasion indeed to be applauded by the opposition. I'm glad that you've done that. Perhaps they'd like to hear another story, but maybe another time.

The previous speaker -- and I'm glad and it's kind of ironic -- mentioned hockey. When he did, he reminded me of the hockey association strike recently. It is relevant. The hockey association strike recently, in my opinion, frustrated me as a politician because it is relevant to what we're talking about here today. I don't have to tell you how much the hockey players make in terms of a wage, something that of course the opposition right now is complaining about in terms of labour and how much they're asking for. I can tell you the hockey players were asking for a lot of the same things the unionized picketers ask for on picket lines. I can tell you that no politician on that side of the table during the strike, anyway, had spoken opposed to the hockey players who wanted all of those goodies they were asking for.

I can tell you that the difference between the strike that occurred in the National Hockey League and a picketer is that they didn't hold up any signs; they weren't actually picketing. At one time I thought they might because there was a threat of the minor leaguers taking over their jobs, actually going in to the rinks and playing off the playoffs. What would that have done to those players who were on strike? I can tell you this. I see quite a bit of violence on the ice during a hockey game, and a lot of people will say that it's a part of the game. What if those minor leaguers decided to cross the picket lines and play in the playoffs? What would those players have done? I'd be willing to bet a few of them would have used fisticuffs perhaps to stop them from going into the rinks.

1930

Interjections.

Mr Mammoliti: I hear some heckling. It's a possibility, and I'll tell you why. It's a possibility because replacement workers cause violence on picket lines. There's no question about it. I haven't heard anybody stand up and say that it's not the case. I haven't heard anybody stand up in this debate and say that replacement workers, scab workers, do not create violence on the picket lines. I don't think there's anybody in this Legislature who has enough guts, except of course perhaps the member for Etobicoke West, to stand up and say it is the case.

During the debate I heard consistently that the government hasn't consulted. I can say to you that the quicker we get out of this place here, the quicker we're going to consult with the individuals who really matter, in my opinion, the people who will have a voice in terms of Bill 40. I can say this to you: That's what they're waiting for.

We're hearing continually from the opposition that the rule changes are muzzling them and that they're frustrated. A prime example of that was last week, when I actually thought they were going to use violence in this place. At one point in the hallway, one of them, the member for Bruce, put his finger into my chest continually and actually wanted to start a fight. Now, if they're witnessing this sort of frustration, if they claim that this is frustration, imagine --

Mr Cordiano: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I take exception to what the member has suggested may have happened. I think it would be appropriate for him not to refer to an incident that may or may not have taken place as a factual occurrence.

The Acting Speaker: I thank the honourable member. That's not a point of order, but I would say to the honourable member --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. I would say to the honourable member for Yorkview that if he continues in that line of questioning, he's obviously going to be drawing what would be unfortunate responses from the members of the opposition. I think it would be better if he would maintain his sight on the bill which is presently to be debated.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: We have a tradition in this House where we do not refer to members on a personal basis who are absent and not able to either correct the record or rise on a point of privilege. I think for that reason that this member deserves to make --

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member should be seated. I've indicated to the honourable member that he should continue looking at the bill that is before us, which is Bill 40. I don't think there need to be any more statements made on this. That is not a point of order.

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I ask the member for Yorkview if he would withdraw the statement he made.

The Acting Speaker: No. Order, please. Please be seated. You're asking for an action to happen which should not happen.

Mr Stockwell: You've not even heard my point of order, with all due respect, Mr Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Are you repeating what has been said by the other two members?

Mr Stockwell: No, I'm not.

The Acting Speaker: Okay, I'm sorry. The honourable member has the floor.

Mr Stockwell: Thank you, Mr Speaker. My point of order is that I think the privileges of the member for Bruce have been abused in that the member for Yorkview has imputed the motive as to wanting to start a fight. I would ask the member to withdraw that, because surely he does not know the member for Bruce did in fact want to start a fight with him.

The Acting Speaker: I have indicated to the House that the honourable member should direct his comments to Bill 40. I do not believe at this point in time that the honourable member for Bruce has been impugned and I would ask the member to begin his comments again and deal with Bill 40.

Mr Mammoliti: My intent surely was not to rattle cages here; my intent was to relate what happened to me, and what I saw was violence to Bill 40, and what picketers actually see every day on a picket line and how Bill 40 will help prevent violence on a picket line. That's what I want to talk about.

Again, if the opposition feels frustrated and they can't air their frustration and think the rule changes had something to do with that, I'd like them to just envision being on a picket line and saying to your colleagues, your union brothers and sisters, that you're there because that is the only avenue, the only way you can talk about your frustrations, the only legal way of demonstrating the employers' lack of understanding, perhaps, or lack of giving in terms of negotiating. I can tell you that picketers feel that every day of the week.

How does a picketer benefit from Bill 40? Bill 40, in my opinion, will stop a lot of that violence. In Ontario alone we have a track record of violence on picket lines. I can tell you that it's not a very good one. For instance, we had the Alcan Building Products' strike in 1983. Somebody was killed on that line in 1983. A picketer was run over by a truck driven by a replacement worker, somebody the employer hired to --

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): A replacement worker?

Mr Mammoliti: A replacement worker, yes, otherwise known as a scab worker to those on a picket line. With this piece of legislation, of course, this type of situation won't happen unless the employer breaks the law and hires a replacement worker. That's why I think a lot of the violence, this particular violence, will stop. That's just one example.

I must tell you, even though it's a federal strike, I have to relate to this: The postal strikes we've been accustomed to in this province and all over Canada have been disastrous in terms of violence on picket lines when they are striking. In June 1987 it was a terrible, terrible strike: fisticuffs, fights, buses full of replacement workers. Some of them, I understand, were from the United States, people who are touring --

Mr Martin: I can't believe it.

Mr Mammoliti: Yes, it's true, Tony -- people who are actually in the business of breaking picket lines, breaking up strikes. This Bill 40 will stop that from happening. Let me ask you something: How many governments have actually -- federal governments as well -- stopped United States workers, people who belong and live in the United States, citizens of the United States, coming over here to break picket lines? How many governments? It's probably zero. I haven't been able to find any, anyway, and the previous governments certainly didn't do that.

Of course, the Conservatives, when they were in, probably encouraged it to happen and I don't blink twice when I say that, because from what I'm hearing in this debate I think they're in favour of strikebreaking, and I think they're in favour of violence, to a degree as well, on picket lines. I'm ashamed of that and I can also say --

Mrs Marland: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: May I plead to you in your position in the chair to try to direct the member for Yorkview to not impute motives to other members. To suggest that other members in this House are in favour of violence on picket lines is as wrong as for him to impugn the member for Bruce in suggesting that he wanted to fight physically. It's so wrong.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: That is no point, but I would say to the honourable member for Yorkview that he is coming perilously close to inciting and inflaming people in some of the comments he is making. I ask the honourable member to pay respect to this House and direct his comments to Bill 40.

Mr Mammoliti: Mr Speaker, I respect what you've said, but if they can dish it out, why can't they take it? This is something that happens every day in this place and most certainly in committee work as well. The person who stood up on the point of order is a prime example of what can happen when somebody wants to entice somebody. She is a prime example of it.

Mrs Marland: To entice somebody?

Mr Mammoliti: Unlike the Conservatives, the unions out there they so strongly criticize do not agree with replacement workers and that's because unions know it creates violence.

I'm going to quote Shirley Carr. In 1987, Shirley, back then in the Star, said:

"Police, labour and management all know that violence on the picket line occurs when strikebreakers are used.

"At this point, you can be almost assured, the picket line will get violent. The worker becomes angry because somebody is taking his or her job, and riot police come trotting out from behind bushes with shields, gas guns, gas masks, three-foot billies and armour."

When this happens, the inevitable happens: violence. People are going to protect their jobs and they're going to use whatever means possible to protect those jobs.

I would also like to --

1940

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker --

Mr Mammoliti: Mr Speaker, with all these points of order I'm not going to be able to --

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Stockwell: Mr Speaker, I was listening very closely to the member making his statement, and the point of order is: I think the member accused this party of supporting and in fact inducing violence on the picket lines. I think that is a violation of my privilege. It's not true. It's not based on fact and there's nothing to substantiate that statement. It's very callous and it's also very dangerous. I would ask that you rule on it, because I don't think it's something that should be said in this House.

The Acting Speaker: I will say to the honourable member for Etobicoke West that I have indicated to the member for Yorkview that his comments have been inciteful and to a certain extent inflammatory. I did not hear his comments as indicating what you have indicated in the House. Therefore, I don't believe that there is a point of order, and therefore I'd ask the honourable member again: Please focus your comments on Bill 40.

Mr Mammoliti: We in the labour movement believe strikes should be settled at the bargaining table and not with truncheons and trucks. Shirley Carr said that during the postal strike in 1987 and I agree wholeheartedly with it. I don't believe we should settle anything with violence except a boxing match perhaps, something some people might enjoy.

I'd also like to give you an example of the CNE here in Toronto from a few years ago, where an employee was run over by a police officer during a picket line. You might ask: "How do you know this?" If you talk to the union leaders out there they will tell you this. On the picket line it becomes so violent and some employers get so violent and so drastic that they're having to buy hidden cameras and put them behind bushes or behind whatever they can to catch somebody doing something. In the CNE strike -- and I remember this distinctly -- a few years ago we had the maintenance workers at the CNE striking and a police car ran a red light and hit one of the picketers. Fortunately that picketer was not hurt, but that's not the point.

The point is that there's violence and it's not only from employers. It's not only the employees themselves when they see their jobs threatened, but sometimes there's a third party here. They don't mean to be violent. They mean to contain and make sure there's law and order, but it becomes violent in doing that. They are police officers.

I say to you that Bill 40 will not only help employers and not only help the workers but it will help police officers as well. There are a lot of police officers out there. I can tell you that if you come into Yorkview and speak to some of my officers there in the riding, a lot of them are for this bill. That's because they don't have to worry about the confrontations on the picket line.

Let's think about that for a minute. How much time will that free up in the police department if this bill goes through? I can say to you it'll probably free up a lot of time, because there are a lot of strikes in Ontario, no question about it.

So my point is that unions of course have got to buy cameras, an expense they never thought they'd have but nowadays they've got to buy them. It's something that is a given. If you're striking you buy a camera, and if you've got a camera out there you put it somewhere where nobody can see it so that you can perhaps catch somebody doing something he or she shouldn't be doing in terms of violence on the picket lines.

I think the picketers and unionists in general have been given a bum rap over the years. I think people who are holding the fort per se, holding that sign and demonstrating the only way they know how -- and legally -- have been given a bum rap. Some people in Ontario -- of course, the opposition right now -- are blaming picketers for everything that happens on a picket line and are being so negative towards unions and their rights. It's their right to demonstrate. It's their right to picket. Let's give them that.

None of them, however, mention that there are lockouts, something that the opposition, I believe, claims to be the right of the employer. There are never any negative comments towards lockouts. There are never any negative comments towards an employer who locks his employees out. It's always the employee's fault, the person who is locked out.

I can give you an example. Employees of Nationair here in Toronto were locked out in 1991. They were locked out, and people came in and did their jobs for them. There was nothing they could do. They were out in front of the airport, trying to get in. They were locked out. Nobody talked about Nationair and how cruel it was for doing what it did; they talked about the picketers. They talked about the people who were locked out. I think that's unfair.

I think that's unfair, and I get very emotional, because it's time that attitude changes in Ontario. The only way that attitude is going to change in Ontario is if we start changing some legislation, not only in this area but in other areas as well. I get very emotional when we talk about this. This is the only way that attitude is going to start to change.

Hon Mr Pouliot: It's because you're sincere.

Mr Mammoliti: I hear it's because I'm sincere. I try to be sincere.

[Laughter]

Mr Mammoliti: I hear the moth over there heckling and laughing.

Mr Stockwell: I'm not heckling, George.

Mr Mammoliti: He's just like a moth. One day he's either going to get burnt by the lightbulb or somebody's going to squash him -- one of the two.

I'd like to close by talking a little bit about who has dealt with this type of labour legislation. I can say to you that three provinces and Ontario -- we've talked a lot about Quebec and British Columbia, but even Saskatchewan, which is somewhat unfair -- I shouldn't say somewhat, I think it is very unfair -- in terms of labour relations and its laws, has something in the Trade Union Act that touches on replacement workers. The Trade Union Act states, "It is unfair practice to maintain a system of industrial espionage or to employ or direct any person to spy upon a member or proceedings of a labour organization or the offices thereof or the exercise by any employee of any right provided by the act." As much as Saskatchewan is unfair to workers, I tell you that at least it has the guts to recognize that there's a problem. Ontario is now doing that.

In the United States 86% of the states have legislation addressing the strikebreakers issue. With Reaganism they have still touched on this problem, and here we are in Ontario saying: "Oh no, what have you done to us? What has this government done to us?" With Reaganism, 86% of the states have talked about this issue and have reflected it in their legislation.

It's time we change, and it's time the opposition wakes up, for crying out loud, and understands the changing times. For 17 years our act hasn't been changed. It's time it changed.

1950

The other issue, and the last one, I promise, is this: big business. People have talked about it in this debate. I'm going to talk about it, because I frankly am a little frustrated as a backbencher to know that big business has a lot to do with the signs that are out there talking about communism and talking about Bob Rae in a negative way.

I can tell you that their agenda -- and I guess people will see it over the next three years -- of course is to oppose anything we do and to jeopardize another term of office for this government -- yes, another term of office for this government -- and I think it's unfortunate, because on the one hand we hear that business wants to talk to us, wants to be a partner, and on the other hand business is buying signs, is discrediting us on a regular basis.

I'm not talking about small business here; I'm talking about big business. I've been speaking to the small businesses in my community, and I can tell you that they have been misled, that when you ask somebody in a small business about this particular piece of legislation, he will say, "I've been told that it's bad."

They will say, "You're going to drive business away from Ontario," and when you ask them why, they can't respond. They relate to the Employment Standards Act. They relate to other acts that really don't pertain to this. And why? Because we have people going door to door from big business saying: "This is what's going to happen. Do you want to believe me or don't you?" This is what's happening, and I think it's unfair.

If you just bear with me, I want to read you something from the Star. This was in the Toronto Star in November 1991:

"'Big business is screaming because it lived through a decade, defined by Reaganism and Thatcherism.... This is the first time in Ontario history that we have ever had a non-capitalistic government, so they'" -- referring to business -- "'are trying to establish the ground rules.'"

It's pretty simple. They're trying to establish the ground rules, and Bob Rae and the New Democratic government are not budging. We are saying: "Enough is enough. You have had your red phone in the Premier's office for decades." Your government -- somebody who's heckling -- has had a red phone in that office. We don't any more. They want to establish ground rules. This government is saying, "Things have got to change," and Bill 40 is a prime example of what should happen to change attitudes in Ontario.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments?

Mr Kwinter: I listened with great interest to the member for Yorkview and his comments, and I was particularly taken by his last remarks. I remember when I was the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, I used to stand in my place on the other side of the House and present myself as the champion of business, and the howls that came out of the NDP side --

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I remember.

Mr Kwinter: You remember that. "My God, we have a pariah in our midst. How could this man possibly be standing in his place advocating that we should be encouraging business to locate in Ontario?"

We have this conundrum where we now have a Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology who I have said is no longer relevant in Ontario -- not because of him. I kind of like him as a person. I'm just saying that as an office he is no longer relevant, because all that has to happen when he walks into an industry to talk to them, to encourage them to locate in Ontario, all they have to do is pull out Hansard, the transcripts of members like the member for Yorkview, the Jill Marzettis of the world and everybody else, and they'll say, "Why in the world would I possibly invest in this jurisdiction when not only are the government members opposed to business but they're proud of it? They stand up and they say: 'The time has come. Get rid of the red phone, get rid of the voice of business in this province.'"

I say to you, Mr Speaker, with respect, there has not been a job created by anyone other than business, with the exception of government, and we heard today how they are so anxious to create jobs that they're spending $10,000 for an ad to create one job just for the advertising. I suggest that unless this government comes to terms with the fact that it isn't "we and them" but that it's "us," we're going to be in big trouble.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments?

Mrs Marland: The member for Yorkview talked about an accident in the workplace and the example he gave involved replacement workers. The intonation and the phrases he used suggested that the accident, which I think involved some kind of motorized vehicle running over someone, was because they were replacement workers.

I travelled this province on two bills that were very important to the workers in this province, Bill 162 and Bill 208, and I can understand how tragic any injury, let alone any death, in the workplace is. I don't need the member for Yorkview to come into this House and lecture me about the tragedy of injury in the workplace. I don't need him to come in here and lecture me about suggesting that there are more accidents and more tragedies when they are replacement workers. I think the inference he draws from that is a most unfortunate one.

When he talks about big business as if it was a huge, dirty word, he does his own union friends a disservice. I simply ask him, where would any of the jobs be in this province if it were not for big business, medium-sized business and small business? If he thinks that by his kind of attack on big business he's going to provide jobs for his union friends, then he's more out to lunch than I had anticipated he was.

When we look at the issue of jobs and employment in this province and the fact that it is a diminishing resource, I would have credited the member for Yorkview with somewhat more intelligence to understand exactly what is causing the unemployment in this province: it's his socialist government.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I'd just like to make a few comments about the speech by my friend and colleague the member for Yorkview as it pertains to lockouts. I was very readily reminded that on Friday this past weekend the Newcastle Hydro Electric Commission broke off negotiations with the local that was attempting to work towards obtaining a very fair contract. Without warning and without any deference to their situation they locked out every worker of Newcastle Hydro.

What they've done is put the workers and their lifestyle in jeopardy. These folks have mortgages to pay; they won't get paid while they're locked out, and their health benefits, I understand, have been suspended while they're locked out, for no reason at all. The workers at Newcastle Hydro Electric Commission wanted to work. They showed up for work. They had no indication at all that they were going to go on strike and yet the commission locked them out. This is what the member for Yorkview is talking about. If we get this legislation through, this nonsense is stopped.

While I'm on my feet, I would like to commend the member for his passionate speech. It's a fact that some of us do have passion in the labour fight, and I commend the member for that passion. Passion across the road is very much lacking in this. It's absolutely despicable, despisable and all the other words I can think about. The member is speaking from his heart, and I always commend people for speaking from their heart.

2000

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments?

Mr Stockwell: Just briefly, although I think you can have differences of opinion with members on their speeches, and I certainly do have many differences of opinion with the member for Yorkview, I would ask that he reflect on at least one comment he made in that speech.

I don't think there's any person in this House who would condone violence of any kind. I don't think there's any person in this House who would condone violence on the picket line. I think it's very unfair for you to intimate that the Conservative Party in Ontario in fact supports violence on the picket line, in some instances causing death or serious harm to anyone in this province. I take great exception to that. I know personally I do not. I do not know a person in my caucus who would support that. I ask you to reflect on that comment and withdraw it.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Yorkview has two minutes to respond.

Mr Mammoliti: Let me just respond to the member for Wilson Heights first. I certainly want to say to the member that my message to big business is not "I don't want to work with you" or "We don't want to work with you." My message to big business is: "Let us manage, let us govern, let us do things the way we were elected to do and leave it be. We want to work with you, no question about it, but stop the billboards and stop the negative comments and stop talking to individual members to bring in their little argument towards everything, to stop everything we're doing." That's what I'm saying to big business, not that I don't work with them, just: "Let us govern. It's time that we govern. Let us govern."

In terms of --

Mrs Marland: Do you want to be like New Brunswick and not have an opposition?

Mr Mammoliti: I'm sorry, there's heckling, Mr Speaker, and I can't respond to the member for Mississauga South because she is heckling. I'm not going to respond to her because she heckled. I don't care; I'm not responding to it.

On the issue of lockouts, I can tell my colleague the member for Durham East that my concern -- and I'm sure you can see this for yourself if you read the papers -- is the attitude out there. My concern is that nobody really gives a hoot about lockouts. They say that it's the employer's right to lock out. They say that it's because of their right that they don't have to report this. They don't care about the three- and four-children families at home that aren't getting any food. All they care about is the replacement workers, perhaps, and that's what I'm talking about: attitude. This bill will certainly reflect attitude.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate? The honourable member for Lawrence.

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In a point of order I asked that the comments be withdrawn. I understand your ruling. I'm very upset with the comments. I still raise this point of order. I ask that you ask the member to withdraw those comments. They are, in my opinion --

The Acting Speaker: I would ask the honourable member to be seated. You have raised this point of order. You've admitted it's the same point of order. I've ruled on that point of order. It is not a point of order. My recollection of the comments that were made by the honourable member would not indicate that he said precisely what you thought he said. I would say that the honourable member did make inflammatory comments and I instructed him to continue with his discussion on Bill 40.

The honourable member for Lawrence has the floor.

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Could we have the clock reset for my colleague?

The Acting Speaker: No, I'm afraid we haven't reset any of the clocks. The honourable member for Lawrence has the floor.

Mr Cordiano: Thank you, Mr Speaker; that's fine. I will deal with what I have to say in the 28 minutes or so I have left. I obviously want and am delighted to have this opportunity to speak on this bill. Unfortunately a great many of my colleagues will not have that same opportunity --

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): They're not even here.

Mr Cordiano: Most of yours aren't either, I say to the Treasurer; it's not a full House, but indeed I see that some of the seats have been filled. I don't know if this is an indication of the interest in my particular speech, but I'm delighted that I have a better-than-average audience here this evening.

I would say to the Treasurer that, judging from the number of members in attendance this evening, this is obviously of some interest, and indeed there is enough interest that this debate should carry forward. Unfortunately the government does not see fit to allow the rest of my colleagues to have their say. As I said, the vast number of them want to speak on this bill and indicated a great desire to speak to this legislation and address some of the concerns that have been expressed to them by their various constituencies.

That, unfortunately, is a result of the time allocation motion put forward by the government under the new rules that have been brought in. I will get to this in a moment. The style of governance of this administration, I think, is turning for the worse. In fact, it's something we have been dealing with around here and struggling for since I've been a member, discussions surrounding the whole question of executive power and how that is utilized in very serious -- and often legislation that is of greater importance to all the citizens of this province and all the members of this Legislature.

We, as an opposition party, of course, raise our concerns with respect to the rule changes and the limitations that have been placed on the amount of time each member now has to speak on matters of importance to members of this Legislature. I believe it's the style of this which now leads to greater executive power, allowing the executive branch of the government, virtually by decree, by executive fiat, to determine which legislation will go through in a short period of time. Isn't it convenient that the first order of really important business happens to be Bill 40, the Ontario Labour Relations and Employment Statute Law Amendment Act?

I think the government would have to think twice with respect to the way it's operating. We've had various speeches. Various of my colleagues have made very eloquent speeches in this House about just what that means with respect to the process of democracy and how this chamber operates. We believe we've effectively been muzzled. We will not have our full say on this legislation and in the future on more important legislation as it occurs in this House. We believe this should not be what takes place in this chamber; that indeed opposition has to have its say; that this is the only way important legislation can be truly looked at in all of its aspects and how profoundly that legislation will change the nature and the fundamental workings of the economy of this province.

It is absolutely essential to a democracy that effective opposition exist. We believe this has somehow fundamentally changed in this province. The opposition will in fact not be as effective as it has been in the past. There were numerous examples of how that took place over the years in this very chamber, indeed by various members of the ruling party at this time who, at various points in the history of this province not so long ago, recently opposed major pieces of legislation and did so very effectively. They had a great deal of time to speak on legislation. They were not muzzled by the government and by the imposition of rules which would not allow that effective speech to take place.

2010

So getting on to Bill 40 in the time I have left -- I see that the Treasurer is very interested in what I might have to say. He's here this evening and taking notes, of course, on the advice I might give him here this evening.

Hon Mr Laughren: I'm one of your biggest fans. I may be your biggest fan in the world.

Mr Cordiano: That's true. Notwithstanding that, we do have differences of opinion, and at the present time we have vastly great differences of opinion, particularly with the last budget he introduced and of course in his support for this particular bill as it stands now.

I want to say from the outset that labour legislation and indeed the efforts to protect workers are admirable. We're not suggesting for a moment on this side of the House that reform would not be acceptable and we are not suggesting for a moment, and my leader has indicated this, that we would not look at reasonable reform. In fact, if this legislation were to go to committee for public hearings -- and it is -- we hope the Minister of Labour and his colleagues in the cabinet will look at changes that can be made to this legislation to make it a bill which will allow the economy of this province to continue to grow, as well as produce the basic objective which the government has stated from the outset is its intention here, and that is to improve workplace cooperation.

We don't believe that will in fact be the end result of this legislation. If it were, I'd be the first one to stand up and support this legislation. I want the Treasurer and his colleagues to know that personally, historically I have not opposed the concept of unions operating as they do. They have done good things. My father, who was an immigrant to this country, belonged to a union. In fact, had there been a strengthening of the labour legislation that existed at the time, perhaps he would not have been in the very tragic circumstances he found himself in, in a workplace accident which led to his death. I believe labour unions have improved the lot of workers in this province over the history of the life of this great jurisdiction, but I believe we've come to a point when we have to look at the impact of this particular legislation.

It proposes a number of things, and I just want to touch on the key elements. This legislation will make it easier for unions to establish affiliates in a variety of sectors. It will assist unions in allowing labour groups to organize and set up picket lines at the entrances and exits of, for example, stores and shopping malls. It will outlaw the use of replacement workers, as has been mentioned earlier, which it's been suggested will result in less violence on the picket lines. It will make it easier for fledgling unions to get their first contract, and it will boost the powers of the Ontario Labour Relations Board. I will deal with these elements as we go along in my discussion.

But our concern of course has to do with the general situation of the economy and what impact this legislation will have on the future economy of this province. It has to be a priority and it should be a priority for this government, because what we've heard from a variety of sectors and from a variety of people is that this legislation will have a direct impact on the future prospects for investment and job creation in the province.

I can't believe the government is going to sit there and say, "No, that's not the case." The fact that we're having this debate suggests to all concerned that there is concern out there that goes beyond just this chamber, that goes beyond the partisan politics we engage in in this chamber, that it's not like saying, "We're going to have workplace cooperation because we're going to improve that side of the equation that has not been in balance, that has been disadvantaged." We don't agree with that, either. We don't believe for a moment that that equation will be put in its proper balance. We think the opposite will happen. We think the balance will be upset.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): You mean it's in balance now?

Mr Cordiano: No, I believe there are changes that can be made, but we believe the weight, the advantages, will all be placed on the side of the unions, on the side of union bosses, who see this as to their advantage.

Before I go further with discussion about what's in the bill, I want to refer back to comments that were made earlier with respect to the way in which this bill has been criticized, the way in which third-party organizations have had a say in this debate. It's been suggested that the advertising that's being done is a campaign of terror that's perpetrated on this administration and its intention to bring forward this legislation.

The opposition has been accused of being alarmist, that we will drive away investment from around the world, that we will negatively affect the future prospects of this province. I say to you that is not the role of the opposition. Opposition dutifully conducts its affairs as an opposition party when it has the freedom to speak out, when it has the freedom to say exactly what's on its mind.

That's what we hear from the public, the views expressed by those people outside this chamber and indeed the opposition parties in this chamber. The views are expressed because they're legitimate concerns. People feel this is a real threat, that in fact there are elements of this legislation which will lead to the negative impacts that have been discussed in this chamber and beyond.

Various editorials are now coming forward. I read in the Toronto Star the other day, in fact during the recent strike that was engaged in at the Toronto Star, a point of view, stated simply, that the Toronto Star and other organizations and businesses like it would simply be put out of business because they could not have continued to operate if this legislation had been in place during the strike. There is absolutely no way the Toronto Star could have continued to operate in the way it did during the last three or four weeks. It would have suffered irreparable damage, and this is the Toronto Star. Perhaps it could have survived, but there are firms out there -- and I say to the Treasurer, who is sitting here -- mid-sized firms, smaller firms, which would simply be put out of business.

Hon Mr Wildman: Then they should avoid work stoppages.

Mr Cordiano: But that's like putting a gun to their head, I say to the member for Algoma, the Minister of Natural Resources: "They should avoid work stoppages." Of course, in a perfect world that would happen, but we don't live in a perfect world, and he knows and I know that there are conflicts out there, inevitably, that have to be dealt with. The conflict we're attempting to address with this legislation can only increase.

This, I dare say, is a political agenda. The government understands that its support has been derived traditionally from the labour movement, particularly the upper echelons of that labour movement. Having said that, I would say there are many people in my riding who belong to trade unions who have supported parties other than the NDP and who have supported me as well, but that's really not the issue here.

The fact that this bill will allow unions to organize in workplaces which have not traditionally been unionized is not necessarily a bad thing, but it will certainly lead to increased membership, it will certainly lead to the swelling of the ranks of unionized labour in this province. Without passing judgement on that, I would simply say this does satisfy one of the concerns the labour movement has expressed over the last decade or so. Their numbers have been dwindling. They would like to have an opportunity to increase their numbers.

I go back to the political agenda of this government. The government has caved in on various pieces of legislation which have been introduced in this House, which run contrary and had directly the opposite effect of what they intended when they ran in the last provincial election.

2020

Sunday shopping legislation, which will now be determined in this House by a free vote, was one of those things. A common pause day: I say to various members who are in the back benches opposite that their party promised a common pause day to the people of this province. They backed away from that proposition because they felt they did not have enough support with the wider public. There was a politically motivated initiative on the part of the government.

Indeed, auto insurance legislation, which this government had promised in the last election, was also something they backed away from because it would have had -- and they saw the light of day -- disastrous effects on the way business is conducted in this province with respect to insurance. So they did what the vast majority of people had wanted them to do, which was not to implement their policy with respect to auto legislation and on Sunday shopping.

The things this government does, I believe, it does because it has a very definite political agenda. The definite political agenda with respect to labour legislation has been to get the labour union movement back on side, to make sure the leadership in the labour movement is satisfied. Indeed, this legislation is now the opportunity for this government, the executive branch particularly, to demonstrate that it's going to do what it says it wants to do and will do.

It's saying to all the backbenchers, "We have a battle on our hands; we have a conflict." I think this government understands conflict. "We have a conflict which will be fought over the next number of months, which will see our opposition increase, because we want to show that we are going to do something for our friends who have supported us to become the government of this province."

Understanding that, I go back to the original discussion surrounding this bill. I say to the various ministers who are here, and the backbenchers, that you have to look at this bill and what it proposes and the serious consequences this legislation will have for this province in respect to the economy and labour relations in the future. We are in a watershed period. This is ground-breaking legislation that will have implications far-reaching into the future. It will determine the way this province operates for the next foreseeable time period.

Some people have suggested that this legislation will be repealed if indeed another government is elected. That is not the point. The point is that this legislation, once it is in place, sets a whole series of directions for labour relations and sets a whole series of directions with respect to investment in this province and with respect to job creation opportunities. These are things which are not easily undone once they are put in place.

That's why as an opposition party we have been adamant in instructing and asking the government to look at the impact of this legislation. My leader in her remarks to this chamber --

Hon Mr Laughren: Which one?

Mr Cordiano: There's only one leader on this side of the House. I know the Treasurer would on certain days be considered the leader of his party, with or without his Premier sitting in the chamber, but that's okay. We have one.

Mr Ramsay: He's just a trouble-maker. Don't be distracted.

Hon Mr Laughren: No, no. I like Joe.

Mr Cordiano: And I like the Treasurer too. I have to say that publicly. But that's getting personal.

Our leader has asked, requested, in fact made numerous pleas to the Minister of Labour, the Premier, the Treasurer and the entire government to conduct impact studies, to conduct them in a non-partisan, non-biased, third-party approach. Do them in-house if you have to, I say to the Minister of Labour. Have them conducted so that you can then show the public, the larger business community and the investment community from abroad that this legislation will not have the negative consequences that we're discussing here this evening, that this legislation will not in fact lead to less investment, less job creation and a worsening of the labour relations climate in this province.

If he could prove to us that that was in fact the case; if he could indicate that he has done numerous studies and if he were to undertake a serious approach to looking at impact studies, then we on this side would be more amenable to the kinds of changes being proposed. But we have great difficulty with what's being proposed by virtue of the fact that the concerns expressed out there have been grave and dire.

The predictions are very dire, and it does not behoove us to ignore those concerns out there expressed by whomever, whether it's big business, small business or medium-sized business. When we talk about business, it's anathema, as my colleague the member for Wilson Heights said, who stood up earlier and mentioned that he had been champion of business in this province. We need more champions, because being a champion of business means we're going to improve the economic climate of this province, it means we're going to have greater job creation.

I say to the government, you are trying to improve labour relations and that is an admirable thing, but I don't believe you're going about it, first of all, in the right way. The process you've introduced here is entirely incorrect. The consultation that has been conducted, which the Minister of Labour has so lauded and pointed to as being the most extensive that has ever been conducted, simply is not on.

There are too many people whose lives and futures are affected by this legislation. It reaches far, and the concerns that have been expressed are increasing daily. It's simply not enough to say that you conducted hearings, I believe it was in January and February; referring back to what he said earlier and numerous remarks, that there were a number of stops he made and they were quite extensive.

I think he visited 11 stops around the province. I say to the minister that that's simply not enough. You have not gathered the impressions of enough people from around the province on this piece of legislation. I understand we're going to have public hearings on this. We understand people will be given the opportunity to express their concerns, but those will amount to some five weeks and I don't believe it is enough and I would like to see those extended.

The concerns go well beyond examples of conflict politics that have been set in the past. There have been bitter divisions on partisan issues in this House, and there have been divisions with respect to issues that go well beyond the partisan nature of this House. But this is legislation which is far-reaching in its scope, this is legislation that will have long-lasting impacts.

I say to people who are interested in the debate this evening -- and I repeat -- this legislation will not be easily reversed. The impact of it will not be undone. The impact of this legislation will be long-lasting. That's why we're here and that's why we're speaking on it as much as we can to make people aware of the impact of this legislation even further. I know there was debate around the polls that have been conducted; 53% of respondents were aware of this legislation and it was suggested by the Minister of Labour that that is a small number of people in the whole province who were aware of this legislation. That is precisely the point, that further and more extensive consultation must take place.

2030

Hon Mr Laughren: It's been a year and a half.

Mr Cordiano: It's not a year and a half, I say to the Treasurer. The minister going around in very select areas hasn't been broadly done. There are hundreds of thousands of small businesses affected by this. It goes well beyond what we're talking about under normal circumstances in which a committee of the Legislature would conduct public hearings.

This legislation, as I've pointed out repeatedly in my discussion, is broader than you think in its impact. It has implications for every single person in this province because of the nature and the focus of the kinds of things we're talking about: the relationships between business, labour and government.

As I said from the outset, if I believed and if we as a party believed that this legislation would improve workplace cooperation, would improve the climate of labour relations in this province, we would support it because that would lead to greater productivity. We believe in improving the economic climate of this province, and if that were the objective of this legislation we would be the first to support it. We don't believe for a moment that that's going to happen. We have tried to demonstrate the concerns that have been expressed by people in the province. We have tried to indicate to the government in as rational and as reasonable a fashion as we possibly could that there are extremely serious consequences, that there are legitimate concerns, and we need the time to express our concerns. The public out there is very interested and becoming more interested as each day goes by in this legislation. As a result of that you need to do more work.

Get those impact studies done, I say to the minister and the Treasurer. Do not shy away from them. Do not engage in the politics of convenience because you've dug in your heels now, because you're going to say to people out there and to the backbenchers in your caucus: "This is our issue. This is the issue where we draw the line. This is where we make our last stand." I know the Treasurer would understand this. You want to rally the troops around legislation, around something fundamental like this, and you haven't been able to do that; you're dropping in support at the current time. That may be a temporary thing, but don't be so desperate. Don't use this to try to rally the troops and avoid looking at reasonable, rational discussion, at changes that can be made to this legislation. Do not narrow your focus, I say to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology who's in the House at the present time; do not allow yourself to narrow your focus, because this is where you take your last stand, because this is where you shape the agenda for your government and your administration over the next two and a half years, leading into the next election, because this is where you satisfy those people who have traditionally supported you.

The province is much broader than that. People will only support you if you think of all of them, not just certain segments of the province, certain people who have supported you traditionally --

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Your time has expired. Are there any questions or comments?

Mr Perruzza: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for this opportunity to respond briefly to some of the comments that were made by the member. I listened with much attention to some of the things he had to say. What strikes me is that when I look at Bill 40, what's at the heart and at the centre of Bill 40 is that ability for people who are traditionally marginalized in our society, in our workplaces, to be able to carve a little better standard of life for both themselves and their families.

The member for Lawrence represents a very large working-class -- if I may use the word -- community, people who have been traditionally marginalized and people who have been left behind by many of the gains that have been made by organized labour, primarily because they've been unorganized. When I look at some of the bigger interests, that contingency of both labour and workers is quite well looked after. One of the things this particular bill speaks to is the needs of the little guy, the little men and women and their families. I can't help but think that some of the comments made by the member for Lawrence would completely undermine any of the advances, any of the gains made by working people for themselves and for their families.

This strikes me as quite odd, because if people knew who they were voting for and what they were voting for at election time, I think you'd see a substantially different makeup in this place -- still. Even though in 1990 people spoke resoundingly in support of the NDP, there would be future changes.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Mr Speaker, I'm concerned, because I heard the member cut off in mid-debate and I wanted to get his comments on the new rules the Premier has brought in which prevent members of the opposition from being able to debate all kinds of legislation with important ramifications for the province. I was listening to him, and it seemed that in midstream, just when he was making a compelling argument, he was cut off by the Premier's new rules.

I would be very interested in knowing the member's views on this. I think at the very beginning of his speech he made some allusion to it, but not in the kind of detail I would liked to have seen. I want to know what he thinks, for instance, of the fact that the Premier wants the House, and is going to force the House, to sit fewer days.

The Deputy Speaker: Speak --

Mr Bradley: I am speaking to it. Don't tell me I'm not speaking to it. I'm speaking to it. That's what he said in the beginning of his speech. Don't tell me I'm not speaking to it.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Bradley: My concern is what the member said at the beginning of his speech about the rules in the Legislature and the fact that Bob Rae will allow him to speak only 30 minutes now, wants fewer days for the House to sit and wants to give ministers the right to determine how long the House will be able to debate any piece of legislation, and in addition to this wants to take away from the elected Speaker, the person who is neutral in this House, the opportunity to make the judgement as to whether a debate has gone on long enough. I'm very interested to see whether the member thinks perhaps the result of this debate would have been different if Bob Rae hadn't removed most of the opposition's powers in this regard.

The Deputy Speaker: I fail to recognize what any of your statement has to do with Bill 40.

Further questions or comments?

Mrs Marland: There has been discussion on Bill 40 this evening that refers to the plight of the unorganized workers, and I think it's very interesting when we recognize that unions have tried to organize workers in this province for many, many decades and they still have only been able to get their numbers up to something like 37%. Doesn't that speak very loud and very strongly about the fact that the people who work in this province simply don't choose to be unionized?

When we hear about the plight and the pleading and the pathetic story of the "little guy," I'd like to tell you about a little guy in my riding who this member's comments reminded me of, who actually is a woman. She's a woman union member who had the intestinal fortitude to stand up at a union meeting and challenge her treasurer. She accused the treasurer of pilfering the books. The treasurer of that union turned around and sued her for slander. She actually went to court. The union paid the legal fees of the treasurer, but guess who paid the legal fees of the "little guy," to use the words of the member for Downsview. The little woman member of this union had to pay $2,800 of her own to defend herself against a suit from her own union.

It's all a big game, because the truth is that the little guy isn't always protected. In this case, she won in court. They didn't want to open the books --

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you.

Mrs Marland: -- so they withdrew their charge.

2040

Mr Sutherland: The member for Lawrence in his comments talked about the issue of productivity. I want to bring up an issue of productivity that's occurring right now in my riding. On Friday, I had the opportunity to go out and visit a picket line at Cobi Foods, which is in my riding just outside of the town of Ingersoll, where Teamsters Local 141 is on strike; they've been on strike for about a month.

To give you some of the circumstances related to the strike, first, they've had a union for 15 years. They've never had a strike before. In the last set of contract negotiations, some of the members took pay cuts. This time they were very close to a settlement. There was going to be a wage freeze, and the union was willing to agree to a wage freeze. Just when it looked like they were close to getting agreement, what happened? The company said it wanted the same people who took a cut last time, down to $9 an hour, to take another $2.50-an-hour cut. So they decided they had to draw a line and they had to go out on strike for those members. Some of them have been there 18 or 19 years, men and women who have contributed productively to that company. They're not being productive now?

And what do they have to face? On Friday, eight trucks bringing products in there going across the picket line, and not only eight trucks but a bus, and not a normal school bus. The members on the picket line assured me that this looked more like a bus for transporting prisoners than it looked like a bus for transporting workers across a picket line. Those were replacement workers going in there. These are people who dedicated themselves to working for this company. They are average people. They want to work, they want to be productive, but in this case their jobs are threatened because of replacement workers, and they assure me they want this legislation to pass.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you, your time has expired. Further questions or comments? The member for Algoma.

Mr Brown: Algoma-Manitoulin, Mr Speaker --

The Deputy Speaker: Pardon me. I made a mistake. The member for Lawrence, you have two minutes to reply.

Mr Cordiano: To my colleague the member for St Catharines, indeed I was just getting warmed up and I could have gone on further on this legislation. We could sit here all night and discuss this. I just got warmed up, I only touched on the various key elements of the legislation, and that is exactly the point. The point is that we simply do not have the opportunity, whether we are opposition members or backbenchers in the government, who are also muzzled, by the way. If you haven't seen that yet, just wait until you introduce even more controversial legislation; you're going to have your time restricted to virtually nothing.

That's important, because this legislation is critical legislation which all of you should have an opportunity to express your concerns about. If you're not up expressing your views, there will be a time when people in your riding say to you: "How come you didn't speak on this legislation? It had such an impact on us." That's the crucial point you must remember.

We had an administration of 94 members, and quite frankly it was difficult to get to speak in this chamber. But don't be muzzled. This new set of rules which is coming in will allow you less opportunity than ever before to speak on critical issues.

To the member for Downsview, who said I am not concerned about the little guy in my riding, I say that nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is that you're not concerned about job creation when you talk about introducing this legislation, which will have a negative impact on economic growth and investment. You are turning your backs on those unemployed workers, and this legislation will create nothing in new work for them.

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Not too long ago in this House, half an hour or so, I rose on a point of order because of comments made by the member for Yorkview. The Speaker at the time suggested that he did not hear those comments the way that I heard them. I bring this up to you because I have an Instant Hansard on the comments that were made. My point of order is that my privileges as a member have been breached, as well as those of my party. I would like to read into the record the comments that were made and I would ask for a ruling from you. The member for Yorkview suggested in his comments:

"...citizens of the United States to come over here and break picket lines? How many governments? I can tell you that it's probably zero. I haven't been able to find any anyway, and I can tell you that the previous governments certainly didn't do that. I can tell you that of course the Conservatives, when they were in, probably encouraged it to happen. I don't blink twice when I say that, because from what I'm hearing in this debate, I could say that I think they're in favour of strike-breaking and I think they're in favour of violence to a degree as well on picket lines, and I'm ashamed of that."

My privileges as a member have been impugned by that comment by the member for Yorkview. He is suggesting that this party and myself are in favour of violence on picket lines, where people have lost their lives. I would ask you, Mr Speaker, to ask the member for Yorkview to withdraw that statement from this House at this time.

The Deputy Speaker: You are asking the Chair to make a decision that was already made by a former Speaker, and it would be totally inappropriate for me to render a judgement or even to ask for an excuse from the member. As far as I'm concerned, I was not here and there is no way I can render a judgement. It's as simple as that. Are there any other members who wish to participate in the debate?

Mr Stockwell: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: The Speaker in fact suggested that he did not hear the comments that were made. That's why I have come forward at this time to read those comments into the record so they can be very clear. The comment that was made was that he suggested this party was in favour of violence on the --

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I think the Chair has been very clear and I will not linger any more on this issue. Are there any other members who wish to participate in this debate? The member for London North.

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): It's with a great deal of interest that I participate in this debate, and I do that as a member representing London North and my constituents. Most of the remarks I will be putting on the record will be in relation to the input I've received from the citizens I represent in London North.

I'd like to begin by talking about my own feelings with regard to Ontario and having been a citizen of this country and this province all my life, of the opportunities I've had as a first-generation Canadian. My own father came to this country and began his own business. I grew up in Toronto where there were times when my family members didn't have jobs, but in the end they were able to raise their kids. We all went to school. My father was a small business person in the latter years of his life. He was also a member of labour unions, more than one, so it's not as a Conservative that I speak but certainly as a person who has had the benefit of relating to all political parties during my lifetime, with a family that was very involved.

I did learn at a very early age that all of us relied on investments in this province, on people to put their money forth so we could create jobs and make business work. In those days, it seemed that we only had money within our own city, our own province and our own country. It was later in my childhood that I realized it took international competitiveness to make Canada work. I realized, and I think all of us know, that we do rely on small business and large business to make this country operate.

None of those things can happen without workers, whether they be unionized workers or people who have chosen not to be members of a labour union. More important than anything else, we know we need people to work in order to make our society function.

2050

Then we have to look at the third component, one I've become very close to over the years in municipal politics and now in this very enviable position of responsibility in representing the taxpayers in London; that is, we have to understand the role of government. I believe government's single most important responsibility -- the Treasurer is looking with interest, and I respect that -- is to create an environment for business to invest in our community, whether it be in Ontario or elsewhere. At the same time, that's not to the exclusion of having a workplace that is fair to workers. So I say today to the government of this great province that my singular criticism of the government today is that in my view it has not looked at the impact of this labour legislation on either the business community or the workers in the province of Ontario.

Coming from my own business background, there is no way I would move forward with any policies that affected my own company or affected the people who worked in that company without looking at the impact of any policies I was putting forth. I would have done that in clear communication with my board of directors and with my employees. I think quite basically that's what this new labour legislation is all about, so the government does in fact have an opportunity right now to listen.

I'm a member of one of the committees of this Legislative Assembly which is taking a look at how many weeks this labour legislation will go out for public input. One of my great criticisms of the former Liberal government was that it didn't matter if you went out for public input; nothing changed. If that happens with this labour law, I really feel that this government hasn't a hope of ever being re-elected, ever, because it was the one, along with our party, that criticized that process. I'm speaking process here and I'll say it again: Our responsibility as a government is to create an environment so that businesses will invest in this province and this country, will stay here and hopefully invest elsewhere as well so that people have jobs and our economy is productive.

That is my singular criticism: no impact studies. My great hope is that in the next few weeks and months we will go out for public consultation and we will get some good advice from the public we represent and in fact will change this law, and we'll change it because of what we're hearing from the public.

I want to say to one of my colleagues from London who stood up today and said something about new investment in London, Ontario -- talk about truths and untruths and scare tactics and what not. I hope I will never have the reputation of standing up here and exaggerating. I hope I can give a factual presentation.

I took the time after his two-minute response to phone the city of London and ask, with regard to investment in London -- of course we're talking about an aircraft corporation. The aircraft company that decided to locate there certainly didn't want to locate in London, Ontario, because of these labour laws. In fact, that was one of the detriments in the conversation between the city and the people who were involved in attracting that industry to London. They were very concerned about this government. I can tell you what they said during the negotiations for this position.

They said, "One thing for certain, governments come and go, and in this instance, if we have any more government interference in work in Ontario" -- by the way, they're not there yet and they still have a lot of work to do with this government. I'm sure the Treasurer will be hearing from them, so let's not start counting on this industry, because if it can't work out the conditions it needs, it won't be in London, Ontario, or anywhere else. So don't prematurely stand up and say, "We got them," because we don't have them, and I hope we will. "Governments come and go" was their response. They said to me, "If we can't get what we want, there'll be another government gone," and it's quite true.

In London we are saying we're open for business and we are advertising and talking about the good things in our city, but I can tell you right now that the feeling in London, Ontario, and the many people who have written -- I just brought the beginning of the alphabet because everything is filed alphabetically -- are almost unanimously against this labour law, these new changes to the old labour law, basically because they think the timing is not good. They also believe they will not create one new job, and that is the most important part of this legislation to the citizens of London: no new jobs with these new laws; too quick, not an important consultative process, which I've told them they will be getting, so I hope that will happen.

I can talk about some of the things I've heard in the House. The government members talked about "scare tactics from the opposition." Certainly in our city there have been no scare tactics I know of. "Workplace tragedy; this law is going to make things better in the workplace." I'm quoting because I sat and listened for the last two hours. "The right of strikers, the right of people on the picket line" -- I'm not arguing about any of these things.

They also, with due respect to some of the government speakers, talked about management's right to lock out. So be it. Everybody understands that.

They talked about opportunities for women, that this new labour law will have more opportunities for women. I can think of better ways to do that.

"Let us govern," they're pleading. It's our job, when the government's on the wrong track, to tell you about it, and that's what I'm telling you right now. You're on the wrong track. You are not creating the kind of environment in Ontario that makes people want to invest here.

I read that the right kind of environment in Ontario right now would be to withdraw this labour law because it's not doing anything for the province. I am in the process of looking at a chapter of a new book and I understand that some of my colleagues have been asked to do the same thing. When I talk about colleagues, I'm talking about people with whom I work in the city of London.

A survey mailed in July 1991 to 2,000 Ontario companies -- and this is not published yet; I'm just proofreading something here and giving my opinion -- "asked if the company had any plans to invest in Ontario in the next five years and what the critical investment factors were." This is from chapter 17 in a new book, the chapter called, "The Exit of Production Activities from Canada to the United States." It's one aspect of a book on economics and relates to work at the University of Western Ontario.

Almost 40% of respondents "have no plans to invest in Ontario in the next five years." That's pretty scary. I'm glad the Treasurer and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology are listening. We should be concerned that 37.4% of the respondents have no plan. It's not because of this government alone; it's because of a lot of things.

I'm giving the first 20 reasons in order of their concern: (1) Ontario's wage protection policy; (2) government of Ontario deficit -- Mr Treasurer, you should be listening to that; that's the second reason these companies give for not wanting to invest and stay in Ontario; critical investment factors, no plans to invest in Ontario; (3) levels of Canadian and Ontario productivity; (4) Ontario's employment equity legislation; (5) corporate income tax -- these are the companies we rely on to do business; (6) capacity utilization; (7) the employer payroll health tax; (8) interest rates -- cost of capital; (9) the value of the Canadian dollar -- it's not just this government; (10) new occupational health and safety legislation; (11) workers' compensation; (12) municipal taxes; (13) Ontario taxback -- surtax on income over $200,000; (14) transportation costs; (15) quality of management training; (16) opportunity for regional economies; (17) quality of the workforce; (18) level of inflation; (19) cost of municipal services; (20) cost of social support services. The list goes on.

What they're really trying to tell us is that in Ontario we're overtaxed and overgoverned, and most of us recognize that.

On Friday, in preparation for this legislation, I met with a group of interested citizens in London, people who had called my office. Actually, if they were concerned about anything to do with investment in Ontario, creation of jobs, workplace problems, whether it was Bill 40 or any other pending legislation, we took their names. Over a period of the last four weeks I've met with them in groups of 20 or 25.

2100

I made some notes on Friday morning with a group. In fact, we went around the table and listened to their concerns. In the end, although people, workers and managers, had individual concerns, their greatest concern from a business point of view -- and these are people who have companies in London -- was the complexity of doing business in Ontario. I will underline it: the complexity of doing business in Ontario.

They talked about the resources it takes to do business in Ontario. They talked about having to hire consulting companies, resource managers and human resource managers and about levels of bureaucracies or levels in the public sector. By the way, there were public sector people there. Private sector people were talking about more management staff, and for every single manager they hired there was probably another worker they couldn't hire on the front lines. They talked about the resources it takes to do business in Ontario. They talked about the extent to which business has to sit down and talk about whether it even wants to comply with legislation or would consider breaking the laws, like avoiding taxes and what not.

It was pretty frightening to listen to them talk about how frustrated they were. They talked about the three reasons it's tough to do business. First is the recession, and all of us know how tough that is. That is the problem not only of the ongoing government; most provincial governments and the government of Canada are having to deal with that. They were talking about the realization of the global economy and how much competition is necessary in order to compete. They were talking about the increased costs of doing business in Ontario.

They're not just talking about this labour law; they're talking about the combination of all the laws we have. They're talking about the recession. They're talking about pulling it all together and how horrendous it is, what a tremendous responsibility it is to take a look at all of the laws, the taxes, workers' compensation, pay equity, employment equity, all the local municipal bylaws, the work of just getting jobs up and going within our own communities and within Ontario. Then they talked about the success of doing business in southeast Asia, in some parts of the United States, Central America and Mexico. It's just easier to take your business and do work elsewhere. Whether people want to listen or not, those are the kinds of things I've been listening to in London, and these are at first hand.

I listened that same morning to a gentleman talk about his own business. He was talking about the decline of Form Rite Ltd, which was a London, Ontario, business. Form Rite supplies major automotive manufacturers, mainly in North America. He told his story.

Being in the automotive industry since 1965, he said, he has been competing in a global free trade environment and did tremendously well. Since 1965. We talk about this as being something new, free trade. Four years ago he employed directly 1,000 individuals in and around London, not including the indirect employment he provided to the subtrades. Three years ago he was unionized by the CAW. In 1992 he currently has 200 employees left in Ontario. These are true stories. All the research and development engineering people have been shipped to Michigan. That's where they do their work. The balance of the manufacturing is done in Tennessee. This is what's happening to Ontario business.

Interjection: Thanks to your free trade deal.

Mrs Cunningham: No, he's not talking about free trade. He did business in the United States. We're not talking about free trade here at all. As a matter of fact, in the work we've done, it says here, in "The Deindustrialization of Canada":

"Whereas the focus of recent public discussion has been corporate restructuring related to the FTA and the recession, of importance also are decisions of the past decade and also plans for the coming years. Most interesting, perhaps, is the inconsistency between the headlines and the stories behind the headlines. Many headlines blame the FTA for the large number of layoffs and plant closures. Yet very few layoffs are related explicitly to the FTA in media or corporate reports." Very few. This is an analysis done for a new book of all the publications that had been available to the researchers who were putting this book together. "Very few layoffs are related explicitly to the FTA in media or corporate reports." So talk about scare tactics. I personally get sick of it. "Leading causes of deindustrialization relate to the recession and general problems like interest rates, the high Canadian dollar and declining markets." Those are the reasons, not the free trade agreement. But it's easy. Those are three pre-primer type of words: free trade agreement. If you don't understand anything else, those are the words you use.

I'd like to move on and back to the decline of Form Rite. He described to the group the contributors to his leaving Ontario. First of all, unions. I hate to say that because I don't want to be speaking in general terms either, but this is an individual person who came to tell his story.

Existing labour legislation: He contends it is so expensive paying lawyers and accountants to fight current legislation that it isn't worth it. This isn't the new stuff; this is existing stuff. Add on things like employment equity --

Hon Mr Wildman: But he is fighting it.

Mrs Cunningham: No, he's gone. He feels he may have to give up his home in Lambeth and move to the United States. He still has existing real estate in Ontario. This is a very important businessman in London. It's a typical story that comes into our office. Actually, it goes into my colleague's office as well, and I'm sure he hears it. I didn't expect him to stand up and tell you about it, but I've got the letters. He had one of his buildings sold to a German investment group. Shortly before the deal was closed, the NDP was elected and the morning after the election, the German company called and said the deal was off; they would not invest in an area run by a socialist government. Well, we'll find that out. I thought these aeroplane people were the best of all when they said, "The best thing about this is that governments come and go, and this one will be gone by the time we get our plant built." Well, I sure hope it's true.

I have letters from my constituents, most of which have been copied to my colleagues in London South, London Centre and Middlesex, and I'm going alphabetically.

From Mr Adams, Estevan Road, London, Ontario, addressed to me. I'm just reading a paragraph from each letter: "The vast majority of the proposed changes to the labour act are unfair, unreasonable and unrealistic. They will only result in increased labour strife, increased costs and reduced employment here in Ontario."

Mr Speaker, do you know what I object to? I am reading letters right now that have been sent by my constituents, and people are laughing. I don't think it's funny when people are losing their business.

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health): They're not laughing at you.

Mrs Cunningham: I know they're not, but it's so rude. The Minister of Health says they're not laughing at me. Maybe they're laughing at what these people are reading. I don't know, but I can't believe it. Anyway that was Adams.

From Thomson, Fisher and Bossy, chartered accountants: "Dear Minister, I am writing to express Thomson, Fisher and Bossy's concerns about your proposed changes to the Ontario Labour Relations Act." This is from Dufferin Avenue, London, Ontario, and they're complaining about the consultation process. This was dated January 28, and I'm thinking that perhaps it was the first consultation process, which of course was a sham. This next one had better be one where people listen to the constituents of Ontario who have elected them. Surely democracy can work somewhere.

"I am not convinced that there is a demonstrated need for these changes. At a time when our unemployment rate is so high, when business confidence is so low, and when the challenge of competitiveness is so real, these changes do nothing to put our economy back on the road to economic growth."

I go back to the speeches I heard before where you talked about scare tactics. I don't think these are scare tactics. These are people who have taken the time to write letters themselves, many of them small business people, many of them workers, and nobody has scared them into writing these letters. They're writing because they're nervous for Ontario and for their children and the future of this province.

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): You are scaremongering.

Mrs Cunningham: While the Minister of Housing continues to sign her letters, she screams the word "scaremonger." I think it's a joke the way people spend their time in this Legislative Assembly. Scaremonger: If you keep saying it long enough, I guess you believe it. If that's what you want to believe, go ahead. I'm reading letters. It's nothing to do with scaremongering. That's what your speakers said when they spoke today, and I'm sick of listening to it. I'm reading letters from people who have written to me and to other members. In fact, that one was sent to the minister.

2110

This one's to Marion Boyd, Dianne Cunningham and David Winninger from Rusty's Lock and Key -- I guess that's funny, is it, Rusty's Lock and Key? We can have a laugh; there we go, we've got a laugh. "As a small business with employees, it would be to everyone's advantage if the government supported us as well as the employee. After all, we are part of the working class too." Small business people work. Some of them even own companies. Isn't that interesting? And there won't be as many of them.

I won't read it all into the record because I'm assuming Mr Winninger will read the same thing, but they end this letter: "Do we want more labour laws or do we want jobs?"

Crawford Packaging Materials Ltd: "Good morning, Ms Boyd" it says, so I guess we all got this one, because I got a copy of it. "Recent publications and news media attention to your Ontario Labour Relations Act reforms have compelled me to contact you." He goes on to say: "Over my years in business in southwestern Ontario and in Canada, our main advantage has always been our workforce.... We in Canada are now being forced to compete on a level playing field with our US competitors. We already negotiate from a disadvantaged position when comparing expenses like taxes, fuel and overhead costs. Don't implement a program that will tie one arm behind our backs."

I guess you just read what you want to hear, but I have not read all these letters, so I'm just taking them out right now.

To Dianne Cunningham from T. E. Dool, general manager, London and District Construction Association: "We have just received an economic analysis of the discussion paper Proposed Reform of the Ontario Labour Relations Act." The last paragraph says: "It is absolutely essential that Mr Mackenzie's proposals be withdrawn immediately in the interests of maintaining jobs and investment in Ontario. To proceed with this damaging legislation is completely indefensible."

Scaremongering? I don't know. I don't have time to read all my mail. Maybe I'll read this one from Pizza Pizza, because the person has hand-written it. I haven't even read it yet; I'm embarrassed to say I haven't read it.

Here's one from Jeff Mason, First London Centre. "Dear Ms Cunningham, I am an owner of a small business in your riding. It is a Pizza Pizza franchise. I have been in business in this area for the past eight months. I'm very proud of my business.... I am concerned with the new Labour Relations Act proposals for many reasons. First of all, my employees and I do not understand what this is all about and we are afraid that our rights are being taken away from us." I'll be phoning him and he'd better get half an hour before the committee, because here's a kid who's got something to say and somebody had better listen to him.

K mart is an employer in London of many people, probably thousands.

Interjections.

Mrs Cunningham: Mr Speaker, I don't think we should be sitting in the summer and I don't think we should be sitting at night. It's hard enough to do business in this House during normal working hours. I think the behaviour we're witnessing, which is probably nothing to when I'm not in the House -- I just think it's deplorable. Everybody's talking to everybody else. I can't believe it.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Order, please. We have a lot of conversations. We have a lot of interjections which are of course out of order. Please allow the honourable member for London North to make her presentation, and then you can rebut.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Your own colleagues are insatiable when it comes to interjections. They've been like jackals.

Mrs Cunningham: I'm talking about when I'm speaking and about what I do when others speak at this time. I hope people are listening, all right?

Hon Ms Gigantes: You never interject.

Mrs Cunningham: I do interject, but I don't interject every 30 seconds like the Minister for Housing does, muttering away as she's signing her letters. It's true. I know the name of the game is to get us riled, but I just don't think democracy is working in this House at all. I thought this government would try to fix it. They should start with their own members.

K mart, office of the district manager, 530 Oxford Street West. I don't think this is a letter that has been sent on behalf of all of K mart. Allen E. Letch, district manager, Western Ontario: "As our representative at Queen's Park, I urge you to put the interests of Ontario first and fight to stop these proposals from becoming law." They're talking about the proposed changes to the Ontario Labour Relations Act. I'm just doing my job.

Maclean Hunter: "Dear member of Parliament: The proposed changes to the Ontario Labour Relations Act are of great concern to Maclean Hunter because they will substantially reduce new investment in the province." The government of the day of course cannot argue with that, because it has not done any kind of study that would allow us to take any message back to these constituents who write us.

Maclean Hunter -- this is Brampton, Ontario. I suppose everybody got that one; maybe that wasn't a good one for me to read today.

I have another one from London, from Oxford Books and Stationery. This is to the Premier, and copied to myself: "Please, please consider delaying for further study and input or cancelling outright the changes your minister has proposed to the Ontario Labour Relations Act."

I could obviously go on. The Council of Ontario Construction Associations; All Trade Computer Forms; proposed changes from A. W. Pearson, Sherene Terrace -- I could go on.

In closing, in the few seconds I've got, this has been a very frustrating process for all of us. I have great hopes that this government will be listening during the public deliberations, in the five weeks of public hearings and in the two weeks of clause-by-clause, to make the necessary changes.

I'll go back to the beginning. On Friday last week, the business community said to me, "It's not just this labour law; it's a combination of all the taxes and laws and the complications of doing business in Ontario." I think the government members should remember this afternoon and this evening that in the equation of three -- labour, the business community and government -- it is the government's sole responsibility to create a climate where people will invest in this province. I challenge them to do just that.

Hon Ms Lankin: I have just a couple of very brief comments in response to the remarks made by the member. At one point in time, in quoting from some of the letters she has in front of her, the member posed a question on behalf of a letter writer: What are we interested in? Are we interested in jobs or are we interested in labour laws?

I think it's very important that we underline for everyone listening and watching tonight that in fact this government is very interested in both. We believe the changes to the labour relation laws being proposed will bring about a different kind of atmosphere in the workforce that can lead to more cooperation, less violence on picket lines and less animosity in the workplace between organized labour and employers and that we can facilitate a better climate for business relations that will, in the long term, bring about enhancement of job opportunities and job creation opportunities in this province.

While I understand that the member opposite may in fact have a different opinion of that, I think she will have to recognize that those thoughts, those ideas, those opinions are genuinely held on this side of the House as well and that we can recognize that there is a difference.

I want also to comment very briefly on what I think was an unfortunate exaggeration on the part of the member with respect to the comments on the other side of the House, particularly her comments directed at the Minister of Housing, who has been listening attentively to the responses and has responded at certain points in time and --

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Yeah, right, while she's signing letters.

Hon Ms Lankin: I guess I'm provoking some response now. As we are sitting here, all members of the House have been involved in signing letters and in doing other sorts of things, as the member herself does on many occasions. I think that was a very unfair characterization. I think the atmosphere has deteriorated dramatically and that the member is right in identifying some of the late-night sittings and long sessions as contributing to that. I hope we can try and change the tenor of debate, but I suspect that until we move on off second reading and these committee hearings on this it will be very difficult for us to achieve that.

2120

Mr Ramsay: It's kind of sad that at this late hour in the evening and in July we have members bickering like this back and forth about this piece of legislation. I felt great empathy for the frustration of my colleague the member for London North, who was really trying to put on the record the comments from constituents in her riding in the great city of London.

That's the trouble. It's not just the opinions of the different members of the Legislature representing the different ideologies we represent here. What the members are trying to do is to show to the government the concern the people out there feel in regard to this legislation. This is not just a campaign of one side versus another side, as the government members would like to portray, but people across this province have grave concerns about this legislation.

The people in our party, in the official opposition, would be quite happy to sit down with all the partners in the workplace in Ontario because we know there should be some reforms and some changes to labour relations in Ontario, but it's the all-inclusive nature of this particular package that the business community and others in Ontario feel is being rammed down their throat that has really got people's hackles up and got people upset. That's what the problem is. It is a matter of timing, because now, when we are more concerned about jobs than anything else, I'm sorry that people are writing to us and saying: "Right now, not only am I not in a union; I don't even have a job. What good is this legislation going to do me right now?" It's not a matter that we're against unionism and organizing, or even making more progressive reforms. What it's about is to make sure we get a strong economy built and make sure we have a good workplace with good partnerships between all sides of management and business. This is not the time to bring in these reforms.

Mrs Marland: I want to commend the member for London North for her comments during her presentation tonight. Do you know what I found particularly interesting? Throughout her 30 minutes the government side of the House was continually noisy and making snide comments in her direction in reaction to what she was saying, yet when the Minister of Health stood to speak, suddenly the House was totally silent. If the government members can show that kind of respect to their own minister, why can they not show the same kind of respect to my colleague when she is speaking?

I think what we've had tonight is an absolute endorsement for not having evening meetings. During these evening sittings nobody in this House is listening except the people who want to call out these awful interjections across the floor of the House when they happen to disagree with whoever is speaking at the time, even though interjections are not in order.

This government is being really unreasonable with this piece of legislation. As the member for London North has said, and I totally agree, what's the point in having legislation if it protects everybody everywhere and there are no jobs? That's the whole point, that's the whole issue. It's like pay equity: For some of the groups in my riding, they'd all love to have pay equity, but they'd also like to have jobs. If it's not affordable, it doesn't make any sense in government today. I think that's simply what the member for London North was trying to say, representing her constituents, reading letters that not only she but other members in the London area have received. Thank goodness somebody is speaking for London.

The Acting Speaker: We have time for one final participant.

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I want to respond to a few different things the member for London North has raised. She raised a number of things in letters she got from constituents, from business owners. She talked about the interest rates, free trade and workers. I guess one thing she talked about was free trade and how that affected lots of businesses, interest rates and the GST, because she's been quoting from some constituents who have sent her letters.

When she talks about some of the workers and the changes that have occurred to labour relations in this province, we need to look back and take a bit of a history lesson, because I don't think some of the people in this House have had the experience of other members to draw on. I want to state for some of the members here some of the things I saw when working in a foundry as a student.

I saw some men there who I thought were old men, wearing back braces. They weren't old men; they were men around 40 years old. As I approach the age of 40, I don't think of them as old men, but the majority of them had back braces and they were coughing up working in this foundry where they were pouring hot iron as far away as you could reach. Changes have happened in the workplace as a result of some of the health and safety problems that were there. A lot of injuries happened. When would you say would be a good time to start looking at some of those problems? Should we just wait? That foundry I worked in as a student was there from before the 1930s.

I think it's something we have to reflect on. When it comes to changes in labour practices, there's not always a good time, but there are changes that do need to take place to reflect the reality of the day in which we are living.

The Acting Speaker: I want to thank the honourable member for Durham-York. This completes questions and/or comments. The honourable member for London North has two minutes in response.

Mrs Cunningham: I think the comments from the member for Durham-York are a perfect example of what I see around this province of NDP members supporting the changes to the existing labour law. That had nothing to do with it: labour law in the form of workplace health and safety. That's what I get when I'm on the stage, and it's so discouraging because the public thinks that's what this is all about, and it isn't. That's another law and we voted in favour of it. If there's anything in this law to do with workplace safety and improvement -- I know. I had a father who died because of his workplace injuries and I know all about it. But don't start talking about workplace injuries and improvements to the workplace when we're talking about Bill 40. There are two or three major concerns about this bill and that's not one of them.

I think it can best be said in this letter. I just looked at this one and I thought it was perfect; I can direct it to the Minister of Health. I don't believe there will be more jobs or there will be job creation. If I thought so, I wouldn't be taking this strong stand. Why do I not believe it? Because of the letters from the people who work out in the real world, not politicians sitting in this place trying to get re-elected and saying whatever they feel like saying, but workers who took the time to write to us. Those weren't my words earlier; they were the words of the people who wrote letters to me.

"Dear Minister: I have some serious concerns about the current plan by your government to make significant changes to the Ontario Labour Relations Act. It is already apparent by the high levels of unemployment and the number of jobs that have been lost during the current recession that the first priority in Ontario should be economic revival."

This letter goes: "The problem I have with the legislative initiative is the determination that organized labour is the preferred means of dealing with employer-employee relationships."

This is from the president of London Life, Gordon Cunningham, who employs people in the city of London, one of our largest employers.

Interjections.

Mrs Cunningham: Not related at all. I met him for the first time last Thursday evening. I can tell you right now that those are the kinds of people who are concerned, and they employ people who work in our environment.

Mr Bradley: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the members of the House to allow the member for London North to speak for a longer period of time. It's quite obvious that 30 minutes was not sufficient for her to complete her remarks. Even though the Conservative Party voted for these rules, I know she needs more time. If we have unanimous consent, I'd be pleased to see her speak longer.

The Acting Speaker: The member for St Catharines is asking for unanimous consent. Do we have unanimous consent?

Interjections: No.

The Acting Speaker: We don't have unanimous consent.

Further debate on second reading of Bill 40, the honourable member for Wilson Heights.

2130

Mr Kwinter: I'm delighted to participate in this debate. My only concern is that there is so much to say in so little time. Before I begin what I want to set out as maybe a slightly different perspective on this bill, I want to state my bias. This may sound a little hokey, but my bias is for Ontario. When the Treasurer appeared before the standing committee on finance and economic affairs, I said to him that I firmly believe Ontario is so strong and has such incredible resources, with its people, with its technology, with its natural resources, that there isn't a government available that can screw it up. I believe that strongly, but -- and I qualify it -- what it can do is restrict our ability to reach our maximum potential.

I was quite heartened to hear the member for London North's comment about the German investors who were saying they were going to invest in the plane plant in London, saying, "Governments come and governments go." That of course is true, and that is why I say this province is strong enough to withstand almost anything. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't really do what we can to maximize our potential.

I have a favourite quotation I'd like to share with members. It's from A Streetcar Named Desire, written by Tennessee Williams. It's Blanche Dubois, her final line, and she says, "I have always been dependent on the kindness of strangers." That, unfortunately and fortunately, describes our situation in Ontario.

We are one of the largest and most dependent trading jurisdictions in the world. We are also absolutely dependent on investment to stimulate and to generate the kind of economic activity that we as Ontarians really aspire to. If the Treasurer were in his seat, as he has been most of the evening, I would ask him to confirm that, when he goes to New York or to London or to Germany or to Japan looking for financial institutions to take up the debt of Ontario, he really is dependent on the kindness of strangers. They look at him and, regardless of what party he is, regardless of what his personal personality is, they will make a decision based on what they perceive to be the climate for economic growth and for economic activity.

Members will remember, and I'm anxious to remind them, that right after this government came to power there were two very negative articles in the international press about the government. One of the articles was in the Wall Street Journal, Friday, September 14, 1990, and it talked about "Ontario's socialist hiccup." It goes on to berate the policies of this government and to say that they perceive some very difficult times ahead. At the same time, almost within a week, on December 17 -- sorry, it's a little bit longer than that -- Barron's, which is the official organ of Dow Jones, said, "Ontario Hydro in Canada, a new socialist threat, raises its ugly head."

The point I'm making is that it doesn't matter whether you agree with these articles or not. As a matter of fact, I think some of these articles had gone a little too extreme. That doesn't really matter. The point that does matter is that over 100 million people subscribe to these kinds of publications worldwide. When they look to them, they see these negative comments, and they don't ask: "Is this true? Is this false? What is the incidence?" They know there is a problem.

As we have been going through the debate, the members opposite have been raising the spectre of scaremongering, that the opposition is being irresponsible, saying things that are blatantly partisan, and that if we were only responsible we would not be making these negative comments.

I want to read into the record a couple of documents. I'm not going to read them in their entirety because unfortunately I don't have enough time. Again, I am not in any way saying that I support what is being said.

Hon Mr Wildman: Well, if you don't, you should refute them. Do you think they're wrong?

Mr Kwinter: I'm not disagreeing with them either. That isn't the point I'm trying to make. The point I'm trying to make is that these reports were done by, I assume -- and I don't take any sort of responsibility -- unbiased people. You may say they're biased. They may be; I don't know. That isn't the point. The point is that they are professionals. They have clients not only in Canada but around the world, and this is the document they're sending out. So whether you agree with it or not is not the point. The point is that there are potential investors, there are potential businessmen out there who are getting these documents.

This particular document is prepared by the law firm of Heenan Blaikie. Again I want to express my unbias in that I've never heard of them. I apologize to the members of the law firm who are out there who may feel somewhat chagrined that I haven't, but I haven't. I wasn't even aware they were a law firm. I went to a great deal of trouble to find out who these people are and what kind of organization they are. Let me just quote into the record. The title is Review of the Key Amendments to the Labour Relations Act found in the Labour Relations Act and Employment Statute Law Amendment Act, 1992.

"The discussion paper was released in November 1991. In the discussion the government invited written submissions from all interested parties, setting a deadline of February 14, 1992. In response, business raised its concern over the fundamental nature of the preferred options for reform identified in the discussion paper. Although some of the preferred options proposed in the discussion paper have been omitted from the bill, it is clear that the vast majority of business objections have not been adequately addressed by the government."

Again, I'm just the messenger. I'm just telling you what they've said. I don't want to belabour the point and read all of the proposals, but there are a couple of other quotes that I think are important.

When they talk about the provisions for improved access to first contract arbitration, they say: "Under the act as it presently exists, first contract arbitration is available to parties engaged in first contract negotiation only when bargaining has been unsuccessful because of lack of effort, unjustified intransigence or, among other things, a refusal by the employer to recognize the bargaining authority of the trade union. The bill removes any such threshold."

This is their comment: "Maintaining a threshold for first contract arbitration is necessary to encourage serious bargaining. By removing this threshold, the bill would eliminate the incentive to take anything but intransigent positions when negotiating a first collective agreement. This amendment will actually hinder first agreement bargaining and poison, not foster, the parties' long-term relationship."

They go on to talk about the use of replacement workers: "The bill prohibits the use of new hires, employees from other locations, and contractors. Managers and non-bargaining unit employees employed at the location who have no objection to performing the struck work may work. The bill also makes it an offence for an employer to use the services of an employee on strike who wishes to cross the picket line. Therefore, even if employees want to cross their union's picket line, their employer cannot let them. This is a significant and singular intrusion into employee freedoms."

Then they go on to talk about another sanction, and that has to do with the common example of Quebec that is used by the proponents of these amendments. They're talking about it under the use of replacement workers. They say:

"In Quebec, similar legislation has not contributed to economic progress or industrial stability. Businesses in Quebec have found alternative sources of production and have either left the province or come to rely less on their manufacturing capacity within the province. Employers entering a bargaining year in Quebec are driven by the legislation to concentrate on strike survival strategies (eg stockpiling, engaging outside contractors, increasing production outside the province etc). Once the strike arrives, many businesses are prepared for a long siege. As the statistics indicate, the Quebec legislation has contributed to longer, not shorter, disputes."

2140

Here's another provision: "The bill also proposes narrow but extremely devastating amendments to the Employment Standards Act. These amendments are directed at businesses involved in the supply of building cleaning services, contracted-in food services and building security services. When a contract for services in these specific businesses changes hands, the bill requires" -- and the document goes on to list all of the requirements.

But in summation on this section, it says:

"These proposed amendments to the Employment Standards Act are a direct attack on companies operating in the security services, building maintenance and contracted-in food service industries. It may not be an overstatement to suggest that these amendments may be sufficiently devastating as to destroy those businesses in Ontario as they currently exist."

The document goes on and then it concludes. I'd like to enter this into the record, just so you'll know the overall approach this particular law firm took.

"The bill truly represents a fundamental shift in the balance of power between trade unions and employers in the province of Ontario. Although various jurisdictions may have portions of some of the amendments proposed in the bill, no one jurisdiction has ever experienced the cumulative effect of this type of labour law reform.

"The bill has now received first reading in the Legislature and soon will receive second reading. It will then be sent to a legislative committee. At the committee stage, the contents of the bill will again be subject to scrutiny and consultation from the business community will likely be sought. Whether the government will indeed be interested in meaningful consultation with the business community during this stage remains to be seen. Once the bill completes the legislative committee stage it will be reintroduced in final form to the Legislature for third reading. After third reading the bill will be proclaimed and will become law. It is anticipated that proclamation will occur in the final months of 1992."

That is from a law firm which is sending out a report to its clientele. I can assure you that, whether I know them or not, a foreign client getting that document will take it as being an objective professional analysis of that bill. It's going to have a profound effect.

Let me quote very briefly from another document, and this is from a firm I know well, Baker and McKenzie. For those of you who don't know the firm, it is not related in any way to the Minister of Labour. Baker and McKenzie is one of the largest law firms in the world. They are everywhere, absolutely everywhere. In every major jurisdiction in the world Baker and McKenzie usually has an office. They have published a publication called Employment Law Update. Again, I don't think they have a bias. They're professionals. They are reporting on a piece of legislation.

The heading says, "NDP Introduce Bill To Amend The Labour Relations Act." I'm just going to read a very short part of it, the preamble. It says: "This afternoon the government introduced its much-anticipated bill to reform the Ontario Labour Relations Act. In our November 7, 1991, update we outlined the government's proposed amendments." This is interesting. "After a four-month 'consultation process'" -- not my quotations, their quotations -- "the bill retains most of the proposals contained in the original discussion paper," which puts the lie to the argument the minister makes that, "We made 32 amendments, we really listened, we did all of these things." Here is a firm of pre-eminent legal advisers that says most of the provisions are still there. But what I find interesting is that they then say:

"The amendments have four main themes: (1) to make it easier for trade unions to organize; (2) to increase the number of mandatory collective agreement provisions and therefore eliminate the need for unions to negotiate for them; (3) to increase union power in negotiations; (4) to reduce individual employee rights in favour of trade union rights."

This is a document -- again, I'm not saying that I support it or don't support it. I'm saying that this is a firm of pre-eminent lawyers sending this out to its clientele around the world, not just to its Toronto clientele.

Hon Mr Wildman: What is your view?

Mr Kwinter: You'll hear about my view.

Mr Remo Mancini (Essex South): He doesn't have time to give his view. He's only got 30 minutes.

Mr Kwinter: That's right. This will be the last quotation I make and then I'd like to tell you about some of my concerns. This particular publication is called the Ontario Electrical Contractor. They may be considered by the members of the government side to be fear-mongering, but they are an association of electrical contractors and there is an article called War of the Worlds: Labour Relations Act Changes and the Economy. The article is written by David Surplis, who is the president of the Council of Ontario Construction Associations. Here's what he says:

"With conditions in the ICI" -- ICI is institutional, commercial and industrial sector -- "remaining dim, with record unemployment statistics and very few plans out for bid, it is no wonder that contractors are edgy. Even so, many continue to have faith that Ontario will rebound to our former strengths after the recession abates. After all, we still have abundant natural resources, excellent location for markets, a stable and educated workforce, medicare and many other blessings" -- all of which I agree with and all of which I say are very strong reasons why people should be doing business in Ontario.

"But in checking the economic and legislative indicators, one gets a nagging feeling that Ontario may not recover sufficiently from the recession and construction will not return to the boom levels of the 1980s. That feeling is based on the fear that, just at the time when Ontario desperately needs investor confidence, the NDP government at Queen's Park is not doing enough to stimulate construction and the subject of changes to the Labour Relations Act hangs over us like a cloud."

I'm going to jump ahead in the article. He talks about the budget:

"But when the budget came down, the list of capital projects for the province, school boards and municipalities showed a drop of $122 million from 1991 figures. When asked about that fact, Industry Minister Ed Philip pointed to the non-profit housing starts mentioned in the budget, but it turns out that many of those starts will have to be delayed until later years -- and that doesn't help the ICI side very much in any event."

In conclusion, this is what he says:

"In addition to the less than stimulating news from the budget, the spectre of the changes to the Labour Relations Act must be factored into any consideration of economic recovery. As COCA has pointed out for over a year, the changes -- whatever they are -- will scare away potential investors. At time of writing, the legislation had not been presented in the House but it is promised by government leaders before the current session ends on June 25.

"The government was clearly upset by the construction industry's billboard campaign earlier in the spring and the topic was mentioned in the House almost every day. But getting their attention and getting them to change their minds are entirely separate topics. The only response to our studies and analysis has been a campaign of disinformation by NDP luminaries like Gerry Caplan and Stephen Lewis's wife, Michele Landsberg. These gurus do not respond to the findings of our studies but resort to the cheapest trick of the losing debater, arguments against the person making the points. Ms Landsberg, in fact, states that opponents of the OLRA changes want 'to keep women and immigrants as a frightened, disorganized, low-paid, insecure workforce.'

"Her 'reasoning' is nonsense of course and it can't hide the fact that the drop in construction spending inflicted by the budget combined with the Labour Relations Act will deliver a serious blow to the construction industry.

"If anyone has a right to be outraged, it is the construction industry. Stay tuned for the next chapter in the war of the (different) worlds."

There's only one last quote, and it's a very brief one in the 3 December 1990 Hansard, but it symbolizes the attitude of this government and its leader. The Premier, in a response to a question I had asked him, said, "I can also tell the member for Wilson Heights that we do not intend to be intimidated by anyone, no matter how powerful or well-connected they may be." Unfortunately, the problem we have is that the government takes the attitude: "If you're not with us, you're against us. If you're against us, we're going to bring the iron hand down on you and we're going to say no way."

2150

Take a look at the situation we're in right now. It's now 10 minutes to 10. We are into time allocation. You have to ask the question, why are we in this situation. Were there people storming the doors at Queen's Park saying, "Where, oh where is this labour legislation?" If it was so important, why was it not mentioned in the Agenda for People? Why was it not mentioned in the throne speech? But suddenly there is this great rush that it must be had.

Let me point out that all of these things have a serious cumulative affect on our ability to attract investment and to create jobs. I want to address a couple of issues that are very dear to my heart, because I sit in the House and listen to the government position, and it really grates when I consider the actual facts. Every time there is some negative comment, the Premier, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, the Treasurer or anyone else who has any economic responsibility stands up and mentions: "If things are so bad in Ontario, how come the Ford Motor Co has invested this huge amount of money in bringing the van plant to Oakville?"

I was at the opening of the Glaxo plant with the Prime Minister of Canada and the ministers of industry and trade, both provincial and federal. The Prime Minister looked at both of them and said, "Here are the two gentlemen who personally brought Ford to Oakville, and they all deserve a great round of applause," when in fact the situation is just the opposite.

In 1990, the Ford Motor Co approached me as the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology and said: "We have an opportunity to attract a van plant with an investment of significant numbers. We need some help from the government. What are you prepared to do?" I asked them what they needed. They told me and I said, "I give you my commitment that I can convince my cabinet colleagues that this is something we should do." The reason I'm telling this story is that it's significant to the situation that we're in now.

We were then competing with another Ford plant in St Louis, Missouri. Just so you know how the automobile industry works, different divisions come to the board and make the pitch, and everybody wants that facility in their jurisdiction because it guarantees jobs. So we were competing with St Louis, Missouri, and Oakville, Ontario. After a lot of negotiation where David Rehor, a vice-president in charge of finance, spent a great deal of time at Queen's Park with -- I'm not taking any great credit. I was the one who was able to sort of access the situation. They were the people in the ministry, the Peter Tanakas of the world, who had spent their time getting this project on track.

But the point is, we got it. It was a two-part deal. The first part was the paint plant. The paint plant is now up and operating, but it was begun long before this government became the government.

The other commitment, a follow-on commitment, was to bring the van plant. The van plant was ready to be announced in August 1990. The decision had been taken, it was ready to go and -- I'm not going to be naïve -- politically we would have loved to have that announcement made. I tried to get the Ford Motor Co to make the announcement. They said: "We don't want to get involved in an election hassle. We are not going to make the announcement now."

The significant point I want to make is that it took almost two years for Ford Motor Co to make that announcement. The question is, why? If they were ready to go in August 1990, why did they have to wait until 1992 to make it? I've asked Ken Harrigan, the president, and he said, "Those guys should only know how close we came to losing it." I'll tell you another thing he said, and my colleague the critic on the Conservative side will confirm this because we were there together: "I don't know, given this environment, given this legislation, whether we'd be able to do it again." That is a serious situation.

Doctors talk about the silent killer. The silent killer is blood pressure, and the reason they call it the silent killer is because there are lots of people walking around with high blood pressure who aren't aware of it and they suddenly die. It's unfortunate, but that's what happens. This legislation is in the same category. It is a silent killer because what happens is that when a company is trying to pick a new location for its facility, in most cases it is competing for dollars, but it is also competing for those particular jobs that have this multiplier effect that gives the community a real boost. So what happens is that everybody is out trying to make the best case and invariably that means trying to show that the other alternative is the worst case. When you have that kind of situation, whether it be taxes, whether it be environmental controls, whether it be labour legislation -- and I'm not in any way advocating that we should eliminate those things, not at all. All I'm saying is that you must be aware of the competitive situation, because if we don't get it then we're going to have a problem.

Here we are: We've got three minutes to go and I haven't even started. But I do want to talk about a particular issue that keeps being brought up by the member for Cochrane South: free trade.

I'm sure all members will know that when the free trade deal was being negotiated, I was the minister at the time and was very involved notwithstanding that we were opposed to it. We weren't opposed to free trade per se; we were opposed to the deal. Let me just tell you one thing. I've told some of you this before but it's important and it's important for our listeners and viewers: Before free trade came in 80% of the trade in goods and services was duty-free. Of the 20% that was still in place, the average tariff was somewhere between 7% and 10%. That 20% is being phased out over anywhere from zero to 10 years.

So to expect that because of free trade suddenly our economy has deteriorated is patently absurd. The reason our economy has deteriorated is because of global trade. We have to become competitive. We have to be able to justify why we are getting the kind of investment and the kind of jobs that all of us aspire to.

What is my position? I suggest to the Minister of Natural Resources, the member for Algoma, that my position is: Let us have a level playing field. Let us make sure we get the best protection for the workers, but also let us make sure the concerns of industry are addressed.

I can say to you that any objective observer looking at this document has no alternative but to observe that the playing field has been tilted. There has been nothing for industry, everything for organized labour.

Contrary to what is being perceived, being against this bill is not being against the worker, because I can tell you that in many respects this is an anti-worker bill. It is a pro-union bill in many ways, but a lot of the rights of the workers have been taken away from them. If you don't have the jobs to provide for those workers, then they certainly aren't any better off than they were before this legislation was introduced.

Mr Speaker, my only regret is that I have notes here I haven't had a chance even to address. It is sad that in Ontario a member of the Legislature sent by his constituents does not get an opportunity to speak as long as he wants to, to express the concerns, to express the frustrations of members of the public.

Mr Sorbara: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In the midst of this very important debate on Bill 40, I'm just wondering why in the rotation there wasn't a member of the New Democratic Party who spoke on the bill. Is there a reason why?

The Acting Speaker: To the member for York Centre, that was not a point of order.

It now being 10 of the clock, we will have questions and/or comments when next this bill hits the floor. This House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 1:30 of the clock.

The House adjourned at 2200.